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
Ranking Minority Member

Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1980. As a result of
your letter, we have researched our files and have located the
correspondence between Ms. Karen Seaton and Dr. Ned Bayley to
which you referred. We will continue to look for any additional
correspondence related to this matter as we review the events of
late 1977 and early 1978, and if any are uncovered, we will,
of course, immediately send them to you.

Dr. Ned D. Bayley

Staff Assistant

611 Boston Avenue

Takoma Park, Maryland 20012
February 10, 1978

Office of the Secretary

Administration Building, Room 307A

United States Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250

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
and study panels should be selected from a list approved by the
Consumer Liaison Panel.

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
tion of the editorial staff of The New
York Times to the publication "To-
ward Healthful Diets," which was
released last week by the Food and
Nutrition Board of the National Re-
search Council/National Academy of
Sciences, verges on the hysterical.

The board had the temerity to con-
clude that, because the scientific evi-
dence was inadequate, it could not pro-
pose a general recommendation con-
cerning consumption of cholesterol for
the U.S. population as a whole. Both
the American Medical Association and
the Canadian Health Protection
Branch reached this conclusion three
years ago. The board also concluded
that it was inappropriate to make a
general recommendation concerning
fat consumption for the public at
large. It suggested instead that recom-
'mendations with regard to fat con-
sumption should be made specifically
for different age and population
groups.

A June 3 editorial condemned the
board for not endorsing the view that a
recommendation to reduce consump
tion of cholesterol and fat is an appro-
priate public policy action for lowering
the incidence of chronic degenerative
-diseases. Has the board been sub-
jected to this coercive attack because

it has had the effrontery to disagree
with the established opinions of the
editors? Are we to assume that The
Times does not condone differences of
scientific opinion?

Discovery of new scientific knowl.
edge depends upon the freedom of
scientists to evaluate as critically as
possible the assumptions and conclu.
sions of their colleagues. This is the es-
sence of the scientific method. Efforts
have been made in the past to curtail
this freedom when scientific findings
have not conformed with widely ac
cepted beliefs or established policies.
Progress in genetics was severely re-
tarded in the U.S.S.R. when scientific
findings were expected to support
political philosophy and research
funds were distributed in such a way
as to accomplish this objective.

It is a devastating commentary on
the attitude toward freedom of scien-
tific inquiry in this country when an
assessment of nutrition information is
condemned by a major newspaper be-
cause it does not conform with recom.
mendations made by other groups. Im-
pugning by innuendo the integrity of
some Food and Nutrition Board mem-
bers is an equally devastating com-
mentary on attitudes toward freedom
of inquiry and freedom of expression.)

It is a responsibility of scientists to evaluate as critically as possible infor

mation that may be used as the basis
for establishing public policy, regard-
less of the coercion that may be ex-
erted to inhibit such efforts. It is a re
sponsibility of the communications
media to provide the public with as ob-
jective and unbiased an analysis of the
news as is possible.

In moments when I reflect on the
emotional and vituperative reaction to
the board's report, I recall that after
the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands
in World War II the Dutch Medical As
sociation was asked to add only a few
words to the oath required of physi-
cians: Their obligation to "restore the
individual to health" was to become an
obligation to "restore the individual to
health and the ability to work." "They
recognized the implications of this re-
quest and that acceptance of it would
destroy their integrity. They refused
and were persecuted.

I hope that future Food and Nutri-
tion Boards will resist efforts to coerce
them into conformity and will stand
firm against attacks on their integrity
by powerful representatives of the
press. (Prof.) ALFRED E, HARPER
Departments of Biochemistry
and Nutritional Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Madison
.Madison, Wis., June 5,1980
The writer is chairman of the Food
and Nutrition Board.