tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post5728389370153972482..comments2024-02-03T07:12:06.620-05:00Comments on U.S. Food Policy: Science commentary: It makes sense to include sustainability in dietary guidelinesusfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-21414811572314105282015-10-02T18:28:12.365-04:002015-10-02T18:28:12.365-04:00Thank you for linking the pertinent chapter. Vague...Thank you for linking the pertinent chapter. Vague definitions (mere insinuations, really) of what, exactly, constitutes "sustainabiliy" only confirms suspicion the camel is thrusting its nose under the tent -- the greater mass will inevitably be forced upon us when it is far from certain what sort of camel will be needed or if we even need a camel in the tent at all. Special note is also taken of unspeakably arrogant suggestions the committee knows precisely how to modify our food systems to respond successfully to dire forecasts of climate change. Once again, no detail, not even so much as a clue as to how this will be accomplished, only hints that behaviors must be and will be modified -- the camel's nose appears yet again. <br /><br />However sincere and impassioned the committee's smug alarmist opinions regarding our current food system as it continues to evolve, by failing to define precise dietary guidelines certain to secure food security into perpetuity and reverse any possible impact of climate change we are merely being asked to sign the first of what promises to be a long chaotic series of blank checks. <br /><br />Stick to the science. Work that science to bring credible adaptations and alternatives to light. Stop with the scare mongering, the idle hand wringing and build a solid platform of applied science on which to construct a studied argument. Bear in mind the outcome of the last great attempt to force an agrarian utopia -- the premature dream of a forward thinking ideologue named Pol Pot in Cambodia not half a century ago. A regrettable episode of political overreach spiraled out of control that will not be forgotten during the lifetime of the boomer generation. It will be no small task to demonstrate at scale a workable system, but demonstrate you must. Skepticism will rightly prevail in the meantime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-45631711388336680872015-10-02T12:32:51.934-04:002015-10-02T12:32:51.934-04:00Thanks for your comment.
First, your comment is a...Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />First, your comment is asking about the scientific justification for the comments on sustainability in the dietary guidelines process. Here, for your interest, is <a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/10-chapter-5/default.asp" rel="nofollow">the full discussion and citations in the DGAC report</a>.<br /><br />Second, your comment is a pained cry for sanctuary from reprehensible opinions that are forced upon you. But I have a milder view of opinions. A certain curiosity brought you to my blog page to read my opinion. And a certain kindness compelled you to take the time to share your opinion. I read it with interest and appreciation and will reflect on it.<br />usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-82342430273732564022015-10-02T12:04:15.600-04:002015-10-02T12:04:15.600-04:00How did Merrigan, yourself and fellow authors conc...How did Merrigan, yourself and fellow authors conclude politically charged opinions about something so ill-defined as "sustainability" can alter, in any way, the distinct scientific reality of nutrient reguirements? What justifies any insistence published guidelines be biased to suit an evolving whim? We get it; you aim to force your opinion. Your purpose is suspect and your actions are reprehensible. It is only "right and proper" that you cease and desist from bastardizing the previously esteemed sciences of nutrition and adult education. Or will you not be content until everything is reduced to nebulous pop science politics? Humph, sustainablity according to you, as you choose to tentatively define it now or in future, no thanks. It conveniently pre-stages the logical fallacy referred to as "moving the goalposts".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com