I’m increasingly becoming so conspiracy-minded when it comes to the economic forces behind the food-industrial-complex that is dominating policy and culture in the US, that I sometimes wonder if I’m just a tinfoil hat away from being on a NatGeo show. This was my post on the matter of the AHA check mark program several months ago.
But then something comes along that reminds me I am not insane, that when enough people shine a light on something and the mainstream finally picks it up, the obviousness of the conventional wisdom becomes not-so-obvious.
Case study for August 16. The American Heart Association is being sued over the check-mark program.
I’ll cite three sources. Pick the bias that most closely already matches your own. (Isn’t that how we all do news and internet now?)
Fox News – Spanish Edition (only one I could find on Fox)
It would be nice if this suit was based on the evidence that the high carb diets they advocate are a much bigger danger when it comes to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and all-cause mortality. It would be great if this suit was based on their recommendations of processed cereals.
Instead, the suit comes from the anti-salt corner of the CW. That’s a debatable issue among paleo/ancestral advocates, and especially among low-carbers. Sodium phobia may be as misplaced as lipophobia (fat phobia), with sugar STILL getting a free pass.
But hey, if it’s drawing attention to the problem of the Check Mark program, we’ll take it, right? What’s the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I realize that’s a dramatic way to paint the picture, but the more the AHA and ADA are revealed as nothing but profit-driven trade groups and NOT the ombudsman for the common man, the better for the conversation.
The case is based on an easily provable fraud. They won’t need to debate whether the AHA guidelines make any sense. The problem cited in the suit is that the AHA endorsed products that went against its own recommendations.
Again, the conversation for those of us interested in studying these issues goes much deeper. We ask why their recommendations are what they are in the first place. We challenge the conventional wisdom, and raise issues on how it came to be the convention. Most people just trust authority and assume they have our best interests in mind. It takes small issues like this to get people to pay attention to the bigger picture. At least it’s a start.