> not try to tell people what to eat

food industry has to be policed -- The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is a high school level story featuring the meat packing industry. All around, additives and substitutes are more profitable than raw ingredients.

I'm clearly not advocating against basic safety oversight. It's worth noting that The Jungle was a work of fiction and Sinclair famously fabricated a lot of details wholesale.

The whole point of government performing the function is that they don't profit from misleading you, rather their goal is the country's welfare.

Obviously there are exceptions - particularly right now - but those are solved by rooting out corruption.

You say that but the food pyramid was devised but the agriculture lobby, and was never based on science.

Is this true? Specifically, "devised by" vs "influenced by" and "never based on science" meaning there was no, for example, attempt to improve heart disease rates?

In any event, looking at the whole history of food guidance paints a clearer picture of my point. Happy to hear of alternatives though!

I guess it would be more correct to say it was heavily influenced by the ag industry[1].

> attempt to improve heart disease rates

The diet basedheart disease science of the early 1990s was totally junk.[2]

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/

[2] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/09/404081/sugar-papers-reveal...

Totally junk or skewed to ignore sugar as a contributor? Again I have to immediately doubt your dire accusations because they diverge from what is said in your link as well as what my physician says about cholesterol.

And it's not like the 90s pyramid had sugar at the base.

Yes, largely junk. As I mentioned the literature is full of studies that are nothing but some regressions on top of self reported dietary data. It’s almost all very low quality[1].

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/people-are-bad-repor...