The Food Pyramid Posted by: Jon Henke
on Monday, April 25, 2005
Gerry Daly put an interesting question to a few bloggers on Friday, and I've been unable to take it up until now. With my apologies for the delay, I want to address it. Daly noted the $2.5 million spent by the Federal government to design and promulgate the new food pyramid, and wonders "if things like this are an effective use of taxpayer money" and "if there is anyone who actually thinks that our money should be spent this way at this particular time".
I'll save you the suspense: No. It's ineffective and unnecessary.
First, some interesting points from the other (and much more punctual) bloggers asked to participate: Betsy Newmark:
If we truly paid $2.5 million to some agency to design the new pyramid, I don't think we got our money's worth. The whole purpose of having some sort of icon for the food pyramid is so that all of us food dummies will have an easy memory tool reminding us of what we should be eating. But, somehow we're supposed to immediately intuit that orange represents grains and blue represents dairy products. Huh?
Do I approve of the federal government spending money on public health issues? Yes.
Are nutrition and obesity important components of public health? Of course.
Is public awareness an important part of the government's overall public health mission? Definitely.
Would I approve of an ad campaign urging parents to get their kids vaccinated? Sure.
So: do I approve of the government's desire to increase awareness of the public health issues of nutrition and obesity? I don't see why not.
But: do I like the pyramid? No.
Perhaps the most trenchant criticism of the MyPyramid came in Kevin Drum's first post on the topic:
Few Americans were following the old recommendations, so the solution is to make new recommendations that are even more complex and difficult to understand? Does that make any sense?
Nope. But that's government work.
Let me back up a moment. There are two ways to determine the effectiveness of a project like this: 1) efficiency in achieving stated goals, and 2) opportunity cost. We'll take them one at a time:
1) The stated goal of the food pyramid is to "encourage dietary and physical activity behavior change among American consumers". Now, the USDA food pyramid has one thing going for it—it provides a uniform standard for educators, doctors, etc. If such a thing is to be used, it is probably helpful that there is a single authoritative resource, rather than myriad, confusing and contradictory resources. To be sure, for a time, the simplicity helps schools, doctors and health care workers save resources.
Except, a "single authoritative source" means errors become institutionalized. And, boy, were there errors. As Harvard researchers pointed out:
Tragically, the information embodied in this pyramid didn't point the way to healthy eating. Why not? Its blueprint was based on shaky scientific evidence, and it barely changed over the years to reflect major advances in our understanding of the connection between diet and health.
And, as the USDA itself pointed out, "only a small percentage of [consumers] followed [the Pyramid] in its entirety". So, the best thing that can be said about the Food Pyramid is that, while it was error-ridden, and behind the most current science, at least people were ignoring it.
Oh yeah, let's spend a lot of money making another one of those.
Still, somebody's gotta do it, so why not have an authoritative official recommendation? Isn't, as Kevin Drum writes, "proselytizing for better nutrition is, in general, a perfectly reasonable thing for the federal government to do"?
2) That gets to the effectiveness standard #2: Opportunity cost. If the federal government doesn't spend a few million producing a guideline for "better nutrition", who will? Well, a lot of people, actually. It's not like there's a shortage of research being done in the area.
If the only goal of the Food Guide Pyramid is to give us the best possible advice for healthy eating, then it should be grounded in the evidence and be independent of business. Instead of waiting for this to happen, nutrition experts from the Harvard School of Public Health created the Healthy Eating Pyramid. It is based on the best available scientific evidence about the links between diet and health. This new pyramid fixes fundamental flaws in the USDA pyramid and offers sound information to help people make better choices about what to eat.
What's more, the Harvard Healthy Eating Pyramid "will change to reflect important new evidence"—a dynamism difficult to incorporate into the standardized USDA MyPyramid. And beyond that:
This isn't the only alternative to the USDA's MyPyramid. The Asian, Latin, Mediterranean, and vegetarian pyramids promoted by Oldways Preservation and Exchange Trust are also good, evidence-based guides for healthy eating.
To review:
The original food pyramid was filled with errors....
...but that's ok, because almost nobody followed it.
So, the USDA made a new, more complicated, pyramid.
...crowding out more accurate, more responsive, competitors.
But that's ok, because increasing awareness is Good, and it is the obligation of government to do Good Things....
Nutrition is such an individual thing. I’d hate to see what "experts" think of what I feed my family. In a family of 5 I’ve got two that are lactose intolerant, one who will drink nothing but milk, one allergic to all fresh fruits and vegetables except citrus, one allergic to a selection of fresh fruits and vegetables, three extremely picky eaters (one of whom won’t eat a dish unless it’s been more than 2 weeks since the last time it was served), one who can’t have anything with onion powder or dried onions, and a baby who has no teeth and refuses to eat baby food but cries if you don’t give him solids. It is a real challenge to find meals we can serve that the whole family will eat and that fit in our meager budget. I just look at the Food Pyramid and laugh my butt off, because I’m struggling just to find any food they’d all be willing to eat.
I’m with ya, but I can’t get very heated about this one. So they spent $2.5 mil and got nothing of consequence? That’s not even at the pocket change level for the federal government.
It’s like criticizing an invading army because the potholes left by their tanks cost money to repair. Sure it’s true, but aren’t there more important criticisms to make?
There may be better alternatives for people to use, but had you heard of them prior to this? Probably not. Would you hear about them? Probably not. Alternatives I can think of are the food groups (government), the original food pyramid (government), or perhaps Atkins which is derived from the food groups. Note that previous government plans figure prominently. If I find out about other alternatives, it will likely be because this new government plan drives me research them.
Even if you count this as advertizing for a healthier lifestyle, it is probably worth 2.5 million dollars to the nation. That is less than a penny to every man, woman, and child isn’t it? I’m betting we could come out ahead if even a small number of people actually improved their diets. When you look at the medical costs of obesity, 2.5 mil is chump change.
The argument that $2.5 million is chump change doesn’t wash with me. I wouldn’t mind the money spent if it had been spent well. But spending foolishly is still foolish, even if it’s chump change.
We can’t keep spending on things that have no effect, no matter how low the individual price tags.
To be sure, for a time, the simplicity helps schools, doctors and health care workers save resources.
I can’t speak for doctors and health care workers, but the idea that this will be helpful to schools is fantasy. Teachers, in general, tend to be very skeptical of and resistant to change (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing—it has a blunting effect on the damage done by cockamamie educational ’innovations’ that come rolling down from on high). Getting them all to chuck out all the support materials they have on the old pyramid and start teaching the new one will be a long, laborious process. It’ll probably be done ’round about the time the ’food hexagon,’ or whatever the next framework turns out to be, comes down the pike.
Hello My name is Christynna my family calls me CJ. I really think the knew pyramid id the same complicated and different. I never understood the format I think I’m fat but I’m 160 pounds and am on a diet I think you should make a format that kids understand so there healthier and are more aware of what sweets and fats can do to them. I really am not under estemating your decision but I think it might be better and under standing if you wat more information on my opinion (that will be a miracle)than e-mail me and I’ll be gald to. I’m not really an expert on life but I know what will help kids beacuse I’m 14 almost 15. I really never really got it. So its just an opinion and suggestion but I think its a great idea. I can study it and help because I have no freinds and I’m picked on alot ok bye. Thanks for your time.
From: CHRISTYNNA PAVLICEK the biggest Hilary Duff fan.Thats how you’ll find more on me.
If you believe that government should be involved in social engineering, then you should beleive in the government’s food pyramid. Costs is secondary to the principle.
I personally think government should not be involved in social engineering - neither the Republican kind or the Democratic kind.
