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
