Hello,

On his web site, Loren Cordain states:

"To lower our blood cholesterol levels and reduce the risk of heart
disease, the American Heart Association recommends that our dietary
saturated fat intake should be 10% of our total daily calories..."

On his web site, Steven Milloy states:

American Heart Association Paradox 
By Steven Milloy
Copyright 2001 Fox News
January 26, 2001, FoxNews.com 

The American Heart Association urged this week that “health care
professionals downplay the popular but unproven supposition that
drinking red wine can help ward off heart attacks.” 

But “unproven suppositions” don’t stop the AHA from helping to promote
other foods and beverages as “heart healthy.” Some “unproven
suppositions, ” as it turns out, are more lucrative and politically
correct than others. 

The so-called “French paradox” is the hypothesis that drinking wine,
particularly red wine, helps counteract alleged harmful effects of
dietary cholesterol and saturated fats on the heart and vascular
system. Many population surveys report lower rates of heart disease
among Europeans who, despite a relatively high-fat, high-cholesterol
diet, consume wine regularly. 

It’s been suggested that moderate alcohol consumption may increase
blood levels of the “good” high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.
Another suggestion is that certain “phenolic” compounds in wine act as
platelet inhibitors and antioxidants to reduce heart disease risk. 

Nevertheless, wine consumption isn’t proven to reduce heart disease
risk. The population surveys only look at population, not individual
characteristics. Unexplored individual genetic and lifestyle factors
that are not fully considered in the population surveys could explain
away the French paradox. 

The French paradox remains controversial and the AHA is correct to
point out there is no firm scientific basis for advocating alcohol
consumption to reduce heart disease risk. 

It’s too bad the AHA doesn’t apply similar scrutiny to its Food
Certification Program, established in 1995 “to provide consumers a
quick, easy way to identify heart-healthy foods that can be part of a
[heart] healthful eating plan.” Grocery stores are filled with brands
displaying the AHA’s “heart-check” mark. 

Foods and beverages qualifying for the heart-check mark include those
that are considered low fat, low saturated fat, low cholesterol, low
sodium, and have at least 10 percent of the daily value of one or more
of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron or dietary fiber. 

The problem is the theories underlying the Food Certification Program
are like the French paradox — unproven. Conventional wisdom may be
that the AHA’s recommended diet is “heart smart.” But the science
isn’t quite there. 

In November 1997, Harvard University researchers noted in their New
England Journal of Medicine study that “The results of [studies]
between dietary fat and coronary disease have been inconsistent.”
Their own study of more than 80,000 women followed for 14 years
reported no statistically significant associations between total fat,
animal fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and risk of heart disease. 

A recent article in the journal Science summarized the state of the
knowledge about dietary salt and high blood pressure as, “After
decades of intensive research, the apparent benefits of avoiding salt
have only diminished.” 

The article continued, “This suggests either that the true benefit has
now been revealed and is indeed small, or that it is nonexistent, and
researchers believing they have detected such benefits have been
deluded by the confounding influences of... genetic variability;
socioeconomic status; obesity; level of physical exercise; intake of
alcohol, fruits and vegetables, or dairy products; or any number of
other factors.)” 

Harvard University researchers stated in January 2000 that “data do
not support a strong role for vitamin C in reducing risk of coronary
disease.” University of Colorado researchers reported in November
1999, “Evidence that supplementation with vitamin A or C reduces the
risk of coronary heart disease is inadequate.” 

Heart disease is complex. Lifestyle factors, including diet, may play
a role in some people. But scientific uncertainty abounds. The
evidence behind the AHA’s Food Certification Program is weak and
uncertain — just like evidence of the French paradox. Why then trumpet
the Program and disparage the paradox? 

Money and politics. 

The AHA sells its “heart check” logo to companies who want to sell
their food products by exploiting the AHA’s “good name.” For a
first-year fee of $7,500 per product and subsequent renewals priced at
$4,500 companies are permitted to market qualifying products as “heart
healthy.” Several hundred products now carry the heart-check logo. You
do the math. 

Florida citrus growers reportedly once paid the AHA $200,000 per year
for exclusive use the heart-check symbol on their juice products. Such
exclusivity is no longer available and the growers now pay about
“only” about $40,000 for using the logo. 

There’s gold in the AHA’s credibility. 

Even if the French paradox were true, wine makers would probably face
another barrier to the Food Certification Program: the requirement of
social responsibility. Political correctness is why General Mills’
Frosted Wheaties, but not Post’s Frosted Shredded Wheat, is
heart-healthy. The Post brands are owned by tobacco giant Philip
Morris, Inc. and tobacco company affiliates are barred from the Food
Certification Program. 

So here’s the drill for the AHA’s Food certification program: pass the
political correctness check, pony up a bank check and then get the
heart-check. Don’t worry that the science doesn’t check. 

The Food Certification Program deceives consumers by implying that
certain brands are proven to help prevent heart disease. Adding insult
to injury, consumers pay up for the more expensive brands that can
afford to dance with the AHA. Pricey Tropicana grapefruit juice is
“heart healthy” but supermarket bargain brand grapefruit juice isn’t? 

It’s swell that the AHA is cautioning the public about the unproven
French paradox. But the AHA should try some much-needed introspection.

Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the
Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com. 

This article can be found at:
http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn012601.htm