New Food Pyramid Issues - Essay Example

New Food Pyramid Children growing up in America are usually fairly familiar with the standard food pyramid in which the recommended proportions and types of foods that should be eaten for a balanced and healthy diet are outlined. This pyramid is organized along horizontal bands with the two center levels divided vertically to indicate approximately the same number of servings recommended among two different food groups. An example of this pyramid is offered by the Life Clinic Health Management Systems website (Life Clinic, 2006). By placing breads and grains at the bottom of the pyramid, it is indicated that this is the most important food group for people to consume, recommending at least 6-8 servings per day. The next level up is divided between fruits and vegetables, of which it is recommended that people eat approximately 3-5 servings per day each. The next level up is equally divided between dairy products and proteins, with a recommended daily intake of 2-3 servings while the top level, the top of the pyramid, consists of fats, oils and sweets which are recommended to be used sparingly. Although this food pyramid, created by the US Department of Agriculture, does much to encourage healthier eating by graphically illustrating the amount of sweets that should be consumed as compared to the amount of grains, for instance, it only carries a textual disclaimer regarding the differences between gender, age and activity level. To counteract this, a new food pyramid has been put in place that not only redistributes the food categories into more energetic vertical bands, but also graphically illustrates the importance of activity to a healthy lifestyle, as discussed in the article “New Food Pyramid” (Klotter, 2005). This article begins by describing the new look of the food pyramid, including the vertical color bands to represent the various food groups including grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, dairy, and meat and beans. “To emphasize the need for physical activity, one side of the pyramid shows a runner ascending a set of steps” (Klotter, 2005). It then goes on to discuss the differences between these food guidelines and earlier food pyramids. One of these differences is in the emphasis on whole grains as opposed to refined grains in meeting this food group requirement. Another difference is the size of the recommended number of servings of each food group, such as a reduction in the size of the meat and beans category, increases in the level of fruit and vegetable consumption and a change in attitudes toward saturated fats. Quoting public health researchers Alice and Fred Ottoboni, Klotter indicates that the attitude toward saturated fats was formed in 1953 and was based on inadequate information. Despite this, the new food pyramid does warn against trans fats again citing experts claiming that “trans fats are uniquely bad for you because they raise LDL and triglycerides while reducing HDL” (Willett & Stampfer, 2002 cited in Klotter, 2005). The article also briefly points out where the pyramid is similar to the old one as well as some weaknesses of the new one. One of the similarities between the two pyramids is in the emphasis placed on a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. This emphasis is placed as a means of trying to combat against the high rate of heart disease in America, but there remains a great deal of confusion regarding the proportions of serving sizes and how that relates to age, gender and activity levels. The new pyramid is criticised for oversimplifying some of these nutritional issues even as it introduces a degree of complexity that makes it difficult to explain in a simple pamphlet form. In addition, the author of the article mentions a concern regarding the role taken by the food industry itself in the development of the new pyramid, especially as it concerns what is ignored or included in the new dietary recommendations. A final criticism has to do with the accessibility of the new pyramid, being posted on the internet but not being circulated well in hard copy format for those unfamiliar with or without access to internet usage. While the article does much to introduce the new food pyramid, especially in discussing the strengths and improvements it has made over the old pyramid, it doesn’t go far enough to examine the shortfalls of the new pyramid. By citing the opinions of experts to support claims regarding the beneficial changes that have been made in the creation of the new pyramid, the author is able to bring additional credence to her report. These opinions have been echoed by other experts as well. A study reported in Scientific American indicated “we found that men and women who were eating in accordance with the new pyramid had a lower risk of major chronic disease. This benefit resulted almost entirely from significant reductions in the risk of cardiovascular disease – up to 30 percent for women and 40 percent for men” (Willett & Stampfer, 2003). However, the criticisms against the new food pyramid are glossed over in a short paragraph at the end of the article, briefly listing the various concerns. These concerns are treated in much greater detail in other articles such as the one published by the Harvard School of Public Health in which it is stated, “According to federal regulations, the panel that writes the dietary guidelines must include nutrition experts who are leaders in pediatrics, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and public health. Selecting the panelists is no easy task, and is subject to intense lobbying from organizations such as the National Dairy Council, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Soft Drink Association, American Meat Institute, National Cattlemens Beef Association, and Wheat Foods Council” (Abboud, 2003 cited in Harvard School, 2006). According to the Harvard School of Public Health, there are at least as many dietary misrecommendations in the new pyramid as there are positive recommendations, a concept that is completely missed by Klotter. While Klotter mentions the difficulty people without internet access might have in trying to decipher the new pyramid, one of the major drawbacks of it, this author fails to mention the idea that the new pyramid contains no text at all or to bring attention to the abstract nature of the color bands that are supposed to represent the various food groups. “Each stripe starts out as the same size, but they dont end that way at the base. The widths suggest how much food a person should choose from each group. … The layers represent major food groups that contribute to the total diet. MyPyramid tries to do this in an abstract way, and fails” (Harvard School, 2006). Finally, while several alternative pyramids have been developed since the release of the new food pyramid, such as the Healthy Eating Pyramid proposed by the Harvard School of Public Health, the Asian pyramid, Mediterranean pyramid and vegetarian pyramid, none of these are even mentioned in the Klotter article. Because of Klotter’s failure to give proper justice to the negative aspects of the new food pyramid or to provide information regarding where to find this information, it has been determined that this article is not sufficient. It does an adequate job of informing the reader of advantages over the old food pyramid and brings in sufficient ‘expert testimony’ to support these claims, but fails to devote equal attention to the more concerning negative aspects of the new pyramid. At the same time, it does little to explain how the new food pyramid works or of the intentions of the old pyramids, instead concentrating on a few major advantages in food recommendations this system offers over the previous one. As such, it fails to deliver the information promised in its title, significantly reducing its effectiveness. Works Cited Harvard School of Public Health. “Food Pyramids.” President and Fellows of Harvard College. 2006. September 9, 2006 < http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html> Klotter, Jule. “New Food Pyramid.” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. July 2005. Life Clinic. “Food Guide Pyramid.” Life Clinic Health Management Systems. 2006. September 8, 2006 Willett, Walter C. & Stampfer, Meir J. “Rebuilding the Food Pyramid.” Scientific American. January 2003. September 9, 2006 < http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007C5B6-7152-1DF6-9733809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2> Read More