Advice on Eating Right

By Anastasia Toufexis

For years official nutritional advice in the U.S. was straightforward. Eat a balanced diet, Americans were told, chosen from the four major food groups (meat, fruits and vegetables, milk, and bread and cereal). No longer. Today a free-for-all of confusing directives and proscriptions bombards the public. Last week bewilderment was again stirred by two events: the release of a new set of federal dietary guidelines and the leak to the New York Times of a controversial working paper from the National Academy of Sciences proposing to lower the recommended dietary allowances, or RDAs, of some vitamins and minerals.

The dietary guidelines, issued jointly by the departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, are virtually identical to those offered five years ago. They urge eaters to reduce consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol and to limit intake of sugar and salt. Nutritionists and consumer groups applauded the reiteration, since the meat, dairy and sugar industries had been pushing for more relaxed standards. The recommendations stop short, however, of advocating a low-fat, high-fiber diet to protect against colon cancer, a regimen that has been endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The new guidelines note that a link has been suggested between cancer and diets low in fiber, but conclude, "Whether this is true or not is not yet known."

There is confusion and concern over the proposals of the National Academy panel to reduce the recommended dietary allowances of iron, magnesium and zinc as well as vitamins A, B6 and C. The suggestions are part of a regular updating of the four-decade-old RDA tables, and must still get past months of elaborate academy review. Little objection is likely to the panel's plan of raising the calcium level for women, many of whom suffer from a debilitating bone condition in later years. But the downward revisions seem to some experts to be at odds with recommendations from the National Cancer Institute and with a 1982 report from the academy itself urging Americans to eat more foods rich in vitamins A and C as a possible hedge against cancer. Others, however, insist that the reductions are soundly based on the latest scientific evidence and bring the U.S. into line with other countries. Many nutritionists point out that there is plenty of leeway in the RDA figures; even the proposed levels are established above the minimum needed to prevent nutritional deficiencies. Besides, RDAs are not formulated to help with therapy or to prevent disease, and the link between vitamins and cancer is still speculative.

Some critics are worried that lowered RDAs may be used by the Government to drop nutritional standards and justify further cuts in subsidies for the poor. The military, hospitals, nursing homes and prisons rely on the RDA tables in preparing menus. They are also the basis for the labeling of packaged foods. In addition, food stamps and school lunch programs are tied to the RDAs. Says Lynn Parker, senior nutritionist at the Food Research and Action Center in Washington: "The recommendations could have potentially devastating effects on federal food assistance programs." But the academy panel carefully dissociates itself from all such possible eventualities. "This is a scientific document," explains Pennsylvania State Nutritionist Helen Guthrie, a member of the panel. "How the policymakers use it we can't control."

CHART: TEXT NOT AVAILABLE.

With reporting by Patricia Delaney/Washington