Not low carb per se, but with Dr Aseem Malhotra's credentials, it will more than likely be on the agenda.




https://inews.co.uk/news/health/doc...-health-1162314

This IS good news.

This is a major gap in medical education. A positive first step that should be mirrored in all countries. Waiting . . .

ETA: I wonder how many subsidies are provided to hospitals in the United States and other countries from the offending parties that have a say in food available in hospitals and the education medical professionals receive. In this case, those providing subsidies would likely be the food manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. It's an acute problem that requires credible supporting research and increased population awareness similar to when tobacco transitioned from a health aid to a killer.

I have mixed feelings because it sounds like this new body wants to use the heavy hand of government to impose what it deems to be "healthy" and I'm very leery of that, regardless of whether I happen to agree with their stance or not.

I'm all for improving education, at all levels, regarding healthy lifestyle and nutrition. I'm definitely all for making drug trials more open and independent from the manufacturers (past a certain stage of development). I don't mind any organization deciding what it will or won't serve -- so if the government doesn't want to sell "junk food" in government-run hospitals, fine. But I do object to them telling non-government hospitals (or others) that they can't. Let them decide.

I object to restrictions and taxes on what they deem to be "unhealthy" food. Just look at the track record of what governments declare to be healthy and unhealthy to see why this is not a good idea.

Promote good, science-tested information in education and promote that education strongly up and down the chain. But let people make their own decisions based on that information.

Government already controls businesses that deal with food.
If they do not comply with FDA regulations, they lose their licenses.
Whether it is Weight Watchers or Nutrisystem, "obey or die!"

What would change today? All one needs to do is to examine the history of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to see how something originally portrayed to represent helpful health information has become coveted by opposing factions who have vested interests in establishing and maintaining the message of food guidelines. It represents the "conch" to those informing others how to eat healthy, but has become so distorted, that it's resulted in wide skepticism. Nutritional education is a great plan. How do we reach the point where valid information is agreed on and made widely available? It's frustrating, particularly for those of us interacting on this forum, as it's safe to say many here are skeptical of standard recommendations and have taken on the burden to find out for ourselves. This is the method I've chosen to avoid the politics of self interest and distortion.

I think one thing we can all agree upon is how "healthy eating" can vary so much among individuals.

Everyone participating on the board, since 2003! to mark when I showed up proves that theorem.

THAT is what everyone needs to know. Guidelines that are not hard and fast rules for everyone to follow. That's going to be tough.

Everyone wants YES/NO and a big label on the cans.

I think an emphasis on "whole foods" and a LOT of help letting people know how they can eat cheap and fast without killing themselves down the line: that's what is going to be really helpful.

I agree that government already controls too much -- and I don't see that changing (unfortunately). In fact, it's going to go the other way. It's a pretty safe bet that once government controls something, they don't give up that control (it has happened, but is very rare). So I'm just not going to support them exerting yet more control even if I should happen to agree that "this time" they are doing the "right thing". First and foremost, if I don't want the heavy hand of government making it harder for me to eat the way that I believe is healthy, then I don't have the right to support using the heavy hand of government to make it harder for others to eat they way they want to (healthy or not). Second, though, there's no guarantee that what I believe is "healthy" is actually correct and we might learn more down the road that might cause significant revision. As we have seen time and time again, there is a very strong inertia to what that heavy hand imposes -- it will continue to impose it long after it has become well established that it is wrong.

Good summary of what is already happening today. But it's a mess. Going forward, how does accurate information on healthy eating emerge? Who becomes the primary source people can trust? I don't believe it's the government, and it's certainly not the food and beverage manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies who are the most significant sources for funding food and medical research today. The difficult part is developing information people can trust to achieve good health and to understand the fact that there is no perfect human diet. We are in the midst of the most damaging metabolic health crises in history with astounding costs for medical care; yet, we hear daily from those who claim to have the answer and many are nothing more than opportunists who would like to benefit from this catastrophe or claim ethical issues having nothing to do with human health. Seems to me, it's time to own our responsibilities to craft healthy ways of eating for ourselves and be strident and outspoken when we witness policies that are misinformed and damaging to others' health outcomes.

Demi, good post of a topic that has "touched a nerve" and started an interesting dialog.