In 2005 the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published "The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet." It was an instant best seller outselling even Harry Potter in Australian bookstores that year.

The CSIRO claimed that the book was the product of years of research into diet and its effects on wellness. In other words, unlike other diet books, the CSIRO book was EVIDENCE-BASED and, therefore, reliable.

The book was controversial because it recommended people eat 1 Kg of meat per week. I am not a vegetarian. I love meat. But even I don't eat a kilo of the stuff a week.

It transpires that some of the research underpinning the book was financed by meat industry sources. This does not mean the research was wrong or corrupted; but it does raise questions.

One vehement critic of the book was Doctor Rosemary Stanton, OAM, a nutritionist at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. She went so far as to write a letter to John Howard warning of the dangers to the Australian populace should they follow the advice in the CSIRO book.

Dr. Stanton is herself the author of a number of books on nutrition and diet which she claims are also evidence-based and which deprecate meat consumption. To state the obvious, Dr Stanton has a financial incentive to discredit the CSIRO book.

The controversy was discussed on ABC "7:30 Report." See:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1545186.htm

Here is a link to the CSIRO research which underpins the book.

http://www.csiro.au/science/ps2gg.html

And here is a link to Dr. Stanton's AIHW home page.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/eventsdiary/ah04/speakers_rosemary_stanton.cfm

The CSIRO book was subsequently criticised in an editorial in the journal, Nature. The authors of the critique claimed, in essence, that the CSIRO research methodology was flawed.

The substance of Dr. Stanton's critique may be found in this article in The Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-diet-thin-on-science/2005/08/28/1125167551089.html

I know of know way in which a lay-person can make a rational EVIDENCE-BASED decision between the CSIRO and its critics.

How do lay-people decide on complex scientific issues when there are so many vested interested all pulling in opposite directions?

I have no answer, but it's an excellent question.

Dear Steven,

'How do lay people decide when
scientists differ?'

I can only speak for myself.
I go to an expert I can trust,
and ask their opinion.

Or, depending on what it is,
I use my common sense.

Anything to do with my health and/or
dieting, it would be my GP.

I don't follow fads.
No matter who recommends them.

I agree that objective answers are often difficult to find. But that's where I think that we are far luckier than we have ever been before, in having the Internet at our disposal. Even those who can't own one can access one at libraries etc.

When it comes to things that impact personally upon us, such as medicine or nutrition we are now able to access studies, clinical trials, opinions, recieved wisdom, theses, medical papers etc. in an way we never could before.

Of course, no-one can make up our minds for us, but at least we can make more educated assessments than we ever could before.

Once we've done that, then I think we should trust our common sense a lot more than many of us do. If for example, we feel that a kilo of meat is too much, and we know for certain that people in other countries who do not consume as much meat as Australians or South Africans, are fit and healthy, then we should have confidence in drawing our own conclusions from this. "Miracle" cures seldom are. And "revolutions" in nutrition surely would only be applicable if there had been revolutions in the development of the human digestive system?

As has been pointed out on other threads - science is not infallible and we know this. So I think dependence upon "experts" has to be tempered by a bit of savvy and our own (unscientific) "gut" feeling.

But most of all, keeping an open mind is probably our best bet in all these issues. People who wholeheartedly embrace "new" diets, medications etc. with the fervour of the recently converted are often shown after the passage of time, to have been duped. And, in the process their health may have been compromised.

Yeah, I also agree life would be so much easier if we could know for certain what the absolute truth about something is. But at least an educated guess is better than a total stab in the dark.

I agree that objective answers are often difficult to find. But that's where I think that we are far luckier than we have ever been before, in having the Internet at our disposal. Even those who can't own one can access one at libraries etc.

When it comes to things that impact personally upon us, such as medicine or nutrition we are now able to access studies, clinical trials, opinions, recieved wisdom, theses, medical papers etc. Of course, no-one can make up our minds for us, but at least we can make more educated assessments than we ever could before.

Once we've done that, then I think we should trust our common sense a lot more than many of us do. If for example, we feel that a kilo of meat is too much, and we know for certain that people in other countries who do not consume as much meat as Australians or South Africans, are fit and healthy, then we should have confidence in drawing our own conclusions from this. "Miracle" cures seldom are. And "revolutions" in nutrition surely would only be applicable if there had been revolutions in the development of the human digestive system?

As has been pointed out on other threads - science is not infallible and we know this. So I think dependence upon "experts" has to be tempered by a bit of savvy and our own (unscientific) "gut" feeling.

But most of all, keeping an open mind is probably our best bet in all these issues. People who wholeheartedly embrace "new" diets, medications etc. with the fervour of the recently converted are often shown after the passage of time, to have been duped. And, in the process their health may have been compromised.

Yeah, I also agree life would be so much easier if we could know for certain what the absolute truth about something is. But at least an educated guess is better than a total stab in the dark.

Foxy,

The trouble is we have two groups of "experts" with different views. Both groups have impeccable credentials. The CSIRO is one of the most respected research organisations in the WORLD. Their book cannot be dismissed as a "fad diet" on the mere say so of one nutritionist.

On the other hand the journal, Nature, is the most respected scientific publication in the world and Dr. Stanton's credentials are also impressive.

There is no easy way, even for an "expert," to choose between the two groups.

You say you would trust your GP but how would he in turn know which group of experts to trust? GP's are not omniscient.

For that matter how would you know whether your GP has kept up with developments in his field since leaving medical school? If he qualified more than 20 years ago it is likely that much of what he learned is obsolete.

What I find missing from the CSIRO book is the role of EXERCISE in controlling weight. I once suggested to my GP that any weight loss program that failed to include an exercise component was doomed to fail. He wholeheartedly agreed.

According to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, physical inactivity is now a leading cause of premature death in the US and lack of exercise plays a role in many chronic diseases that lead to early death. (See "Exercise Controls Gene Expression," Frank W. Booth and P. Darrell Neufer, American Scientist, 2005, Volume 93)

In fairness to Dr. Stanton she does make passing mention of the importance of exercise.

The CSIRO have now brought out a "Book 2" of their diet plan which includes an EXERCISE REGIME as well as recipes. Score one for the CSIRO.

For what it's worth I suspect there may be little to choose between the CSIRO diet and the diets proposed by Dr. Stanton. Either will work PROVIDED IT IS SUPPLEMENTED BY REGULAR EXERCISE.

I suspect that Dr. Stanton is pushing a vegetarian agenda. I have no problem with that but she should be honest enough to admit it.