I did not mean to imply the USDA is an evil Grendal
like creature whose intent is to mislead in misinform.
 The USDA does provide good information on such things
like minerals, vitamins, antioxidants, phytochemicals
and so on and so on.  I think the USDA is very careful
and does not jump on a band wagon either.  They are
not suddenly going to say, oopps sorry we've had it
wrong all these years.  More than half of the research
done has been focused on low fat/high carb nutrition
and thus never really addressed the high fat/protien
questions and possibilities.  They were looking for a
better way.  They found it, albeit temporarily, with
low fat.  The USDA is going to go with the
conservative greater body of knowledge that is
currently available.

-kb.

--- Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I forgot to change the subject on my last post.
> Sorry.
>
> > The
> > fact that
> > the USDA supports the food pyramid is not in
> itself
> > a good reason
> > to believe that their nutritional analysis data
> are
> > wrong.
>
> I agree with Todd. Since the "good/bad fat" issue is
> fairly recent, there's no reason to assume they
> would
> lie about the numbers to support any kind of agenda.
> However, if someone could find an "old" table (more
> than say - 5 or 10 years old?) that had noticeably
> different numbers, then some kind of conspiracy
> might
> be assumed.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in
> one place.
> Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
>


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com