Overpromising and Underdelivering—Why Nutrition Science Has Fallen on Hard Times In this column, Slavin discusses the impact of making nutrition recommendations based on dubious science that ultimately fail to deliver promised benefits, e.g., low-fat diet recommendations. Since their inception 40 years ago, questions concerning the scientific basis of low-fat diet recommendations have continued to be raised. Organizations such as the National Research Council Food and Nutrition Board have concluded that specific recommendations for the general public concerning cholesterol and fat consumption should not be made because the evidence suggesting that dietary cholesterol is a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease is too inconsistent and recommendations concerning fat consumption should differ for different population groups. Getting the science wrong has had long-term, widespread, negative effects on food advice and public confidence, government programs, and food industry responses to dietary recommendations. Slavin concludes that because people eat foods, not nutrients, the goal of food-based advice must be to show consumers how to choose diets that provide necessary nutrients, rather than food plans that support avoiding foods that are high in components labeled as “bad” that have unclear relationships to health outcomes. |