Nina’s update:
The good news to announce today is that on Friday, The BMJ announced that it is not retracting the article I wrote critiquing the science behind the Dietary Guidelines. The BMJ stood strongly by the article, including this comment by BMJ Editor-in-Chief, Fiona Godlee: “We stand by Teicholz’s article with its important critique of the advisory committee’s processes for reviewing the evidence, and we echo her conclusion: ‘Given the ever increasing toll of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, and the failure of existing strategies to make inroads in fighting these diseases, there is an urgent need to provide nutritional advice based on sound science.’”
The retraction request was written by the DC-based advocacy group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which then organized 180+ scientists to sign on—truly one of the biggest-ever retraction efforts in recent history. (CSPI was also the group that earlier this year maneuvered my dis-invitation from that National Food Policy Conference panel, an issue for which many of you signed a petition :)--though sadly, I was not re-invited.)
What was so dangerous in my article that it needed to be deleted from the scientific record? Its main findings--which have now been thrice peer-reviewed and confirmed as correct--are that:
• the expert report on which the Dietary Guidelines are based is comprised of non-rigorous reviews of the science;
• the majority of rigorous clinical trial science has been ignored (and has been for decades);
• reviews on key issues—including saturated fat and the low-carbohydrate diet—were not properly conducted;
• the government-recommended diets are based on only a “minuscule amount of rigorous data that these diets can prevent diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.”
• in particular, the newly introduced "vegetarian diet," is based on evidence that the expert report itself judges to be "inconclusive," which is the lowest grade assigned to available evidence.
Other findings from the article are listed in my comment published in The BMJ. Thus, despite enormous scrutiny, the article stands, and it provides vital information for how we might better fight the diseases that cripple our nation.
Obviously it feels great not to have this hanging over my head any longer.
Here is a good round-up of the story
http://foodmed.net/2016/12/04/victory-teicholz-battle-of-butter-bmj/ <http://foodmed.net/2016/12/04/victory-teicholz-battle-of-butter-bmj/>
http://acsh.org/news/2016/12/05/how-cspi-undermines-science-nutrition-and-us-dietary-guidelines-10540 <http://acsh.org/news/2016/12/05/how-cspi-undermines-science-nutrition-and-us-dietary-guidelines-10540>
And here is a commentary on CSPI's approach to the science:
http://acsh.org/news/2016/12/05/how-cspi-undermines-science-nutrition-and-us-dietary-guidelines-10540 <http://acsh.org/news/2016/12/05/how-cspi-undermines-science-nutrition-and-us-dietary-guidelines-10540>
The link to this release is here:
http://www.bmj.com/company/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/the-bmj-US-dietary-correction.pdf <http://www.bmj.com/company/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/the-bmj-US-dietary-correction.pdf>
Independent experts find no grounds for retraction of The BMJ article on dietary guidelines
• Formal reviews reject calls for retraction led by Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
• Reviewers say criticisms of methods used by the guidelines committee “are within the realm of scientific debate,” and merit “further investigation of the composition of the committee”
• The BMJ is publishing a notice of correction and clarification
• Journal stands by the article and will continue to provide a forum for debate on the science and politics of nutrition
Professor Bero concluded: “Teicholz’s criticisms of the methods used by DGAC are within the realm of scientific debate” and Professor Helfand said that “it is clear that further investigation of the composition of the committee, as well as its conflict of interest policies and work group structure, are warranted.”
The problems noted by the reviewers included the committee’s methods being out of date and lacking sufficient detail, which could have introduced bias.
Dr Fiona Godlee, The BMJ’s Editor in chief said: “We stand by Teicholz’s article with its important critique of the advisory committee’s processes for reviewing the evidence, and we echo her conclusion: ‘Given the ever increasing toll of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, and the failure of existing strategies to make inroads in fighting these diseases, there is an urgent need to provide nutritional advice based on sound science.’”
She added: “Neither Teicholz nor The BMJ are new to criticism. Healthcare is rife with controversy and the field of nutrition more so than many, characterised as it is by much weak science, polarised opinion, and powerful commercial interests.
But nutrition is perhaps one of the most important and neglected of all health disciplines, traditionally relegated to non-medical nutritionists rather than being, as we believe it deserves to be, a central part of medical training and practice.
The BMJ plans to continue to provide a forum for debate on the science and politics of food; for example, we are collaborating with researchers from Tufts University in Massachusetts and the University of Cambridge on a series of articles examining the science and politics of food, which is due to be published next year.”
Nina Teicholz commented: “I am very grateful to The BMJ editors for their profound commitment to verifying the facts of my article and for their professionalism and integrity throughout this process. I am also grateful that they are providing a space for rigorous scientific debate, especially on a subject so important to public health. I hope the original intention of that article can now be fulfilled—to help improve nutritional advice, so that it is based on rigorous science. This will help us to better combat nutrition- related diseases that have caused so much human suffering around the world."
Letter from CPSI:
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962/rr-36 <http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962/rr-36>
Response by Fiona Godlee:
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962/rr-48 <http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962/rr-48>
Response by Nina Teicholz:
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962/rr-49 <http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962/rr-49>
Copyright © 2016 Nina Teicholz, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because it was suggested that you might be interested in updates on Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.
Our mailing address is:
Nina Teicholz
c/o Simon & Schuster Publicity Department | Simon & Schuster, Inc.
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
|
