From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: DIET AND HEALTH NEWS
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:12:07 GMT

young@serum.kodak.com [Rich Young (x37176)] writes:


>	The Association representative, when interviewed on national TV, 
>	said, "We support the revised pyramid completely."  His motives, of
>	course, like those of many Usenet posters, are known only to him.

I think we can at least infer monetary vested interests on the part
of such representatives, which is not the case for Usenet posters as
far as I know.
B


>>. . .
>>>  There were only two minor changes made to the original:
>>. . .
>>>   THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL CHART.
>>> . . .
>> 
>>Well, the visual organization was changed from a 2 dimensional
>>"eating right pyramid" to that of a 3-dimensional "food guide
>>pyramid".  Not a substantial change to be sure.

>	Substantial enough, apparently, for lengthy and disparaging comment.

What are you talking about?



>>Still, this yanking of the old "eating right pyramid" by the USDA after
>>vested-interest trade groups for ranchers, milk producers and
>>others howled, has cost the American public about $1-million
>>to test the new (trivially modified) version and produce it.
>>This cost doesn't include the wasted time (hence wages) of
>>the politicians and other government officials that had to
>>wrangle over this issue.

>	On the other hand. it did result in changes which made some of the
>	graphics more easily understood by people at all levels of
>	education, intelligence and experience, and, with the two- to
>	three-dimensional change, further emphasized the role of complex
>	carbohydrates in the diet while DE-emphasizing the role of meats.

>	Lighten up, Ted.  It's a whole lot more accurate than the old
>	four food groups chart, and it doesn't apply to Canada anyway.
>	Those of you north of the U.S. border can go off and create the
>	perfect chart on your own...I suspect Ted would be available to
>	advise on the effort, right, Ted?

Boy, such sarcasm.  I make a simply point and provide some information
and you feel compelled to sarcastic.

I have no complaint about the change from the old and very misleading
"Basic Four".  The issue I was addressing pertained to the Cattelmen's
Association giving their "blessing" to this trivially revised 
pyramid when it was their voice in the first place that instituted
a 1 million dollar waste of taxpayers money.

>[...]

>>A side point for mathematically/graphically inclined.  With the
>>"food guide pyramid" being 3-dimensional, the visual scaling is
>>now even more incommensurate with the numeral number of servings
>>that are being suggested for each grouping.

>	Even the USDA isn't stupid enough to assume that anyone of reasonable
>	intelligence (that is, intelligence enough to eat when hungry) 
>	would actually tailor a diet to the exact volume of the pyramid
>	segments.  The whole point was to emphasize the relative quantities
>	of food from each segment which should be consumed in a daily diet.

Yes, that fine.  I have no complaint with that.  Was it worth 1 million
to delay the original pyramid which worked to the same end?


>	The absolute inanity of a critique based on the actual volume
>	(calculated to one decimal place) of each segment boggles the
>	mind.

You are making a lot out of what I said was a "side point for the
mathematically\graphically inclined".  Certainly, there is no
need to be so insulting, is there?  And you ask me to lighten 
up, hmm.?

                                ted