Banting v ADA 2017-Dalton Banting had diabetes, took prescribed meds, & after following the ADA diet he had a foot amputated. He sued the ADA for NOT recommending a low carb carb diet and won. At trial the ADA president was forced to read guidelines:
“Sucrose-containing foods can be substituted for other carbohydrates in the meal plan or, if added to the meal plan, covered with insulin or other glucose lowering medications.”
Jaggers (attorney for Banting): “Are there other diseases where patients are counseled to make things worse so that they can take more drugs”
Himsworth: “We only say ‘can be.’ We don’t necessarily recommend it. We do say that Care should be taken to avoid excess energy intake”
Himsworth: “We only say ‘can be.’ We don’t necessarily recommend it. We do say that Care should be taken to avoid excess energy intake”
It soon became apparent that Himsworth was in trouble. He was asked to read from the passage explaining the ADA’s opposition to low carbohydrate diets:
“Low-carbohydrate diets might seem to be a logical approach to lowering postprandial glucose. However, foods that contain carbohydrate are important sources of energy, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and are important in dietary palatability.”
Jaggers: “Important sources of energy? I thought we wanted to avoid excess energy,” and “would you say that taking a vitamin pill is in the same category as injecting insulin?”
The tipping point in the trial occurred when during the glucometer demonstration. Banting consumed a typical ADA meal & glucometer readings were projected on a screen for the jury, showing on this day so-called “spikes” in blood glucose.
The next day Banting consumed a low carbohydrate meal & the improved glucometer readings were again projected for the jury. Defense argued that one meal did not prove anything & that one had to look at the whole history of the lifestyle intervention
but was unable to show any evidence of harm from maintenance of low blood sugar despite testimony of several expert witnesses. In the end the jury agreed that common sense overrides expert testimony & Banting should have been offered the choice of a carbohydrate-restricted diet.
The final decision in Banting lead to numerous law suits. The ADA & other agencies changed their tactics claiming that they never were opposed to low carbohydrate diets & had been recommending them all along [4]. feinmantheother.com/tag/accord/
