Yes, it's disappointing that the majority of those chosen have been trained and/or worked in epidemiology and many have COI having been funded by or worked for food manufacturers. It's called hedging bets, and big food isn't going to allow a major change in health not being equated with their chemical concoctions. However, the point is that I'm wondering how this is different. Yes, having a balanced committee relying on causation of good health by healthy eating supported by sound science rather than weak correlation would help develop an informed and nutritionally sound eating message for many, but I'm not holding my breath and figure that those of us who have had to make significant changes in our eating practices to achieve good health will continue to do the same. Grass roots will have to suffice to change the complex climate of health related to nutrition, as there is so much misinformation out there today that is widely reported and advertised as gospel, that it appears impractical to expect rapid change at this time.