From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: controlling nutrition information
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:50:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.171127.18519@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.152601.22987@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> jil@uts.uucp (Jamie Lubin) writes:
>>Let me tell you where I'm coming from re the media & control of nutrition
>>info.  Basically, I don't think there should be any more control than there
>>is now.

>The only "control" I can imagine is self-control on the part of people
>who make overreaching recommendations and who are in a position to know
>better.  Other than that, it's a non-issue.  And the people who want to
>call press conferences will anyway.  The best you can do is point out
>what I already have.

>>Without scientific
>>unanimity & without personally consulting any scientific journal, I decided
>>to start taking vitamin E (among other things) & to do so at higher than the
>>RDA amounts.  I am grateful to the media, in part, for presenting some views
>>which aided me in my decision.  I am grateful because by the time that there's
>>scientific unanimity & the "powers that be"/"professionals"/"those who are
>>knowledgeable", etc. make a pronouncement for the general public, I will have
>>been taking vitamin E for 17-18 years.

>And if it had been shown to be dangerous recently?  Plus, many of these
>people you read made claims for vitamin E which were never so.  It is
>only thru luck and serendipity that you've been taking it and it might
>turn out to be unusually beneficial.  Who knows what else you're taking? :-)

If we are to wait for clear proof by the usual procedures that agencies
like the FDA use that vitamin E or vitamin C are "safe and effective,"
we will have to wait at least a couple of CENTURIES.  I am not even sure
of that, unless some real therapeutic use is found.  I cannot think of
any way of conducting double-blind tests on human populations, especially
for long periods.

What we should have, instead, is a presentation of data in a manner which
at least someone who understands the principles behind self-consistent
decision making can carry out.  We know essentially nothing about the
effects of nutrients, except for the effects on weight and deficiency
diseases.  The RDAs have not been obtained by any experimentation to
find optimal amounts, nor is it clear that individual idiosyncracies
are not of considerable importance.  Nor can animal studies be used
directly; external vitamin C is not needed by most animals, and vitamin E,
caffeine, etc., have different effects in different animals.

We can be SURE of little about the long-term effects of almost anything.
One could probably come up with 50 or more nutritional strategies for a
single nutrient.  If one would want to make a controlled experiment on
that one nutrient alone, if would be necessary to observe 50 groups of
people for their entire lives, or at least until a nasty effect showed
up, to "properly" study that nutrient.  And this does not take into 
account that different people should be using different strategies!

Putting on my professional hat, I do know how the so-called "scientific"
results are obtained, and those methods used are wrong for the purpose
of behavior.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)