My wife had breast cancer at age thirty five.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Very sorry to hear that.

I just posted a comment about omega-6 fatty acid intake and the incidence of chronic disease. That's actually only one of four important issues that the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) needs to address in its Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This and the other three issues are discussed in this letter to President Obama.

November 27, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

This is my second letter to you. The first elicited two form letter responses dealing with health care reform and immigration. Apparently, the White House does not receive sufficient correspondence regarding the quality of the food supply and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans debacle to warrant developing form letters for those issues. At any rate, in this letter I focus on the government's terrible dietary advice.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans document is extremely important because the Guidelines are viewed as the final word as to what constitutes healthy eating in both the United States and in many other countries as well. Unfortunately, the Guidelines contain four major mistakes that need to be corrected.

The most important error is the doctrine that saturated fat is a health hazard because it raises cholesterol levels and supposedly clogs arteries. For more than three decades the public has been relentlessly bombarded with messages to that effect. The problem is, there is no hard scientific evidence behind this allegation; only the backing of the edible oils industry, sugar interests, vegetarian activists, the food manufacturing industry, and almost two generations of public health professionals trained to regard saturated fats as evil.

Soon after I began studying nutritional controversies more than three decades ago, I concluded that excessive sugar intake is a major dietary factor in heart disease. About 18 years later, after developing a leg ulcer, I learned that excessive omega-6 vegetable oil consumption promotes the inflammation associated with heart disease and other chronic conditions as well. Yet the Dietary Guidelines have never contained a strongly worded warning against excessive consumption of either food ingredient. Well, things are changing. Dr. Robert Lustig has an excellent 89 minute presentation entitled "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" and Dr. Bill Lands has a 37 minute presentation entitled "Why Omega-6 Fats Matter to Your Health." Both presentations are easily accessed by web search.

So far I've covered three of the Dietary Guidelines mistakes, demonizing saturated fat, failure to warn the public about added sugars, and the recommendation to replace healthy saturated fats with omega-6 vegetable oils. The fourth mistake is the standard advice to reduce percentage of total fat intake to control weight and prevent heart disease. Again, Dr. Christopher Gardener has an excellent presentation entitled "Battle of the diets: is anyone winning at losing?"

Thanks to a handful of astute researchers and health care professionals, and some grass roots educational activity, there is growing awareness that the findings of science are not being properly utilized. For example, a student guest blogger on the American Society for Nutrition web site recently noted, "Truly, I am neither an obesity researcher nor a public health policy expert. But I do read material on this issue every now and then, and recently, I asked myself, why? United States is blessed with enormous research resources, facilities, and funding, but still, why can't we address the issue of obesity?"

Another student in an earlier blog post provided at least a partial answer when she observed, "Over the past decade the use of low fat milk has become more prominent than the use of whole milk because there is substantial scientific evidence that consumption of foods high in fat causes weight gain and increases the risk of heart disease and cancer. However, there is some controversy over whether processed low-fat pasteurized milk can meet the needs of developing offspring and whether it should be consumed during pregnancy and development....

"According to a cohort study of 12,829 US children aged 9 to 14 years, weight gain is associated with excess calorie intake and consumption of low fat or skim milk, but is not associated with drinking whole milk products. This finding although surprising is consistent with some animal findings. Pigs fed reduced-fat milk gain weight easily while pigs fed whole milk stay lean. Male rats fed whole milk had significantly lower concentrations of plasma triglycerides...than rats fed low fat milk. The effects of whole milk on lipid profile and body composition are not well understood, but the process of removing fat from milk may in part be responsible for some of the observed effects. Milk is an emulsion of butterfat globules and water-based fluid. Butterfat contains unique nutrients that support thyroid function and help the body develop muscle rather than fat¦"

Sadly, negative publicity about saturated fat and heart disease has whipped up so much hysteria about the fat in animal products that a New Zealand researcher (Professor Rod Jackson) was prompted to say, "We have a health tax on alcohol and cigarettes and there should be a health tax on butter. It's the most poisonous commonly consumed food in New Zealand . It's about the purest form of saturated fat you can eat and it has no protein and no calcium. Butter has had all the good things taken out and just left the poison."

So here we are with an ever-increasing demand for medical services, an excessive national debt, and government dietary recommendations that make people fatter and sicker. You could do something about this, Mr. President. At various times you've said , "The American people understand that it is my job to get it right...our agriculture sector Click to view linkrtly responsible for the explosion in our health care costs...junk food...is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions."

As mentioned earlier, we at the grass roots level are doing our best to educate the public and improve the quality of the food supply. Unfortunately, we have to battle against government policies that promote wrong headed notions about nutrition and discourage the production of high quality food. Some presidential action on these matters would be greatly appreciated by us and extremely beneficial for the country.

Regards,
David Brown
1925 Belmar Dr
Kalispell, MT 59901
Ph/406-257-5123
Nutrition Education Project
Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Very interesting insights.

For me, the most disturbing thing about the health care debate is the lack of interest in reducing the burden of chronic disease. It's like everyone thinks chronic disease is a natural, inevitable consequence of aging, that primary prevention is not possible. This is hardly the case. Allow me to explain.

There are three reasons for the high incidence of chronic disease. First, most people are passive recipients of nutritional advice. Second, the federal government's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), the highest nutrition authority in the world, has for four decades has consistently furnished the world with terrible nutritional advice. And third, the agriculture and food manufacturing sectors employ feeding and manufacturing practices that load the food supply with an excessive omega-6 fatty acid content.

According to Dr. Bill Lands, it's a matter of biochemistry. In a recent presentation at the National Institutes of Health Dr. Lands said, "Dietary omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids compete in producing tissue compositions and tissue responses...tissue composition sets the stage for favorable and unfavorable responses under crisis."

In discussing primary prevention, as opposed to treatment he said, "If you know biochemistry, you can trace the molecular events that caused the disease or undesired consequence and prevent the underlying cause of the problem. That means you have trace back and we can do that. And the context of this connectivity of the molecular events, the context is competition between omega-3 and omega-6 for storage and for action."

We've all seen the hype about how increasing intake of omega-3 enhances brain function and provides some protection from cardiovascular disease. What we're not being told is that reducing omega-6 intake accomplishes the same thing but more effectively.

I'd like to see an interview with Dr. Lands in the Daily Bell. Americans need to hear what he has to say about primary prevention.

You can watch his 37 minute presentation at Click to view link

David Brown
1925 Belmar Dr
Kalispell, MT 59901
Nutrition Education Project
Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks, interesting points. We'll certainly look into Dr. Lands' work.

One line in the editorial that I did not understand is, "After all, the federal government currently forbids Medicare beneficiaries from spending their own money on services covered by Medicare, if for whatever reason they need to."

If the service is covered by Medicare and the provider orders the service to be performed, then why would the patient have to pay," for whatever reason they need to?" I ask, what reason could there be? Perhaps the provider believes the service is not necessary and refuses to order it?

As for healthcare, I am a 40 plus-year RN and all I see is disease care. I see endless testing, tons of drugs, and little self-responsibility. I see little teaching by providers. Mostly what we have is an assembly line of factory-style disease care. The majority of providers have become pharmaceutical whores and cover-your-butt orderers of unneeded tests. They call this the Standard of Care, and it means you'd better not step out of line with the status quo, which does not encourage health or innovation, but wishes to maximize profits.

Some of us nurses, and many physicians, do not have anything much to do with the system, except to do our best to teach what we can. For our own health we avoid it at all cost. There have been some great advances in eye surgeries, orthopedics, and a few other areas, but oncology and chronic disease care are primitive but very profitable.

The current system is completely confusing to the patient and their families. Unless you are a seasoned professional within the system, it is nearly impossible to navigate the endless corridors of bullshit. Dr. Paul is against a one-size-fits-all approach, but I contend that is what we have NOW.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the eloquent if sad assessment. Dr. Paul, we know, is simply against government mandated programs of any sort,

I appreciate Dr. Paul's perspective, but I would have found this editorial more compelling if there was a bit more reflection on current realities of private health care coverage, which are not much different than he describes for proposed government run systems. The lack of competition in the insurance business is not healthy either :-)

Reply from The Daily Bell

Not sure a government run option will add to the competitiveness though.

Well reasoned commentary by Click to view linkn Paul. We recently had to complain about a ruling by Click to view linkrsing home persons where bed alarms which signify when a patient falls out of bed, etc., were to be removed.

Finally, after speaking to the nursing supervisor we were told that if we really wanted the alarm to be installed the staff would do so. My question is: How long before an aide or nurse would come by to check to see if the patient is in serious trouble...if no alarm was indicated? Was this another example of Federal guidelines to save money?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Probably. Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks for having Ron Paul on, he is the voice of sanity and America needs to hear him like never before.

Reply from The Daily Bell

He's a great man.

Dr. Paul is one of the VERY FEW voices of reason in the morass called 'Congress'!

Reply from The Daily Bell

Who are the others?

As always Click to view linkul speaks clearly to our civil liberties clear and concise! Great Editorial!!

Reply from The Daily Bell

We think so too.

Iwould like to see nutritional excellence taught... How to stay well and not get cancers/ heart problems etc... It is known and could be taught... Self responsibility... counts.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the feedback.