Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 09


     
     1        numerals.
     2
     3        If you look at the last sentence on the second to last
     4        paragraph where it says "the zero value", can you see the
     5        last sentence:
     6
     7        "The zero value given as the lower limit for saturated
     8        fatty acids, dietary cholesterol and free sugars indicates
     9        that these dietary components meet no special nutritional
    10        need" -- and I emphasise the words "special nutritional
    11        need" -- "and are thus not required for the prevention of
    12        any deficiency disease."
    13
    14        This is referring to the recommendations where, in some
    15        cases, they do not set any lower limits because they are
    16        implying they are not essential for human health.  Would
    17        you agree with that sentence?
    18        A.  Yes.  Scientifically speaking, it is absolutely correct
    19        but in terms of practical nutrition, the fact that people
    20        eat food, there are simply are no fats of either and/or
    21        vegetable origin which are devoid of fatty acids.  The
    22        statement there is scientifically correct but it is a
    23        pretty meaningless statement in terms of practical
    24        nutrition.
    25
    26   Q.   Right.  The implication is there is no need to set a lower
    27        limit for those nutrients because whether people get a
    28        little or a lot there is no minimum they must have.  That
    29        is the point?
    30        A.  Yes, one could, say, set lower limits for mono
    31        unsaturated fatty acids, one could set it for starch, which
    32        is another form of carbohydrate, just as sugar is.  I do
    33        not really see the point of making that statement.  A
    34        similar one was made in the dietary reference values, to
    35        which we have referred, with regard to sugar, and this has
    36        been mistakenly believed to indicate that this was a target
    37        of a zero intake of sugar we were aiming at.  All that
    38        certainly meant was that logically we do not require
    39        carbohydrate in that form, provided we get it in another
    40        form.  The same would apply to saturated fat but, as I say,
    41        it would be possible.
    42
    43   Q.   OK.  The next paragraph, "The Report is explicit" --
    44        underline 'explicit' -- "in its insistence on the need for
    45        a population wide as opposed to individualised approach to
    46        the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases, arguing
    47        that the entire population of most affluent countries shows
    48        a high risk profile and that intervention on a mass scale
    49        is needed to shift dietary patterns closer to the 'safe'
    50        range of intake specified in the report.  In undertaking 
    51        such mass interventions governments are challenged to 
    52        develop policies that will make healthy food choices the 
    53        easy choices for consumers to make."
    54
    55        Do you accept that?
    56        A.  Yes, I do.  I think when one talks about "dietary
    57        patterns" it is important to recognise, particularly in the
    58        affluent societies, that the major difference in dietary
    59        pattern is excessive consumption of food, not in fact the
    60        food quality itself.  Obviously, the quality may have an

Prev Next Index