US to withdraw cholesterol guidelines as egg consumption falls
16 Feb 2015
Eggs may be back on the menu for health-conscious consumers, with the top US nutrition advisory panel, The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) deciding to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, Bloomberg reported.
According to commentators, the move could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.
According to the finding of the group, cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a "nutrient of concern." This comes in stark contrast to the committee's findings five years ago, when it convened last. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the issue was deemed a public health concern.
The new view on cholesterol in the diet set aside warnings about high levels of "bad" cholesterol in the blood, which had been linked to heart disease. Furthermore, according to some health experts, people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets.
Meanwhile, ever since 1961, cholesterol had been established in the dietary warnings developed by the American Heart Association, news.therawfoodworld.co reported. The federal government adopted the guidelines years later and warned that people should not be consuming in excess of 300 milligrams of cholesterol daily. A single yolk of an egg contained 200 milligrams.
Consequently eating habits among Americans had shifted and per capita egg consumption dropped about 30 per cent. The business of egg farmers suffered heavily. However, the scientific community still remained divided due to differential research conclusions even as several studies were conducted.
It was still not clear what the final decision for the new guidelines would be, but the verdict was due by the end of this year and, according to Dr Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association and a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, there was not enough evidence to make a good recommendation yet, however, ''no evidence doesn't mean the evidence is no.''
