There are two useful points illustrated by this editorial on the Popkin et al. study.
First, Kumanyika states
...dietary factors are strongly implicated as causes of chronic diseases precisely because they are common, subtle, and persistent over long periods of time. Exposure to agents such as radiation may have more dramatic effects than diet, but such hazards can be identified, isolated and contained or removed through public health measures.Hold the phone! What?! Radiation may have a more dramatic effect than diet? Says who?
As was ably pointed out in the September 1996 Scientific American ("What Causes Cancer," p.80, 84), of the atomic bomb survivors, more than 99 percent HAVE NOT died from cancer related to radiation. The number of radiation-induced cancer deaths among the atomic bomb blast survivors over the last 51 years is less than 500.
These people were exposed virtually instantaneously to ultra-high levels of radiation. Exposures that are about as uncommon as uncommon gets. Moreover, a little known factoid is that the atomic bomb survivors are living longer on average than the general population.
In contrast, research published in The New England Journal of Medicine itself claims that more than 300,000 Americans die every year from obesity. About 14 percent of annual deaths in the United States!
Somehow, I think Kumanyika has it wrong. Diet is likely to have a more dramatic effect on public health than radiation.
Second, Kumanyika states,
Because eating is "one of life's great pleasures," food is much more than a vehicle for promoting or protecting health... Federal regulation of the food supply to eat only the "right" foods would not only be impractical but also tragic. [So far, so good]. There is nevertheless considerable room for measures stronger than voluntary behavior on the part of consumers and responses by the food industry to encourage the adoption of healthful diets. A primarily market-based approach that encourages the foods that sell best is inefficient. Health professionals can advocate much more aggressively for adherence to dietary recommendations with the very federal agencies that formulate these recommendations...I'm not sure we want federal agencies formulating dietary recommendations, particularly if they're going to be based on junk science.
As an example, for years, dietary recommendations have warned us of the dangers of added salt. But this turned out to be a false alarm. Healthy people who avoid salt may, in fact, be jeopardizing their health.
I can only imagine what other junk science-based dietary advice doled out by the public health community and federal agencies may be similarly harmful to our health.
It would be nice if public health researchers got their science straight. Until they do, they should stop meddling in our lives.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1996 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.