R.D.A.
I have long wondered about who sets the standards on diet charts and labels for the average daily requirements.
The Recommended Daily allowances seem to vary a great deal from product line to product line, and I have often speculated concerning how those figures have evolved. I have assumed they are used with the approval of some governmental agency, and that, come to think of it, may be one of my concerns.
Are they the result of serious studies by specialists in nutrition or are they, for the most part, the creation of someone as nebulous as "Betty Crocker" propounded at the bidding of a manufacturer whose wishes to sell more and more of his particular food product. He, as do many others, seems to think of such recommendations as a form of "Quality Control" for making sure his product will continue to sell. That terms scares some people who learned long ago in other areas that quality control doesn't mean what the word say - not exactly. Far to often “quality control” means adjusting the quality of the product to assure maximum profit with least expense.
I think we all agree that good health results from good nutrition. It would seem that good nutrition, then, would start with plans that seek a balanced diet - and a regular pay check should accompany such plans because good food does not come cheap these days. Imitations and substitutes, however, are plentiful and often "bargain" priced. Some are little more than "look alikes", however, so they prove to be more expensive in the long run than authentic products. Too many fad foods are being fed families these days and we fall for a lot of nutritional flapdoodle on TV and in print and here on the Internet, I'm sure.
Who and what is "average", for instance?
Food is probably the one aspect of living in which people express themselves individually than any other. If you "don't like it", you won't eat it. If you do like it, you, more than likely, overdo it, and at the expense of another, more-needed food.
Food fads are one of the most costly aspects of modern living, I would say. They tend to undermine the health of so many people who need far
better nutrition on a daily basis.
The RDA ratings you read on product packages are supposed to be divided into eighteen groups based on gender, age, and current condition of individuals - such as lactating females. In general. the "average" is set for ages 19-51, so anyone under 19 or over 51 is on his own. If good nutritional habits have not been established long before age nineteen, then fewer will live to worry about their nutritional standings many years after age fifty-one studies tell us.
Toxic levels do exist in many trace elements found in certain foods - copper, manganese, fluoride, chromium and molybdenum - among them - and few of us know one from the other in "planning" our diets for best nutrition. Everyone likes to talk about Vitamins, but few know that four are fat soluble – A, Z , E and K. Nine other vitamins are water soluble and there are fourteen minerals so this is not an area for guessing. It might be wise to take many of the printed "Recommended Daily Allowance" - with a grain of salt.
But, then, that's yet another food concern with many people, isn't it!
Skip that mention, but do try to give a bit more attention to the nutritional values of the foods you eat. Hark back to that “under 19 and over 51” group mentioned above. That's the “do--it-yourself” group.
You are chart free and on your own.
A..L.M., August 14, 2003 [c641wds]
