Why on earth does the Food Standards Agency continue to press the case for reducing the amount of saturated fat in the British diet?
In 'Food: an analysis of the issues' the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit concluded that almost 70,000 lives could be saved if the current dietary guidelines were implemented. However, of these, only 3,500 were attributed to a reduction in the saturated fat intake. A similar number could be saved if there was a reduction in sugar. By contrast, 42,200 lives could be saved if fruit and vegetable consumption was increased to 5-a-day. Reducing salt intake from nine to six grams a day would save 20,200 lives. The research on which these figures are based was done by the FSA.
If we accept the validity of this study, then the logical way forward would be to focus on boosting the intake of fruit and vegetables while reducing salt in the diet. In terms of effectiveness and efficient use of resources, there is absolutely no justification for directing attention to saturated fat and sugar.
In fact, there is considerable doubt about the benefits of reducing saturated fat. In 2001, Lee Hooper and colleagues reviewed the evidence linking dietary fat and cardiovascular disease and their findings were published in the British Medical Journal. "Despite decades of effort and many thousands of people randomised, there is still only limited and inconclusive evidence of the effects of modification of total, saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fats on cardio-vascular morbidity and mortality."
It is also worth noting that saturated fat consists of a variable mixture of different fatty acids, each of which behaves in a different way in the body. This makes it virtually impossible to determine the role of saturated fat in any particular food.
In last week's issue of The Grocer (5 December, p4), some examples of the huge costs of reformulating food products are given. It has cost United Biscuits more than £6m to alter the composition of just three different biscuit lines, for example.
Perhaps we should take the claim of the Food Standards Agency that it develops its programmes on the basis of sound scientific evidence with a large pinch of salt!
Verner Wheelock, Verner Wheelock Associates
In 'Food: an analysis of the issues' the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit concluded that almost 70,000 lives could be saved if the current dietary guidelines were implemented. However, of these, only 3,500 were attributed to a reduction in the saturated fat intake. A similar number could be saved if there was a reduction in sugar. By contrast, 42,200 lives could be saved if fruit and vegetable consumption was increased to 5-a-day. Reducing salt intake from nine to six grams a day would save 20,200 lives. The research on which these figures are based was done by the FSA.
If we accept the validity of this study, then the logical way forward would be to focus on boosting the intake of fruit and vegetables while reducing salt in the diet. In terms of effectiveness and efficient use of resources, there is absolutely no justification for directing attention to saturated fat and sugar.
In fact, there is considerable doubt about the benefits of reducing saturated fat. In 2001, Lee Hooper and colleagues reviewed the evidence linking dietary fat and cardiovascular disease and their findings were published in the British Medical Journal. "Despite decades of effort and many thousands of people randomised, there is still only limited and inconclusive evidence of the effects of modification of total, saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fats on cardio-vascular morbidity and mortality."
It is also worth noting that saturated fat consists of a variable mixture of different fatty acids, each of which behaves in a different way in the body. This makes it virtually impossible to determine the role of saturated fat in any particular food.
In last week's issue of The Grocer (5 December, p4), some examples of the huge costs of reformulating food products are given. It has cost United Biscuits more than £6m to alter the composition of just three different biscuit lines, for example.
Perhaps we should take the claim of the Food Standards Agency that it develops its programmes on the basis of sound scientific evidence with a large pinch of salt!
Verner Wheelock, Verner Wheelock Associates
2 Readers' comments