« PreviousContinue »
Further, it appears that Dr. Risok initially urged the rovlev of the guidelines by the FDB because we la ARS recognise the Board us the ultimato source of national nutrition guider Bloes, wit (THB) represents the one toru of scientific opinion La the area of autrition which carries authority and credibility.' . Apparently, Dr. Risak nevar pavored in his opinion that the review could bast be done by the TNB, In his January 16, 1978 nemo to Administrator Bdoniaster, be says, *Intonation obtained from another source would not carry the authority and credibility of Loformation coming from TIB, the country's leading authority on dietary standards." Your packet of material does not contain any information as to way the views of Dr. Risak, a respected authority in his ova right, vant unbroded. What are those masons?
I would also point out that in his testimony before the Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and Wutrition Subcommitte. on June 18, 1980, Jamas Purnor, Chairman of the consumar Liaison Panel of the PNB, included a copy of a letter dated February 10, 1978, from Karan W. Seaton, Secretary of the Panol, to Dr. Nad D. Bayley, Statt Assistant to the Secretary, in which the panel's suggestions concerning mechanism for consumer lavolvement in an THB study of the Dietary Goals were set forth. Mr. Turner also referenced a letter of June 11, 1980, to Dr. Philip Handler in which 1. Turner indicated that la rabruary 1978 when Dsda vas considering avarding the contract to the rub. to review the Dietary Goals, the consumer Liaison Panol wrote to USDA officials noting that several FNB members had repeatedly expressed hostiilty toward the goals and urged that the contract be cancelled unless five criteria vero mat to ussure objectivity to the PNB', sotsoas. I nference these two lottars because they appear to indicate ther, an additional materials which should have been lacluded pursuant to my request.
I respectfully request that you make a further check of USDA records to determine if additional matarial, niglat be found.
Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1980. As a result of
611 Boston Avenue
Dr. Ned D. Bayley
Dear Dr. Bayley:
As per our phone conversation today, the Consumer Liaison Panel is pleased to send its suggestions concerning mechanisms for consumer involvement in a Food and Nutrition Board study of the Dictary Goals. These might be incorporated into a contract between the Board and U.S.D.A. to guarantee public participation in such a study. Our suggestions are based on the assumption that a steering committee and study panels will be organized; we have not had the opportunity to see the proposal. Here are examples of what we think a contract should include:
1. A provision for a broad representation of disciplines on study
panels such as food economics, epidemiology, public health
For every individual on the food and Nutrition Board who has taken a public position against the Goals, they should be balanced by the addition of another individual who has taken a position in favor of the Goals;
It should be assured that a consumer representative will be on the steering committee and each of the study panels;
4. There should be a provision for a minority report; and
At least one third of the members for the steering committee
of the Consumer Liaison Panel can be of further assistance, please let me know:
Kaun to Seaton
Karen W. Scaton
February 24, 1978
Ms. Karan N. Soaton
Doar Ms. Seaton:
ii I appreciated receiving the statemont regarding the suggostions for consumer involvomont in a study on Dictary Goals. Aftor careful consideration wo have decided to colay any further action on a possible contract with tho National Acauery of Sciences until we have been ablo to dovolop satisfactory mechanisms for colisupers to be involved in any deliborations the Department hay undertake regarding the Dietary Goals as well as other nutrition policies. Ne certainly appreciate your interest and initiative in bringing these suggestions to us.
NED D. BAYLEY
THE NEW YORK TIMES. MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1080
Fat, Cholesterol and Free Scientific Inquiry
To the Editor:
The vehement and emotional reac.
The board had the temerity to con-
A June 3 editorial condemned the
it has had the elfrontery lo disagree
Discovery of new scientific knowl.
It is a devastating commentary on
It is a responsibility of scientists to evaluate as critically as possible infor.
mation that may be used as the basis
In moments when I reflect on the
I hope that future Food and Nutri.
Departments of Biochemistry
and Nutritional Sciences
Madison, Wis., June 5, 1980