Further, it appears that Dr. Rizak initially urged the review of the guidelines by the FMB because "we in ARS recognize the Board as the ultimate source of national nutrition guidelines, as it (FNB) represents the one forum of scientific opinion in the area of nutrition which carries authority and credibility." Apparently, Dr. Risek never wavered in his opinion that the review could best be done by the FHB. In his January 16, 1978 memo to Administrator Edminster, he says, "Information obtained from another source would not carry the authority and credibility of information coming from FMB, the country's leading authority on dietary standards." Your packet of material does not contain any information as to why the views of Dr. Rizek, a respected authority in his own right, went unheeded. What are those reasons? I would also point out that in his testimony before the Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and Nutrition Subcommittee on June 18, 1980, James Turner, Chairman of the Consumer Liaison Panel of the FNB, included a copy of a letter dated February 10, 1978, from Karen W. Seaton, Secretary of the Panel, to Dr. Ned D. Bayley, Staff Assistant to the Secretary, in which the Panel's suggestions concerning mechanisms for consumer involvement in an FNB study of the Dietary Goals were set forth. Mr. Turner also referenced a letter of June 11, 1980, to Dr. Philip Handler in which Mr. Turner indicated that in February 1978 when USDA was considering awarding the contract to the FB.to review the Dietary Goals, the Consumer Liaison Panel wrote to USDA officials noting that several FNB members had repeatedly expressed hostility toward the Goals and urged that the contract be cancelled unless five criteria were met to assure objectivity in the FNB's actions. I reference these two letters because they appear to indicate there are additional materials which should have been included pursuant to my request. I respectfully request that you make a further check of USDA records to determine if additional materials might be found. Sincerely, WCW:mjc William C. Wampler Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1980. As a result of Dr. Ned D. Bayley Staff Assistant 611 Boston Avenue Takoma Park, Maryland 20012 Office of the Secretary Administration Building, Room 307A United States Department of Agriculture 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. 2. 3. A provision for a broad representation of disciplines on study panels such as food economics, epidemiology, public health nutrition, and nutrition anthropology; 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 5. At least one third of the members for the steering committee If the Consumer Liaison Panel can be of further assistance, please let me know: Sincerely, Karen WV Seaton Karen W. Seaton Secretary Consumer Liaison Panel I appreciated receiving the statement regarding the suggestions for consumer involvement in a study on Dietary Goals. After careful consideration we have decided to delay any further action on a possible contract with tho National Academy of Sciences until we have been able to develop satisfactory mechanisms for consumers to be involved in any deliberations the Department may undertake regarding the Dietary Goals as well as other nutrition policies. We certainly appreciate your interest and initiative in bringing these suggestions to us. О Letters THE NEW YORK TIMES, MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1980 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 effrontery to 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- |