zlacker

This could certainly be fantastic, and very good advice. Or it could be a lot of bunk, I don't know. Given the source (i.e., RFK), I refuse to trust it.

The point of guidance like this is to be trustworthy and authoritative. If I have the ability to independently evaluate it myself, then I didn't really need it in the first place.

Of course, I might be mistaken to have ever trusted the government's nutrition guidance. It's not like undue influence from industry lobbying is unique to this administration.

>>impend+(OP)
>> If I have the ability to independently evaluate it myself, then I didn't really need it in the first place.

At what point in time was the government's guidance ever to be accepted on blind faith without critical evaluation? Take this input, compare with data on the same topic from other positions that are far from the source and make up your own mind.

>>skeete+fo
Many places, many times.

Trust in institutions is fundamental to a society that is goof to live in.

USAnian institutions are particularly corrupt, all the way to the very top. It is not like that everywhere

>>skeete+fo
If the government's guidance isn't to be at least mostly trusted, then I'm not sure the government should be offering guidance at all. (Which is perhaps a sensible position in itself.)

In other words, if I learn enough about nutrition to be able to critically evaluate the government's guidance, then is that guidance adding any additional signal? At that point, I should just rely on my sources about nutrition.

I've never been one to rely on official guidance blindly. For example I don't show up to the airport two hours early, and cheerfully laugh at advice that I should. But I'd like to believe that this guidance is better than total nonsense.