The confused and scattered "nutritional" advice in Larry Burk's recent "McFries" column alarmed me. Is Dr. Burk (a practicing acupuncturist) really advocating adding more saturated fat and cholesterol to the American diet, when these are the most established risk factors in heart disease? Which is the leading cause of death among U.S. adults? His argument, laced with factual errors, confusions and omissions makes me suspect he attended a medical school that did not require any nutritional training (and, last time I checked, most of them don't).
First of all, his description of McDonald's fries is completely wrong. They do not contain MSG (the "natural flavor" is of a beef source), and they are not fried in rancid vegetable oil. That's the good news. The bad news is that they do contain hydrogenated vegetable oils, which have a near-eternal fryer life and contain trans-fatty acids (another major risk factor in heart disease, set to be labeled on all foods in 2006).
He misleads the reader into thinking that a diet low in saturated fat causes our tooth decay. In reality, most of our diets have too much saturated fat on the whole, while the most pressing causes of tooth decay are refined foods and simple sugars (cola, anyone?).
Dr. Burk also claims it is "ironic" that the rise of heart disease historically parallels the "demonization of butter." In reality, the demonization of butter was a (historically lagging) response to the rise of heart disease, caused by many changes to our diet that are actually on scientific footing.
Finally, my advice to Dr. Burk-don't waste your time spreading fringe nutrition advice. When it's not beholden to corporate interests, modern nutrition science is actually figuring a lot of things out. The problem is, no one is listening.
Nigel Barrella
Trinity '07
In "Conscience of a black conservative" (Sept. 21, 2005), Anthony Collins declares that blacks should be liberal because they recognize that "the greatest capacity of the federal government is to serve as an instrument of progress and to cure society of [its] ills." But then he turns around and acknowledges that "there is nothing about any of [several major conservative] stances"-from tax cuts to pro-life legislation-"that is exceptionally anti-black."
So if conservative policies aren't so bad, might that be reason to re-evaluate their philosophy? And if liberals' wonderful fuzzy words result in counterproductive consequences, might that be reason to rethink leftist sentiments? Maybe, but Mr. Collins isn't interested in looking at the record-the sentiments look oh-so-pure on their own. Why muck it up with all those nasty "facts" and "debate" and such? Sure, welfare may or may not have accelerated the destruction of the African-American family by creating disincentives for getting married. But that's besides the point. Didn't you hear? The liberals have some very nice words that they use to describe their intentions. Here's some: the "government should stand up for the downtrodden."
Collins doesn't vouch for any practical accomplishments on the part of liberals besides, well, ending slavery and passing civil rights legislation. Mr. Collins: if you want to debate a tough target like KKK conservatives, that's fine, but only if I get to rip into some evenly-matched opponents of my own, like anti-war protesters that compare Bush to Hitler and gobble up communist magazines. Otherwise, get out of your time machine and address the conservatism of Milton Friedman, Michael Novak or Charles Krauthammer.
Mr. Collins has to reach back 40 years for a clear and noble victory because liberals' clarity of intention has a nasty habit of failing to translate into clarity of results. And from this oh-so-unassailable moral mount he concludes that "the conscience of the black conservative is a butchered conscience?" Please.
Andrew Nowobilski
Trinity '07
Advice for officials welcomed
We are pleased to see that Professor Orrin Pilkey agrees that had the recommendations of several generations of engineers been followed the New Orleans disaster could have been substantially avoided ("Katrina an engineering disaster" Sept. 20, 2005). Certainly with a father and brother who are both distinguished engineers, he is aware of the importance of quality and performance in our profession.
On the other hand Professor Pilkey is concerned that engineers were not following his example in coastal matters by "shouting from the mountain top." It is true that engineers tend to let the quality of their work and argument carry the burden of communication to our elected officials. Our own experience is that public officials in North Carolina, e.g. David Price and Bob Etheridge come to mind, have sought out and responded well to expert advice be it from engineers or others. And indeed it is our experience that FEMA has been a responsible and effective agency when well led. Unfortunately the experience in New Orleans, although not without precedent, has been a notable exception to the effective partnership between engineers and other experts and our public officials. We do agree with Professor Pilkey that we all should urge public officials to seek and act upon expert counsel and, if his shouting from the mountain tops will help, we would welcome his voice.
Zbigniew Kabala,
Associate Professor of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
Miguel Medina, Jr.,
Professor of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.