pelin
@absint
The real heavyweights were the big food manufacturers, such as General Foods, Quaker Oats, Heinz, the National Biscuit Company, and the Corn Products Refining Corporation. In 1941 these companies had set up the Nutrition Foundation, a group that worked to influence opinion with far more subtle techniques than striding through senators' offices. The foundation steered the course of science at its very source by developing relationships with academic researchers, funding important scientific conferences, and funneling many millions of dollars directly into research (even before the NIH began funding nutrition research). The foundation, along with food companies working individually, was therefore able to influence scientific opinion as it was being formed.
The promotion of carbohydrate-based foods, such as cereals, breads, crackers, and chips, was exactly the kind of dietary advice large food companies favored, since those were the products they sold.
“Kötü bir anıyı unutmanın en iyi yolu güzel bir tanesiyle değişmektir.”
The passionate embrace of the diet-heart hypothesis by American scientists was something that their British colleagues found perplexing.
Whenever one thing is removed from the diet -saturated fat, say- something else must replace it. What should that be? Soybean oil? Carbohydrates? Fruits and vegetables? Diet experiments are really always measuring two things at once: the absence of one nutrient and the addition of another.
As George Mann wrote at the end of his career in 1978, a "heart Mafia" had "supported the dogma" and hoarded research funds. "For a generation, research on heart disease has been more political than scientific," he declared.
The story of nutritional science is not, as we would expect, one of sober-minded researchers moving with measured, judicious steps. It falls, instead, under the "Great Man" theory of history, whereby strong personalities steer events using their own personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or wits.