Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: George McGovern has died page 2

  1. #11
    JWBooth's Avatar
    JWBooth is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    129
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    To say government is evil and that McGovern was a moron shows that you see the world in most basic, knee-jerk mentality. If you look at things objectively, you can criticize the dietary guidelines without making McGovern the bogeyman.
    Or you can look at things objectively at criticize both. The scientists for being wrong, and McGovern for getting the state involved in something it has no right to be involved with in the first place. And of the two, the latter is the greater evil because stupid scientists on their own don't really concern me. It is only when their ignorance is forced upon me at gunpoint through the coercion of government that it becomes a problem.

    I cut McGovern a certain degree of slack because 1) he opposed the Vietnam war from the start and 2) later in life (after he had been sent packing by the voters) he sort of came around to realizing how wrong he had been in pushing for all those government rules and regulations and spoke out forcefully against paternalistic busybody government at all levels. For that he deserves at least a little credit. McGovern the politician was a destructive fool, but at least he eventually admitted he was wrong.

  2. #12
    Moochy's Avatar
    Moochy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    405
    Finnegans Wake, here is some detail of the time of the committee:

    McGovern's committee was founded in 1968 with a mandate to eradicate malnutrition in America, and it instituted a series of landmark federal food assistance programs. As the malnutrition work began to peter out in the mid-1970s, however, the committee didn't disband. Rather, its general counsel, Marshall Matz, and staff director, Alan Stone, both young lawyers, decided that the committee would address "overnutrition," the dietary excesses of Americans. It was a "casual endeavor," says Matz. "We really were totally nave, a bunch of kids, who just thought, 'Hell, we should say something on this subject before we go out of business.' " McGovern and his fellow senators--all middle-aged men worried about their girth and their health--signed on; McGovern and his wife had both gone through diet-guru Nathan Pritikin's very low fat diet and exercise program. McGovern quit the program early, but Pritikin remained a major influence on his thinking.

    McGovern's committee listened to 2 days of testimony on diet and disease in July 1976. Then resident wordsmith Nick Mottern, a former labor reporter for The Providence Journal, was assigned the task of researching and writing the first "Dietary Goals for the United States." Mottern, who had no scientific background and no experience writing about science, nutrition, or health, believed his Dietary Goals would launch a "revolution in diet and agriculture in this country." He avoided the scientific and medical controversy by relying almost exclusively on Harvard School of Public Health nutritionist Mark Hegsted for input on dietary fat. Hegsted had studied fat and cholesterol metabolism in the early 1960s, and he believed unconditionally in the benefits of restricting fat intake, although he says he was aware that his was an extreme opinion. With Hegsted as his muse, Mottern saw dietary fat as the nutritional equivalent of cigarettes, and the food industry as akin to the tobacco industry in its willingness to suppress scientific truth in the interests of profits. To Mottern, those scientists who spoke out against fat were those willing to take on the industry. "It took a certain amount of guts," he says, "to speak about this because of the financial interests involved."

    Mottern's report suggested that Americans cut their total fat intake to 30% of the calories they consume and saturated fat intake to 10%, in accord with AHA recommendations for men at high risk of heart disease. The report acknowledged the existence of controversy but insisted Americans had nothing to lose by following its advice. "The question to be asked is not why should we change our diet but why not?" wrote Hegsted in the introduction. "There are [no risks] that can be identified and important benefits can be expected." This was an optimistic but still debatable position, and when Dietary Goals was released in January 1977, "all hell broke loose," recalls Hegsted. "Practically nobody was in favor of the McGovern recommendations. Damn few people."

    McGovern responded with three follow-up hearings, which aptly foreshadowed the next 7 years of controversy. Among those testifying, for instance, was NHLBI director Robert Levy, who explained that no one knew if eating less fat or lowering blood cholesterol levels would prevent heart attacks, which was why NHLBI was spending $300 million to study the question. Levy's position was awkward, he recalls, because "the good senators came out with the guidelines and then called us in to get advice." He was joined by prominent scientists, including Ahrens, who testified that advising Americans to eat less fat on the strength of such marginal evidence was equivalent to conducting a nutritional experiment with the American public as subjects. Even the American Medical Association protested, suggesting that the diet proposed by the guidelines raised the "potential for harmful effects." But as these scientists testified, so did representatives from the dairy, egg, and cattle industries, who also vigorously opposed the guidelines for obvious reasons. This juxtaposition served to taint the scientific criticisms: Any scientists arguing against the committee's guidelines appeared to be either hopelessly behind the paradigm, which was Hegsted's view, or industry apologists, which was Mottern's, if not both.

    Although the committee published a revised edition of the Dietary Goals later in the year, the thrust of the recommendations remained unchanged. It did give in to industry pressure by softening the suggestion that Americans eat less meat. Mottern says he considered even that a "disservice to the public," refused to do the revisions, and quit the committee. (Mottern became a vegetarian while writing the Dietary Goals and now runs a food co-op in Peekskill, New York.)

    The guidelines might have then died a quiet death when McGovern's committee came to an end in late 1977 if two federal agencies had not felt it imperative to respond. Although they took contradictory points of view, one message--with media assistance--won out.

    The first was the USDA, where consumer-activist Carol Tucker Foreman had recently been appointed an assistant secretary. Foreman believed it was incumbent on USDA to turn McGovern's recommendations into official policy, and, like Mottern, she was not deterred by the existence of scientific controversy. "Tell us what you know and tell us it's not the final answer," she would tell scientists. "I have to eat and feed my children three times a day, and I want you to tell me what your best sense of the data is right now."

    Of course, given the controversy, the "best sense of the data" would depend on which scientists were asked. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which decides the Recommended Dietary Allowances, would have been a natural choice, but NAS president Philip Handler, an expert on metabolism, had told Foreman that Mottern's Dietary Goals were "nonsense." Foreman then turned to McGovern's staffers for advice and they recommended she hire Hegsted, which she did. Hegsted, in turn, relied on a state-of-the-science report published by an expert but very divergent committee of the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. "They were nowhere near unanimous on anything," says Hegsted, "but the majority supported something like the McGovern committee report."

    The resulting document became the first edition of "Using the Dietary Guidelines for Americans." Although it acknowledged the existence of controversy and suggested that a single dietary recommendation might not suit an entire diverse population, the advice to avoid fat and saturated fat was, indeed, virtually identical to McGovern's Dietary Goals.

    Three months later, the NAS Food and Nutrition Board released its own guidelines: "Toward Healthful Diets." The board, consisting of a dozen nutrition experts, concluded that the only reliable advice for healthy Americans was to watch their weight; everything else, dietary fat included, would take care of itself. The advice was not taken kindly, however, at least not by the media. The first reports--"rather incredulously," said Handler at the time--criticized the NAS advice for conflicting with the USDA's and McGovern's and thus somehow being irresponsible. Follow-up reports suggested that the board members, in the words of Jane Brody, who covered the story for The New York Times, were "all in the pocket of the industries being hurt." To be precise, the board chair and one of its members consulted for food industries, and funding for the board itself came from industry donations. These industry connections were leaked to the press from the USDA.

    Hegsted now defends the NAS board, although he didn't at the time, and calls this kind of conflict of interest "a hell of an issue." "Everybody used to complain that industry didn't do anything on nutrition," he told Science, "yet anybody who got involved was blackballed because their positions were presumably influenced by the industry." (In 1981, Hegsted returned to Harvard, where his research was funded by Frito-Lay.) The press had mixed feelings, claiming that the connections "soiled" the academy's reputation "for tendering careful scientific advice" (The Washington Post), demonstrated that the board's "objectivity and aptitude are in doubt" (The New York Times), or represented in the board's guidelines a "blow against the food faddists who hold the public in thrall" (Science). In any case, the NAS board had been publicly discredited. Hegsted's Dietary Guidelines for Americans became the official U.S. policy on dietary fat: Eat less fat. Live longer.
    Primal/Paleo is not for everyone, it's for those who have committed to understand.
    READ THE BOOK! ...as Robb Wolf says: "Trying to convince people to save their own ass will burn you out."

    Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, and an affront to all I stand for -- the pure enjoyment of food. Anthony Bourdain

    and yes, calories DO count my little piggies

  3. #13
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    McGovern was only able to put together dietary recommendations based on what information scientists furnished his Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. While I disagree with what they came up with, that's like blaming Americans for the CW being foisted upon them by nutritional "experts": Ancel Keys and his ilk had a couple of decades to get their cascade error rolling, and no one was really standing up to the Lipid Hypothesis by the mid-70s, the golden age of margarine. The influence of the grain industry was also burgeoning, and that made its indelible impact.

    To say government is evil and that McGovern was a moron shows that you see the world in most basic, knee-jerk mentality. If you look at things objectively, you can criticize the dietary guidelines without making McGovern the bogeyman.
    If watch the videos showing live footage he has scientist saying NO to his guidelines.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Account closed
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by JWBooth View Post
    Or you can look at things objectively at criticize both. The scientists for being wrong, and McGovern for getting the state involved in something it has no right to be involved with in the first place. And of the two, the latter is the greater evil because stupid scientists on their own don't really concern me. It is only when their ignorance is forced upon me at gunpoint through the coercion of government that it becomes a problem.
    Who's forcing you at gunpoint? I agree that the McGovern Committee was involved in something that the Federal government does not need to be involved in, whatever their intention. But the choices given to you by your physician, or the CW repeated ad nauseam in the marketplace, are not the same as the government forcing you to do something at gunpoint. In fact, it's more the larger issue of cascade error that the ADA is invested in and the food industry has pushed to its profiteering max.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Account closed
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    If watch the videos showing live footage he has scientist saying NO to his guidelines.
    I haven't seen that; if so, I stand corrected. The larger point of cascade error and the gathering storm of nutritional misinformation stands: McGovern was the messenger of the current CW nonsense, not its creator.

  6. #16
    Rags's Avatar
    Rags is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by JoanieL View Post
    The guy flew 35 missions as a bomber pilot in WWII, but fuck it, he thought fat was bad, so he was evil.
    My father was a bomber pilot in WWII and the same age as McGovern. He survived three plane crashes, became a test pilot, and caught dengue fever while serving. He died less than two years ago. He had Alzheimers and several other problems, weight gain, heart, blood pressure and other problems afflicting modern society. When those guidelines came out he switched his diet on his doctor's recommendation to follow them. His original diet was not far off from being primal. I can't help but wonder if he had not changed if his life would have been different. I spent his last three years as his caregiver. Now I read about the links between going fat free, cholesterol free relating to Alzheimers and those other modern afflictions. Do I blame George McGovern and those that made these recommendations and policy? Yes I do.

  7. #17
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    947
    Quote Originally Posted by Moochy View Post
    George McGovern has died. This man made official government policy telling people fat will kill you and to eliminate it in the diet. This has led to 40 years of increasing obesity/overweight, heart disease, diabetes and cancer as Americans were advised to eat grain which is not a food humans evolved to eat. This man's opinion and his policy recommendation has killed more people in the US than anyone can imagine. Today's news commentary is full of nothing but praise for this chap and not a mention is made on his colossal judgement error on diet:
    I think a more sensible explanation for the increase in obesity and diabetes in the explosion of fast food retail stores and increase in consumption and availability of soda.

  8. #18
    jakey's Avatar
    jakey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,294
    mcgovern was just a tad bit more three-dimensional than this thread would have you believe... this, like 99.99% of threads on the MDA forums, is 1) stupid, 2) myopic, and 3) appropriate as a distraction while bored at work - and absolutely nothing else.

  9. #19
    Moochy's Avatar
    Moochy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by jakey View Post
    mcgovern was just a tad bit more three-dimensional than this thread would have you believe... this, like 99.99% of threads on the MDA forums, is 1) stupid, 2) myopic, and 3) appropriate as a distraction while bored at work - and absolutely nothing else.
    and so the thread digresses into the banal....
    Primal/Paleo is not for everyone, it's for those who have committed to understand.
    READ THE BOOK! ...as Robb Wolf says: "Trying to convince people to save their own ass will burn you out."

    Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, and an affront to all I stand for -- the pure enjoyment of food. Anthony Bourdain

    and yes, calories DO count my little piggies

  10. #20
    jakey's Avatar
    jakey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Moochy View Post
    and so the thread digresses into the banal....
    not sure it's a digression, as it never started anywhere worthwhile, sir mooch.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •