Hi All,
The USDA's Economic Research Service has just released a report called Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption, 1970-2005. It's in the form of a PDF document that you can download here:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB33/EIB33.pdf
On the "grain consumption chart", (figure 2), note how much wheat flour the average American is consuming, compared with other grains. (Is it any wonder that we are having an "epidemic" of problems with gluten sensitivity?)
Notice how much the per capita consumption of added fats and oils has increased. The consumption of animal fats has actually declined significantly, (upon USDA's recommendations), while "processed" oils and fats have increased enormously. Contrary to USDA's position, animal fats are arguably much healthier than the added fats and oils which have replaced them in our diets. (Animal fats were an important part of the paleo diet). In the "added fats and oils chart", (figure 5), note what a small percentage of total consumption comes from animal fats, and yet animal fats in the diet are blamed for everything from heart disease and cancer, to athlete's foot.
I notice that the USDA still continues to perpetuate the myth that chicken contains less fat than beef and pork. They justify that claim by failing to mention that their ratings are based on chicken from which the skin and excess fat has been removed. If the chicken carcases are rated honestly, (IOW, based on the way that they are sold in the supermarkets), that claim is simply untrue.
And so it goes, as we try to keep from drowning in half-truths, and false advertising claims, in the quagmire that we know as the American food marketing system. I wish we could just ignore it all, but unfortunately, we have to eat.
Tex
35 Years Of Dietary Progress In The United States - NOT!
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
35 Years Of Dietary Progress In The United States - NOT!
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Not sure how they are calculating grains, but I would think that Corn would have been much higher than wheat. Given that corn is in even more things than wheat.
Yes, and overall, I'd say that this definitly isn't progress but the total opposite of progress. No wonder there is so much disease going on.
Yes, and overall, I'd say that this definitly isn't progress but the total opposite of progress. No wonder there is so much disease going on.
Yes, the same one that said fats=bad carbs=good. Same one that said partially hydrogenated fats are safe and butter is bad. Same one that says mercury in your amalgams is perfectly safe, yet when it's not in your mouth is unsafe. Same one that says floride in your drinking water is perfectly safe. Same one that says steroids/hormones/pesticides/etc in our foods is perfectly safe. Same one that thought asbestos was safe, same one that thought lead was safe. Should I go on? ;D