Home » Blog » 14 Historic Examples of When the U.S. Government Missed the Mark on Health Advice
14 historic examples of when the US government gave deadly health advice

14 Historic Examples of When the U.S. Government Missed the Mark on Health Advice

Health is a complex field, with new findings continually reshaping our understanding of what is safe or unsafe for us. While the government strives to offer the best advice possible, there have been instances in the past where government-endorsed health directives in the U.S. have been proven wrong, due to advances in scientific research or the emergence of new evidence.

In light of these changing health directives, it is crucial for individuals to exercise discernment when navigating health advice, even when it is disseminated by authoritative bodies like the FDA, or CDC. This is particularly important when conventional dietary practices, ingrained in our societies and cultures over generations, are suddenly brought under criticism and labeled as “unhealthy”.

It’s worth noting that in many cases, the demonization of certain foods or practices isn’t arbitrary. It often comes from genuine research, which reveals previously unknown health risks. However, these revelations should be considered within a broader context. Science is a progressive discipline; it builds and refines its conclusions over time, often through a process of hypothesis, refutation, and revision. This means that while it’s important to take new health findings seriously, we should be cautious of rushing to conclusions or making drastic changes without a comprehensive understanding of the new evidence.

Additionally, it’s essential to remain aware of the potential influence of commercial interests on health guidelines and research. Industries linked to food, pharmaceuticals, and health products often have a vested interest in swaying public opinion and health guidelines in their favor.

1. Low Fat, High Carbohydrate Diets

During the 1970s, governmental bodies like the American Heart Association and later the USDA began recommending that Americans reduce their intake of dietary fat to prevent heart disease. This led to a surge in low-fat and fat-free products, often compensated with added sugars, to maintain palatability.

However, over the ensuing decades, evidence began to accumulate contradicting these guidelines. Not all fats were found to be harmful. Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, like those found in olive oil, fish, and nuts, were shown to have protective effects on heart health. Meanwhile, the increased consumption of refined carbohydrates was linked to the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemic. By demonizing all fats and not placing enough emphasis on the type of carbohydrates consumed, the dietary guidelines may have inadvertently contributed to worsening health outcomes.


2. The Demonization of Eggs

Eggs, particularly the yolk, were long thought to be a significant contributor to high cholesterol levels and heart disease due to their high dietary cholesterol content. For many years, the U.S. government recommended limiting egg consumption.

However, subsequent research found that dietary cholesterol from eggs doesn’t have as much effect on blood cholesterol levels as previously thought. This is because most cholesterol in the body is produced by the liver, which adjusts its production in response to the cholesterol we consume. In 2015, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee retracted the guideline for limiting dietary cholesterol, allowing eggs to regain their status as a nutritious part of the diet.

Trans fats

3. Trans Fats

Trans fats, also known as partially hydrogenated oils, were initially marketed as a healthier alternative to saturated fats in the mid-20th century. They found their way into a wide range of processed foods, from margarine to pastries.

However, research in the late 20th and early 21st centuries painted a grim picture of trans fats. They were found to raise bad (LDL) cholesterol, lower good (HDL) cholesterol, and increase the risk of heart disease. In 2015, the FDA declared trans fats as not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and set a timeline for their removal from all food products.

4. Asbestos

Asbestos was widely used in construction and various industries for its heat resistance and insulation properties. The U.S. government and various health agencies believed it to be safe until the mid-20th century.

However, long-term exposure to asbestos fibers was later found to lead to lung diseases, including mesothelioma and asbestosis. Despite this, it was not until 1989 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule. However, this was overturned in 1991, and some uses of asbestos are still legal in the U.S.

5. Thalidomide

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the drug thalidomide was widely used in Europe and Canada as a treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women. The U.S. was considering approving it as well.

Thanks to the vigilance of FDA pharmacologist Dr. Frances Kelsey, who resisted pressure to quickly approve the drug due to her concerns about its safety, thalidomide was never widely distributed in the U.S. The drug was eventually linked to severe birth defects in thousands of babies. This incident led to more stringent drug approval processes.

6. Meat and its Health Implications

The consumption of red and processed meats has been a subject of intense debate in recent years. This controversy came to a head in 2015 when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meats as carcinogenic and red meat as potentially carcinogenic. This led to widespread public concern, with many interpreting these classifications as an indication that meat is as dangerous as smoking.

However, it’s crucial to understand the nuances behind these statements. While the IARC’s job is to identify possible carcinogens, it doesn’t assess the level of risk. Hence, while processed meats were classified in the same group as smoking, this doesn’t mean that they pose the same level of risk. The actual risk from processed meat is much lower compared to smoking.

Moreover, the quality of the meat and the method of preparation are also critical factors. Processed meats often contain added preservatives, like nitrates and nitrites, which have been linked to health risks. Similarly, cooking methods that lead to charring, like grilling or barbecuing, can create potentially harmful compounds.

However, lean, unprocessed meats can be part of a balanced diet. They provide essential nutrients like protein, vitamin B12, iron, and zinc. Several health and nutrition bodies, including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, still include lean meats in their recommended healthy eating patterns.

Furthermore, some researchers have pointed out limitations in the studies associating meat consumption with cancer, including the reliance on observational studies, which can establish correlation but not causation. They also note that the increased risk is relatively small.

It’s also worth noting that the context of one’s overall diet and lifestyle is vital. Regular exercise, sufficient sleep, not smoking, moderate alcohol consumption, and a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins together contribute to good health.

7. DES (Diethylstilbestrol)

In 1941, the synthetic estrogen DES was approved by the FDA for preventing miscarriages. It was widely prescribed to pregnant women for over three decades. However, in the late 1960s, a rare vaginal cancer was found in girls and young women who had been exposed to DES in utero. Further studies linked DES to an increased risk of clear cell adenocarcinoma (CCA) of the vagina and cervix, as well as other health issues in both the women who took it and their children. The FDA subsequently banned its use in pregnant women in 1971.

8. Fen-Phen

Fenfluramine/phentermine (Fen-Phen) was a popular weight loss drug in the 1990s. In 1996, the FDA approved it for short-term use. However, in 1997, reports of heart valve disease associated with the use of Fen-Phen began to surface. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed these findings, and the drugs were voluntarily withdrawn from the market.

9. Vioxx

Vioxx (rofecoxib) is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that was approved by the FDA in 1999 for relieving pain, inflammation, and stiffness caused by osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and certain forms of menstrual pain. However, it was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after studies revealed an increased risk of heart attack and stroke associated with long-term, high-dosage use. Vioxx is often cited as an example of the FDA’s failure in post-marketing surveillance – the monitoring of drugs after they are released on the market.

10. BPA in Plastics

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in hard plastics and coatings, often found in food and drink packaging. The FDA said that BPA was safe based on two studies funded by the American Plastics Council. However, hundreds of independent studies linked low-dose BPA exposure to a vast range of health problems, including cancer, neurological damage, early puberty, and fertility problems. In 2012, following increasing public concern and mounting scientific evidence, the FDA banned BPA from baby bottles and children’s drinking cups. The FDA continues to state that BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods, though the topic is still one of ongoing debate and study.

11. Cholesterol Concerns

In addition to the already-mentioned stance on eggs, the government has long recommended a diet low in cholesterol to maintain heart health. In fact, until 2015, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggested a limit of 300 milligrams per day. However, accumulating evidence led the 2015-2020 guidelines to remove this limit, acknowledging that dietary cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.

12. Sodium Intake

For years, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have recommended limiting sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams a day, with a further reduction to 1,500 milligrams for individuals with hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, as well as for adults aged 51 and over. However, some recent studies suggest that this might be overly restrictive. A 2014 report in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that the relationship between sodium intake and health outcomes might be a J-shaped curve. Both too much and too little sodium could lead to adverse health outcomes, suggesting a need for more nuanced guidance.

13. Alcohol Consumption

Until recently, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans allowed moderate drinking, defined as up to one drink per day for women and two for men. However, the draft report of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee proposed reducing men’s limit to one drink per day, in line with that for women, citing evidence linking higher alcohol consumption to increased mortality.

14. Saturated Fat

In the mid-20th century, the U.S. government issued guidelines recommending that people reduce their intake of saturated fat to lower the risk of heart disease. However, some recent studies have challenged this stance, arguing that not all saturated fats are the same, and some may not be as harmful as previously thought. These findings suggest a more nuanced approach may be needed, focusing on the consumption of healthy whole foods rather than macronutrient targets.


It’s crucial to remember that science is a process of continual learning and refining. As we gather new data and make new discoveries, our understanding evolves, and recommendations must change accordingly. The government, like everyone else, operates with the best information available at the time.

While it’s true that some of the past directives have since been revised, it’s also worth noting the many instances where government recommendations have been right and have helped to safeguard public health. Vaccinations, smoking warnings, and guidelines on drinking and driving have all saved countless lives.

The examples listed above also highlight the need for transparency and adaptability in public health policy, as well as the importance of robust scientific research. It underlines why critical thinking and a healthy degree of skepticism can be beneficial when evaluating health claims and guidelines.

Ready to take your wellness journey to the next level?

Whether you’re just starting or looking to level up, Intelligent Wellbeing’s personalized services are here to help. Dive into our 60-Day 1 on 1 Coaching program, where you get personal guidance from Joseph himself, tailored entirely to your unique needs and goals. Or explore our Custom Diet Plans and Training Plans, meticulously designed to match your lifestyle, preferences, and fitness aspirations. Don’t just dream about achieving your fitness goals – let’s make them a reality together! Find out more about our 1 on 1 Coaching, Custom Diet Plans, and Training Plans today.


  • Hoenselaar, R. (2012). Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease: the discrepancy between the scientific literature and dietary advice. Nutrition, 28(2), 118-123.
  • Fernandez, M. L. (2006). Dietary cholesterol provided by eggs and plasma lipoproteins in healthy populations. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 9(1), 8-12.
  • Mozaffarian, D., Katan, M. B., Ascherio, A., Stampfer, M. J., & Willett, W. C. (2006). Trans fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(15), 1601-1613.
  • Selikoff, I. J., Churg, J., & Hammond, E. C. (1964). Asbestos exposure and neoplasia. JAMA, 188(1), 22-26.
  • Lenz, W., & Knapp, K. (1962). Thalidomide embryopathy. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal, 5(2), 100-105.
  • Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., … & Mattock, H. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology, 16(16), 1599-1600.
  • McNutt, K. (2019). Nutrients in meat. In Meat Quality Analysis (pp. 65-92). Academic Press.
  • Santarelli, R. L., Pierre, F., & Corpet, D. E. (2008). Processed meat and colorectal cancer: A review of epidemiologic and experimental evidence. Nutrition and cancer, 60(2), 131-144.
  • Giusti, R. M., Iwamoto, K., & Hatch, E. E. (1995). Diethylstilbestrol revisited: a review of the long-term health effects. Annals of internal medicine, 122(10), 778-788.
  • Connolly, H. M., Crary, J. L., McGoon, M. D., Hensrud, D. D., Edwards, B. S., Edwards, W. D., & Schaff, H. V. (1997). Valvular heart disease associated with fenfluramine-phentermine. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(9), 581-588.
  • Bresalier, R. S., Sandler, R. S., Quan, H., Bolognese, J. A., Oxenius, B., Horgan, K., … & Lanas, A. (2005). Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(11), 1092-1102.
  • Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. (2015). Scientific report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service.
  • O’Donnell, M., Mente, A., Rangarajan, S., McQueen, M. J., Wang, X., Liu, L., … & Rosengren, A. (2014). Urinary sodium and potassium excretion, mortality, and cardiovascular events. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(7), 612-623.
  • Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. (2020). Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. US Department of Agriculture.
  • Dehghan, M., Mente, A., Zhang, X., Swaminathan, S., Li, W., Mohan, V., … & Amma, L. I. (2017). Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study. The Lancet, 390(10107), 2050-2062.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shopping Cart
%d bloggers like this: