Newsgroups: rec.food.veg From: taltar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Altar) Subject: Brief history of the Basic 4 Message-ID: Sender: news@sfu.ca (seymour news) Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 19:09:39 GMT Lines: 253 POLITICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SO-CALLED "BASIC 4" "THE BASIC TWELVE" The Bureau Of Home Economics in 1923 was the first government agency -- as part of the Department Of Agriculture -- to be given the responsibility of addressing question of human nutrition in the U.S. They came up with a set of diet plans centered around 12 food groupings known as the BASIC TWELVE. For instance, beans, green vegetables, yellow vegetables, and fruits constituted their own separate food groups. Four diet plans in accordance with income were created around this classification of the 12 basic food groups. For instance, low income individuals were to adopt the diet plans in which peas, beans and nuts were be their major source of protein. Those who could afford it were to use the other diet plans. Note how an implicit imputation is here being made that the better or more "preferred" diet plans involved animal products as these were the diets of choice for the wealthier strata. These guidelines were well-intentioned but already a certain social endorsement of particular patterns of consumption are being bootlegged. In 1930 the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) promoted the concept of there being 12 food groups, the "BASIC TWELVE". The idea was that we should choose at least something from each of these food groups to buy and eat. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council announced its formulation of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) in 1941, which was the first comprehensive set of standards forwarded by the U.S. government. This gave further credence to the idea of "essential food groups" "THE BASIC SEVEN" Since it was thought that the public could not remember the Basic Twelve, the number was reduced to 7 in 1944. Were people really that incapable or is this an example of a somewhat patronizing regard towards the individual consumer and the informed citizen? In any case, the BASIC SEVEN included: 1. leafy green & yellow vegetables 2. citrus fruits 3 potatoes & other vegetables 4. milk & milk products 5. meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dried beans, and peanuts. 6. cereals, bread, and flours 7 butter and margarine. The idea of the BASIC SEVEN was introduced in the schools via the so-called "THE WHEEL OF GOOD EATING". The intent was to help ensure that children would receive an adequate diet, and was justified by being seen as a long-term investment in the establishment of "better" food consumption patterns. The USDA published a series of pamphlets promoting these guidelines and in a relatively short period of time this particular government agency became the leading source of nutritional information in the country. Notwithstanding what would later become clear conflicts in the dual mandates of this department to promote agribusiness and ensure adequate nutrition of the populace, this one agency somehow obtained the image of being strictly objective in its recommendations. During the 1940's some rat growth studies helped to give further support to the idea that animal foods, especially eggs, contained the only "ideal" protein. The National Egg Board was actually very vigorous in promoting this misleading notion. Not to be outdone, the Dairy Council and the National Livestock and Meat Board began their own campaigns promoting the "superior" benefits of their foods. Thus was inaugurated what we now recognize as a scandalous "protein myth". "THE BASIC FOUR" After WWII, cheap fuel, new heavy machinery, and so-called "favourable-interest" financing gave impetus for immense tracts of forests and fields being plowed. The predictable result was a wasteful surplus of food. Rather than consider returning the land to forests, marshlands and open fields, people only scratched their heads on how to get people to consume what they didn't really need. Supposedly to again simplify the Basic Seven (which people had no trouble remembering), the U.S.D.A. created the now hallowed "BASIC FOUR" in 1956. It was clearly an blatant attempt to promote an increased consumption of food surpluses by way of the wasteful conversion of plant foods into meat and dairy products. Unfortunate to the general health of the nation, this political reclassification worked very well and meat consumption by the 1960's had doubled to what it was in the 1950's. Now here was a scheme, the so-called BASIC FOUR, that took little mental effort to follow and was teachable to even grade one children! Naturally, it was well-received by the industry promoting animal products since now their foods comprise ONE-HALF of the "essential" food groups. While vegetable protein sources were supposedly included in the meat category, there were considered second best and most often not even mentioned at all. Note also that fruits and vegetable decreased from constituting 5 of the 12 food groups to 3 of the seven food groups to now only 1 of the food groups in the BASIC FOUR. It is quite evident what this must suggest about the relative importance of these foods. HAPPY RELATIONSHIPS AND NDC At this time even closer relationships developed between nutritional scientists and industry. For example, through a better understanding of the farm animal's nutritional needs, farmers could increase productivity and profit. The food industry therefore showed an increased willingness to support and fund research scientists and in turn nutritional scientists developed research programs and schools to meet this interest and to train scientists for the expanding employment opportunities in the food industries.. An earlier example of this kind of happy working relationship between nutritional science and industry is maybe exemplified by Elmer McCollum, who grew up on a farm. His scientific work on vitamin A in the early 1900's included finding that it supported growth for the laboratory rat and was a factor that prevented xerophthalmia and night blindness in the rat. Found to be presence in cows milk, butter and eggs, McCollum later was prompted to designate these foods as "protective foods", a concept that became common coin before it was understood that vegetables also meet our needs for vitamin A via plant carotenoids. The industry, however, promoted McCollum's term and hyperbolized it one further by calling cow's milk a "wonder food", a term that is still around even today. McCollum worked to encourage diary farmers to fund nutritional educational programs, as he sincerely wished to improve the public health and also to help farmers. There was no area of conflict between the two in his mind, nor was there any reason at that time to think that there would be. In 1915 dairy farmers agreed to institute McCollum's advice and they set up the NATIONAL DIARY COUNCIL (NDC). On further prompting by McCollum, the NDC expanded its agenda and began funding university research in 1941. The NDC was well received by nutritionists and teachers who appreciated the free or subsidized educational materials. The NCE was also well received by parents who saw the NDC was helping to improve the health of their children. Thus, the relationship between farmers and researchers was strong and the public saw no conflict in this kind of close relationship. In 1949 the US government in turn also established a closer relationship with these farmers by adopting price supports. Dairy farmers by this program were guaranteed a minimum return for all milk products they produced, either by paying farmers directly or by purchasing the leftover products. The USDA chose to buy "surpluses" which it distributed to schools, prisons and the military or however else it saw fit. Everyone was happy! Well, like all happiness, such states are only temporary. It did last at least up to until the mid-1950's when studies began to show some negative aspects of these "wonder foods". The first bad news pertained to the relationship between increased blood cholesterol and dairy fat and that blood cholesterol levels were associated with increased risk of CHD. No longer was nutritional science merely the study of the "good things" in food and no longer could the National Dairy Council be deemed an objective resource in promoting the nutritional value of dairy foods. Yet, even today the National Dairy Council remains the number one supplier of "nutritional information" in the country. And the USDA is still remaining true to its original mandate to promote agribusiness while still seeing no inherent conflict between this mandate and that of promoting the best nutrition of the nation. Really, these mandates should be embodied in separate government agencies. What do you think? SUMMARY: The "basic four" is NOT a scientific grouping of foods. It was thought to be a nutritionally rationalized *rule of thumb* that would be convenient for the larger populace. Note that some social-political concerns were behind the rationale of the "Basic Four", a key concern being to help promote some new consumption patterns in accordance with the new production capacity of the American food industry. Guess who supplied free of charge all those colourful "Basic Four" food charts that were found in all our schools? Look at the small print at the bottom and you will soon see whose interests are being promoted. It is not the NAS but the meat and diary industries that funded those charts. Why them and not the fruit and grain farmers? In light of the scientific/medical evidence that was available even in the mid-1950's, the "Basic Four" CANNOT be said to have been designed strictly for the fostering of our better health, completely free of any social or political consideration. This should not be surprising nor do we need to attribute conscious motives to deceive. The curious existence of the hallowed BASIC FOUR is best explained by a confluence of various interests -- scientific, political, commercial -- which were at the time not seen as incompatible. Of course, many if not all the people at the time had the best of intentions and good will. That is not being questioned, nor does it preclude that people were acting to promote a certain social practice which in hindsight can now be seen as politically inspired rather than simply scientifically rationalized. Even pure science will reflect to some degree the larger society that in turn determines the funding and support of the research projects of its scientists. Many good books on the sociology of science and knowledge have well-documented this now obvious fact. Even philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have made this point. Applied sciences, like "nutritional science", are even more responsive to, or influenced by, the larger society and the many interests that compete in the larger society. Nothing mysterious or conspiratorial about this. What we have here is merely an institutional analysis of how certain vested interests are well served in our polity. Unfortunately, we are encourage to be uninformed or to simply ignore such an institutional analysis of our social policies and practices. I'll leave it to the good reader to consider how the recent update of the "Basic Four" into the improved "Food Pyramid" may be still serving to some extent these vested interests just as did the "Basic Four". Permit me to humbly suggest that the so called "Food Pyramid" would be greatly improved by simply pruning off the top 2 tiers to produce a more stable and substantial "Vegetarian Food Trapeziform" ;-) REFERENCES: Haughton et al. (1987). "A historical study on the underlying assumptions for United States Food Guides from 1917 through the Basic Four Food Group Guide" J. OF NUTR. EDUCATION, 19(4):169 Klaper, Michael (1987). "VEGAN NUTRITION: PURE AND SIMPLE". Regards, ted