The US government has spent a quarter century and
countless millions of dollars promoting a low-fat, high-grain diet as
the optimal model for health and nutrition.  But a growing number of
health experts assert that the USDA Food Guide Pyramid is unhealthy, and
based more on industry influence than actual science.

"Americans' diets have gone from bad to worse over the past 25 years,
and the USDA Food Pyramid is largely to blame," says Michael R. Eades,
MD, a leading nutrition expert.  "Given the lack of study behind this
formula and the food industry's role in how it came to be, perhaps a
better term would be the USDA Pyramid Scheme."

In 1977, the US Senate's McGovern Select Committee recommended Americans cut
their fat consumption and eat even more grain.  This decision was based on
testimony from scientists, many of whom had strong ties to major US food
producers, who stood to gain if Americans followed this advice.  Despite
sound scientific evidence to the contrary and documentation of the food
industry's role in biased research, the committee issued its mandate; eat
less fat and more grains.  This formula has been in effect ever since,
reflected in the well-known, well-promoted visual aid known as the USDA Food
Guide Pyramid.

"The results have been devastating," says Mary Dan Eades, MD, who, with
Michael Eades co-authored the New York Times bestseller Protein Power and
the Eades' newest book, Protein Power Lifeplan.  "American fat consumption
is now at its all-time low.  But over the last decade, obesity has increased
by 30%, pediatric obesity has doubled and type II diabetes is up nearly
twelve-fold.  By cutting their fat intake and eating more grain, Americans
have only gotten fatter."

Three out of four people suffer hyperinsulinemia to one degree or
another.  In laymen's terms, this means the body produces excess insulin in
response to high blood sugar.

Bread, rice, pasta and cereal, the foundation of the USDA Food Pyramid, turn
to sugar in the bloodstream.  Consistent excess insulin leads to obesity,
type II diabetes, heart disease and other weight-related illnesses.

The Centers for Disease Control released the latest figures on diabetes just
last week, referring to it as an "epidemic" with the potential for
overwhelming health care costs.

Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades are among a growing number of health
professionals putting into practice a new field of scientific research
called "paleolithic nutrition" - the diet of early humans.  For 2.7
million years, humans ate a meat-based diet including little, if any,
grain.  Evidence shows that obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other
weight-related illnesses did not occur until after the Agricultural
Revolution, at which time humans switched to a grain-based diet.  These
diseases are virtually non-existent among the world's remaining
hunter-gatherer societies.

"The reason is simple," according to Michael Eades.  "Meat, fruits and
vegetables are what humans were designed to eat.  Reams of published
research are out there, both on the benefits of meat and the problems
with grain."  Eades adds, "If Uncle Sam were to recommend we switch to a
meat-based diet, he'd be biting the hand that feeds him.  The food
industry's number one customer is the federal government."

A significant recent example of industry influence can be found in the
2000 US Dietary Guidelines.  Citing ties between sugar and obesity, USDA
scientists recommended the Guidelines encourage Americans to "limit" their
intake of sugars, calling the 1995 recommendation -"Choose a diet moderate
in sugar" - too vague.  Initially, the new recommendation was approved.  But
after major pressure from sugar interests and 30 US Senators, most of whom
represented sugar producing states, the USDA acquiesced and, two months
later, the word "limit" was changed back to "moderate".

Last year's sugar controversy is not the first time the US government
has rejected advice from its own experts.  In 1999, two FDA research
scientists tried to prevent that agency from issuing a health claim
regarding soy.  The researchers cited 28 studies documenting the ill
effects of soy, including an increased risk of breast cancer in women,
decreased brain function in men and developmental abnormalities in
infants.   Despite this somber warning, the FDA went on to issue a
health claim stating that soy "may reduce the risk of heart disease".
This health claim on soy came after a decade-long marketing campaign by
major soy producers.  Food products "low in saturated fat and
cholesterol" and containing just 6.25 grams of soy protein - just over
one teaspoon - may cite this health claim on the label.

In addition, the USDA has lifted the limit on soy in federally
subsidized school lunches in yet another effort to cut fat consumption.

"If you replace meat with soy, you may cut kids' fat intake," says Mary Dan
Eades.  "The problem is, you'll also reduce their protein, iron and zinc
intake.  Protein is an absolute necessity for growing bodies, fat is
essential for brain development, and zinc is referred to as "the
intelligence mineral".  Without it, brain function is reduced," she added.

Experts are also concerned about the USDA's upcoming test on popular
weight loss diets.

"The January 11 public hearing on this test says it all," Michael Eades
says.  "Despite the fact that researchers will be looking at the
benefits of both low-fat and low-carb diets, not one low-carb diet
expert was invited to speak at the hearing.  Uncle Sam's bias is already
showing and the study has yet to begin."

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has already begun work on a
similar study.  On January 8, 2001, the US Surgeon General announced a
yearlong effort to develop a national action plan to help Americans
reduce excess weight, obesity and diabetes.  Various other government
agencies are promoting weight loss campaigns, as well.  All federal
agencies use the Food Pyramid as their guide and are required by US law to
do so.

Both government officials and mainstream health experts continue to
assert that a diet low in saturated fat and high in complex
carbohydrates can help some people lower their cholesterol and risk of
heart disease.  Again, the Eades challenge conventional wisdom.

Mike Eades notes that studies "too numerous to mention" show that while a
low-fat, starch-based diet may lower a person's overall cholesterol level,
they usually also lower the good HDL cholesterol level and raise
triglycerides, actually increasing cardiovascular risk.

"In addition," says Mary Dan Eades, "a growing body of scientific
evidence shows that elevated blood sugar, even within the 'normal'
range, presents a greater risk for coronary heart disease and early
death than cholesterol levels."

The Eades are taking their case to Washington, DC, having just sent a
formal letter of concern to the USDA.

"The food industry is using the federal government to push an unhealthy diet
on the country and Americans are paying the price," says Michael Eades.
"It's a war between profits and health, and 280 million Americans seem to be
outnumbered."