- Email: [email protected]
The dietary guidelines rationale
UTERATURE CITED 1 Bernard C. An introduction to the study of experimental medicine (1874). Translated by H.C. Greene. New York: Henry Schuman, Inc. 1948, pp. 134-35 .. 2 Brun, J.K., and A.F. Rhoads, eds. Nutrition education research: Strategies for theory building-Conference proceeding, Rosemont, IL: National Dairy COUricil, 1983, 166 pp. 3 Olson, c., and A.H. Gillespie, eds. Proceedings of the Workshop on Nutrition Education Research. Journal of Nutrition Education 13 (Supp. 1): Sl-S118, 1981. 4 Sims, L., and L. Light, eds. Directions for nutrition education research-The Pennsylvaniu State Conferences, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 1980, p. 4. 5 Novak, J.n, and nB. Gowan. Learning how to learn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 199 pp. 6 Ausubel, np., J.D. Novak, and H. Hanesian. Educational psychology-A cognitive view, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1978, 733 pp. 7 Novak, J.n A theory of education, Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1977,295 pp., p. 17 8 Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979, 330 pp. 9 Gowin, D.B. Educating, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981, 210 pp. 10 Skinner, B.F. About behaviorism, New York: Vintage Books, 1976 p.93 11 Kuhn, T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970, pp. 17-18. 12 Matthews, G.B. Philosophy and the young child, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1980, p. 99. 13 Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research, 2d ed., New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973, p. 10. 14 Brown, H.1. Perception, theory and commitment, The new philosophy of science, Chicago: Precedent Publishing Co., 1977, 203 pp. 15 Lewin, K. Forces behind food habits, and methods of change. In The problems of changing food habits, National Academy of Sciences, Bulletin 108. Washington, DC, 1943, 177 p.
THE DIETARY GUIDELINES RATIONALE The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (42: 739-45, 1985) has published a special article on the rationale for the Dietary Guidelines. In discussing the controversy that surrounded the initial efforts to develop dietary guidelines for prevention of disease, the authors (one of whom is a member of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) consider two broader issues: What role should science and government play in assuring and maintaining public health? And, What standard of scientific evidence should be the basis of public health decisions? The authors explain that over the years the government has taken a direct approach (Le., regulatory action to assure that food processors and producers meet certain minimum requirements) to ensure a safe food supply, and an indirect approach (Le., advice, nutritional labeling, and the Dietary Guidelines) to assure public health and safety through information. The article points out that while the committee concluded that the guidelines were and are based on sound, current scientific evidence, no numbers were set for the guidelines, only advice for moderation. This approach was taken because the state of current knowledge makes it difficult to give specific, quantitative dietary advice. The authors claim that it is surprisingly difficult to develop unequivocal data relating to diet and chronic disease, and they hypothesize that only long-term prospective studies are capable of exploring diet and disease relationships. Consequently, they recommend more long-term research and support for exploring relationships between nutrients (and other factors) and modification of the disease process. Meanwhile, they suggest that if their hypothesis is correct much greater emphasis should be placed on animal and epidemiologic data in developing public policy. They point out that the standard of evidence for a public health action is not as rigorous as the standard of evidence for an academic scientist. And that for a public health scientist, the standard depends (to a large degree) on the potential importance of the action in maintaining public health-that is, if the potential benefit of doing something to improve health is considerably greater than the potential danger, then that action becomes an appropriate one for public health agencies to take. But the authors warn that the nature of public health decisions makes it imperative not to oversell the potential benefits of the actions-that what is required is rationality and moderation in this process.
184
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
VOLUME 17 NUMBER 5
1985
University Press, 1977,295 pp., p. 17 8 Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979, 330 pp. 9 Gowin, D.B. Educating, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981, 210 pp. 10 Skinner, B.F. About behaviorism, New York: Vintage Books, 1976 p.93 11 Kuhn, T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970, pp. 17-18. 12 Matthews, G.B. Philosophy and the young child, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1980, p. 99. 13 Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research, 2d ed., New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973, p. 10. 14 Brown, H.1. Perception, theory and commitment, The new philosophy of science, Chicago: Precedent Publishing Co., 1977, 203 pp. 15 Lewin, K. Forces behind food habits, and methods of change. In The problems of changing food habits, National Academy of Sciences, Bulletin 108. Washington, DC, 1943, 177 p.
THE DIETARY GUIDELINES RATIONALE The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (42: 739-45, 1985) has published a special article on the rationale for the Dietary Guidelines. In discussing the controversy that surrounded the initial efforts to develop dietary guidelines for prevention of disease, the authors (one of whom is a member of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) consider two broader issues: What role should science and government play in assuring and maintaining public health? And, What standard of scientific evidence should be the basis of public health decisions? The authors explain that over the years the government has taken a direct approach (Le., regulatory action to assure that food processors and producers meet certain minimum requirements) to ensure a safe food supply, and an indirect approach (Le., advice, nutritional labeling, and the Dietary Guidelines) to assure public health and safety through information. The article points out that while the committee concluded that the guidelines were and are based on sound, current scientific evidence, no numbers were set for the guidelines, only advice for moderation. This approach was taken because the state of current knowledge makes it difficult to give specific, quantitative dietary advice. The authors claim that it is surprisingly difficult to develop unequivocal data relating to diet and chronic disease, and they hypothesize that only long-term prospective studies are capable of exploring diet and disease relationships. Consequently, they recommend more long-term research and support for exploring relationships between nutrients (and other factors) and modification of the disease process. Meanwhile, they suggest that if their hypothesis is correct much greater emphasis should be placed on animal and epidemiologic data in developing public policy. They point out that the standard of evidence for a public health action is not as rigorous as the standard of evidence for an academic scientist. And that for a public health scientist, the standard depends (to a large degree) on the potential importance of the action in maintaining public health-that is, if the potential benefit of doing something to improve health is considerably greater than the potential danger, then that action becomes an appropriate one for public health agencies to take. But the authors warn that the nature of public health decisions makes it imperative not to oversell the potential benefits of the actions-that what is required is rationality and moderation in this process.
184
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
VOLUME 17 NUMBER 5
1985