A careful look at how the NHMRC's "evidence base" has changed is quite informative. As you suggest, Gary, the evidence seems to whisper: For better health, limit your intake of processed and manufactured foods.

I applaud the NHMRC - Good on you Professor Anderson, Dr Stanton and the hard-working NHMRC staff - for credibly inserting the latest scientific evidence into the new Guidelines.

According to the NHMRC, "Specifically, the evidence base has strengthened for:

x The association between the consumption of fruit and decreased risk of heart disease

x The association between the consumption of non-starchy vegetables and decreased risk of some cancers

x The association between the consumption of wholegrain cereals and decreased risk of heart disease and excessive weight gain

x The association between the consumption of milk and decreased risk of heart disease and some cancers

x The association between the consumption of sugar sweetened drinks and the risk of excessive weight gain in both children and adults

x The health benefits of breastfeeding" (From the top of p. 2 at http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/adg_media_briefing.pdf )

In short, there is stronger evidence - versus a decade ago - for the health benefits of breastfeeding, for the increased consumption of milk, fruit, non-starchy vegetables and wholegrain cereals, and for minimising the consumption of added sugar. These findings now are reflected in the 2013 Guidelines.

Looking at the list above, note that added sugar is the only foodstuff for which there is new stronger evidence of a need for reduced consumption. That is, a key feature of yesterday's new Guidelines is the toughening of official advice against added sugar, encouraging Australians for the first time to "limit" our consumption of added sugar, in the same way we long have been encouraged to "limit" our consumption of alcohol.

The NHMRC reportedly "hung tough" on this new tougher advice in the face of strong opposition from various pro-sugar forces (see link below). And for that the "official family" should be applauded. Stronger evidence for "The association between the consumption of sugar sweetened drinks and the risk of excessive weight gain in both children and adults" was the key driver of this new tougher stance on added sugar. (Of course, concern about "excessive weight gain" reflects the fact that being overweight/obese tends to boost one's risk of diabetes and heart disease, not to mention various other maladies including cancer.)

Accordingly, official dietary advice on sugar and alcohol consumption now is: "Limit intake of foods and drinks containing added sugars such as confectionary [sic - a spelling error I've also made], sugar-sweetened soft drinks and cordials, fruit drinks, vitamin waters, energy and sports drinks"; and "If you choose to drink alcohol, limit intake". By contrast, the 2003 advice on sugar was: "Consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars".

The ABC seemed to "get" yesterday's news in a way many of the papers tended to miss: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-19/new-diet-guidelines-spark-debate-on-sugar/4526174

"x The association between the consumption of fruit and decreased risk of heart disease"

Shhhhh.....fruit contains fructose....and it's NOT toxic....

Hello again, full-of-sometimes-reliable-information Dr Sue. I haven't mentioned fruit, except to say my kids like to eat their two pieces a day. As you should know, Dr Sue, the NHMRC's new, tougher advice against added sugar translates pretty well 100% into new, tougher nutrition advice against added fructose.

Not only is added sugar/fructose a key driver of obesity, according to the NHMRC yesterday, Dr Sue, but "...recent studies indicate that sugar-sweetened drinks may increase the risk
of developing type 2 diabetes" and "A recent meta-analysis also supports an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome from consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks". That is, the official reading of the evidence is that added/sugar fructose may well be a key driver of "metabolic syndrome" (p.77). Dr Sue, that sounds very serious - and is very serious. But you know better?

In any case, those of us who don't know everything about everything but do know that we are risk-averse when it comes to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and related maladies (the risk signalled by metabolic syndrome) choose to shy away from completely unnecessary added sugar/fructose, both for ourselves and our kids.

Perhaps, Dr Sue, we can agree that sugary softdrinks are a particular health hazard because of the added sugar/fructose, not the added water or the added bubbles. The evidence for that is very strong. And while some choose to highlight the satiety of solids versus liquids, I'm not sure my old Cherry Ripes were any more "filling" than my old cans of sugary softdrink. The former certainly helped me want to eat more of everything else I could get my hands on.

In my opinion, Dr Sue, the important fact in this particular aspect of the debate is that sugary softdrinks are the LARGEST SUBSET of added sugar/fructose consumption in Australia and globally. In terms of identifying damage to health, obviously it has been easier for researchers to document damage caused by the largest subset than the damage caused by ANY ONE OF THE SMALLER SUBSETS.

Accordingly, the evidence that (say) sugary BBQ sauce is a particular problem is not strong! As a matter of logic, however, once one accepts that added sugar/fructose is a problem in sugary softdrinks, then it is the aggregate intake of (all) added sugar/fructose that matters, in my opinion. And, appropriately, the official advice is "Limit intake of foods and drinks containing added sugars...[examples]".

Again, the problem is aggregate consumption: the added sugar/fructose in sugary drinks, plus the added/fructose sugar in sugary breakfast cereals, plus the added sugar/fructose in sugary confectionery, plus the added sugar/fructose in sugary bakery items, plus the added/fructose sugar in sugary yoghurts, plus the added/fructose sugar in other sugary manufactured/processed foods - not just the sugar/fructose in sugary softdrinks, as some still like to pretend.

And once one accepts that the added/fructose sugar in softdrinks is a serious health hazard, it is hard to argue that sugary breakfast cereals - some 30% added sugar! (15% added fructose) - are deserving of a "Heart healthy" Tick from the Heart Foundation.

Dr Sue, since you like to point out that I am a know-nothing nobody in this nutrition space, I'd like to remind you that not only were your colleagues at the University of Sydney utterly wrong on added sugar/fructose in modern doses being harmless, but their "shonky sugar study" - "The Australian Paradox" paper, which formally exonerated added sugar as a key driver of obesity - was used as an intellectual spearhead by the sugar and sugary food industries to attack the NHMRC's tougher (Draft) advice against added sugar. How's that for fighting the good fight for better public health! (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html )

As I have documented on this site, Dr Sue, the NHMRC yesterday shredded the credibility of the University of Sydney's highest-profile participants in the debate on nutrition and public health. I am sympathetic, however, to you and others from your alma mater in the public-health space having professional qualifications devalued by high-profile underperformers with similar qualifications. Oh Dear! Whatever happened to quality control in science at the University of Sydney?

"I haven't mentioned fruit" says Mr Robertson - and yet I copied the point directly from your other post.

The lots more paragraphs, culminating on, yet again, wild allegations about Sydney University.

And here's some more reliable information: I have no "colleagues" in the department you keep referencing at Sydney university - unless all students who have ever attended a university, in any faculty, at any time, are "colleagues".

Oh, and fructose isn't poison. Drinking huge volumes of sweet drinks, or consuming lots more energy than you expend, is not a great idea, though.

Even if it were discovered (through rigorous scientific methods) that raw milk was better for humans than "plastic?" milk, transferring our entire population over to raw milk would likely only provide an incrementally tiny difference in overall health. There are numerous low lying fruits to target that can effect step change outcomes in the health of our population (i.e. reduced highly processed foods, reduced added sugars, reduced added salt, increased fruit and veg, etc.). In my opinion the nutritional guidelines need to be better communicated by nutritionists, government etc. (the new guidelines are an improvement on previous), and improved government policies/regultation.

What I was alluding to was that the pasteurisation used today is usually of the more rigorous type involving higher temperatures for a longer time. This means the milk has a longer shelf life which is great for milk distributors.

Living goodness = living compounds in the milk like enzymes (some of which help digestion of milk in those with lactose intolerance), friendly bacteria, minerals, proteins etc most of which are killed off completely or modified making them fairly useless. What are you offering in its place? A substance that is totally dead. It's a bit like the difference between butter and margarine - one is a food the other is a dead manmade concoction.

It is unfortunate that you became ill as a child and that is maybe why you have a bias against raw milk. On the other hand, I and my whole family and loads of other people who drank raw milk from a well run, hygienic dairy suffered no illnesses from our 150 Jerseys.

I guess Rosemary, you are concerned with the nutritional value of food as you see it. On the other hand, I can't see why I can't buy raw milk if I want it and am prepared to 'take the risk'. I can't get raw milk and can't get good water which has not been mass medicated with fluoride. I think the future will show that both of these issues have been poorly dealt with by public health authorities.

Exercise is very important from a health perspective but has very little influence on weight. In the good old days there was very little highly processed high fat high sugar fast food and snack food. This is the big difference. Today this seems to make up a large part of our diet. I invite you to visit a supermarket and look at the proportion of the shelves devoted to highly processed food, maybe 75%+. Check out the trolleys, how many have carton of soft drink? This is why we have an obesity crisis.

I agree we should all be riding our bikes more and I would do so if it was safer.

Rosemary ... I'm not sure via your response if you're agreeing with me or not.

Our individual life experiences aren't necessarily relevant to broader social trends but I'm 52 and clearly recall that in my first decade or two there was plenty of "junk" food being eaten.

Mine was a middle income family in very average suburbia so fish n chips were a weekly affair. I have no idea what sort of greasy, week old fat they cooked it in but it sure tasted good. As you say, there was a much smaller range of fruit and vegetables at the shops and a standard home dinner was mashed spud, overboiled cabbage or cauliflower, with the meat usually sausages or lamb/pork chops, sometimes chicken. Virgin olive oil was something that foreigners had and it was all cooked in lard or maybe butter, either the Watsonia Fat brand or the Peters Even Fatter brand. Breakfast was often coco pops or fruit loops, maybe rice bubbles if mum and dad were saving pennies, and lunch was a pie, pastie, hot dog or hamburger if I had anything to do with it.

Everybody I knew ate much the same and the few kids with lunch boxes full of lettuce, tomatoes, soya beans and apples received a combination of scorn and sympathy. Sandwiches were common but it was all white bread because nobody had thought of multi-grains in the 60s and 70s. Health-giving polony was the usual content. From memory because studies had detected a calcium deficiency, the government mandated daily milk consumption by all primary schools at breakfast recess, and everybody wanted the bottles with a solid block of cream in the top quarter that you'd shake into the milk. I cycled to the moon and back before 1992 and remain skinny.

The supermarket trolleys were probably more full with cartons of soft drinks when I was a kid due to the absence of 100% orange, apple, apricot, mango, New Guinea guava, Peruvian lima bean juice, etc. They were put in the fridge next to that other very healthy drink, beer, which remains a significant proportion of the Australian diet.

There wasn't any yoghurt in the fridge because that didn't appear till I was a teenager. The pantry had no organic foods because those didn't enter the market till I was about 30. etc, etc. Yes, there are more high kilojoule choices on the shelf nowadays, but so too are there more organic, low-fat, dietary, etc choices, along with constant media messages to eat right and various government fat reduction authorities that didn't exist back then. There were only 600-800 foods available in supermarkets in the 1960s but most of them weren't particularly healthy. There may be 30,000 on the shelf nowadays but if a greater proportion are healthy or healthier, the point is moot. The quantity of consumption may have increased but I'd like to see some historic per capita data to back that up, keeping in mind we throw away unprecedented amounts of food.

It's nonsense to pretend our grandparents ate rabbit food. As you say, Rosemary, a key difference is that from birth and in their critical formative years they had to pump some muscle to do just about everything. There are some other politically incorrect reasons for Australia's obesity, including the success of anti-smoking campaigns that have replaced tobacco addiction with snack addiction, and the rise of women to occupy most white collar service industries that in many cases are sedentary. TV and computers are other important factors, along with every other electronic gadget that does the job for us.

People aren't going to stop watching TV, drinking soft drinks and beer, cruising the net, having a job in an office chair and nibbling biscuits while they do it (preferably chocolate, just like granny used to have). That's the world we've created and despite claims that society has never been busier, we're the luckiest, laziest generation since the dawn of time.

In other words, society desperately needs something that is regular, enjoyable, useful, enticing and coincidentally healthy because it involves exercise. The obvious convenient, money-saving, time-saving, fun candidate is cycling, which Australia has discouraged for 23 years. New Zealand and Finland also have all-age mandatory helmet laws. Israel had it for four years but repealed the adult law on pathways in 2011 because of the damage caused to health and safety (bike share then took off in Tel Aviv).

As you say, nobody was driven to school and armies of kids walked. In my territory, half walked and half cycled. I vaguely remember during those 12 school years that two kids were hit by cars, one primary, one secondary, but survived. Teachers didn't hide accidents from kids because they were the very best safety lessons.

Nowadays it's the opposite with school transport, partly because many kids are turned off cycling by mandatory helmets and partly because many parents assume cycling must be dangerous if helmet are mandated. In 1977, about 80% of Australian children walked or cycled to school. From 1998 to 2006, the average was 5%. For the past 23 years there have been queues of cars dropping off and picking up kids from schools, significantly increasing the risk of road injury not only to the few children allowed or willing to exercise but also other road users.

Sue, you state that incidental activity is an important component of exercise. Exactly!

I think "Incidental activity ... doesn't have to involve either equipment or danger" means you think helmets make cycling safer. Otherwise, does it mean that swimming, football, hockey, tree climbing, whatever, should either be banned or have mandatory life jackets, helmets, etc? Close to 500 Australians drowned last year so what are we going to do about beaches and swimming pools? We could mandate helmets for all footy players, watch participation plummet and then notice the existing studies showing helmets increase risk-taking and thus injury among players. Sounds familiar.

Steve, you agree that we should all cycle more but you're put off because it's unsafe. At least you've saved me finding an example of the unjustified fear caused by helmet laws.

Cycling is comparatively safe anyway but helmet laws make it less safe. WA example ... cycling participation down by 30-40%, kids in particular, with poor outcome for public health. No decline in cyclist hospital admissions despite less participation. Cycling gradually recovered from 1992 to 2000 and hospital admissions rose from an average annual 650 to almost 900 with about the same level of public cycling as pre-law. Yes, the proportion of cyclist head injuries fell by 10-15% but the actual numbers are no better when it's a proportion of 900 instead of 650.

Ignore the few hundred extra broken arms (in particular), legs, abdomens, etc. each year. Ignore the cost to health and longevity from hundreds of thousands of Australians discouraged from regular incidental cycling activity. Ignore the consequent worsening in risk to all road users from many of the discouraged instead driving their cars. There were more cyclist injuries through more accidents because of risk compensation, increased vehicle traffic, an immediate increase in upper body (arm) injuries, larger head area with associated rotational brain injury, etc.

If the NHMRC and similar health and medical bodies in Australia are just accepting the common wisdom, maybe it's time to do some research. Rosemary and other panel members should knuckle down for several days, maybe a week, of reading - http://www.cycle-helmets.com is a comprehensive start but there are numerous data sources on the web.

A useful recent study published this month by the US National Bureau of Economic Research is Effects of Bicycle Helmet Laws on Children's Injuries (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18773), which concludes that although there has been a ~13% reduction in bicycle-related head injuries, this may be due to reductions in bicycle riding induced by the law in numerous American states.

If you're not into reading, another research technique might be to drive though the backstreets of your city's middle to outer, poorer suburbs and count how many of the cyclists you see are wearing helmets. In Perth, you'll find well over 50% of all ages are knowingly breaking the law and risking punishment. If the law was fully enforced, would they be cycling? Would you seriously prefer they were watching TV or driving a car?

I'm very aware of the work of Bauman, who says what I'm saying. For example, he cites Danish studies showing a 39% reduction in all-cause mortality among those why cycle to work, irrespective of other exercise. Australian commuter cycling was 1.7% in 1986 and 1.3% in 2011. Bauman and a few others such as Chris Rissel are within that handful of academics who have the guts to speak out. Their research has had meagre, inner page media coverage over the past few years.

The media and thus the politicians will only respond when bodies such as the NHMRC publicly denounce helmet laws. That doesn't mean denouncing helmets themselves that people choose to wear. I know my "so-called health experts" is disparaging but I don't see how real health experts can keep on ignoring the elephant on the road (and on the cycle paths).