Thread by @ahhite

What? I'm not sure where you are getting your information from or what Americans you hang out with when you visit, but I don't know anyone who fits this description. Thread.

https://twitter.com/Edival/status/1325592107831103489

I've been trying to avoid going here, but here I go.

The desire to tell other people how to eat, because you are convinced - for some reason - that people do not "care" about their health & therefore "WE" (whoever "we" is) must tell them how to eat 1/n

is EXACTLY how we got into this mess in the 1st place.

It's not my job, your job, or anyone's job to "fix" the lives of people who live in a way that we disapprove of or dislike when they have not asked us for help.

That's how we got dietary guidelines in the first place. 2/n

The perspective that people "need" dietary guidelines is anchored by 3 assumptions:
1) We *know* how diet is related to chronic disease.
2) We can *control* chronic disease outcomes by "eating right."
3) We thus have a moral obligation to "eat right." 3/n

To that I would add that you seem to think we have a moral obligation to prevent other people from making their own decisions about how they want to live. I would say that this too, is part of the mindset that brought us dietary guidelines in the first place. 4/n

When the project is to control other people's behaviors, "the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct."

And proof is sorely lacking. 5/n

We do not know what causes or prevents chronic disease. Period. You might think you do. You might think its "common sense" that the foods you eat are "right" and the foods these "other" people eat are "wrong," but there is no long-term proof of this. 6/n

We may think "obesity causes chronic disease" and "obesity is 100% under an individual's control" but you don't know that either. 7/n

Under such circumstances, attempts to control the eating habits of others is not only likely to be futile, it is without a doubt unethical.

Let's look at the risks and the unintended consequences that have arisen from this mindset: 8/n

1) One of the risks is creation of a population of “worried well,” whose attention is focused on preventing illness, rather than enjoying the health they have. 9/n

2) Another risk is the evaluation of anyone whose health or body size seems to indicate violations of the dietary-moral code as somehow inferior or abnormal. 10/n

3) Another risk is (as Mayes and Thompson, 2015, call it) the promotion of “nutritional scientism,” an appeal to nutrition science in order to justify cultural or ideological views about food and health 11/n

4) Another risk is the reinforcement of a "narrative of blame." People who develop chronic disease have brought it upon themselves (a similar narrative is employed with regard to poverty). 12/n

5) Other risks are those of unintended consequences: Those Mountain Dew drinkers may decide to drink alcohol instead. Food manufacturers may create even *worse* amalgams of garbage that can manipulated to fit a new definition of "healthy." 13/n

In the end, the creation of "dietary guidance" for the public is a matter of politics, power, and privilege - and the ethical burden for the outcomes of such recommendations will lie with those who insist that the public needs them. 14/n

Do you feel confident that we need such guidance, even as you admit you don't know what it should be? If determined, would you be willing to be responsible for its outcomes?

Bottom line: I've not noticed anyone begging to be told how to eat. 15/n