This is HILARIOUS. A 2003 committee wanted the FDA to use the average requirement for nutrition facts labeling rather than the value that would cover 98% of the population because "its use would result in a food appearing more nutritious." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988109
It's even better. The probability of being deficient in any given nutrient is 50%. The probability of being deficient in some nutrient is almost 100%. (How many nutrients are there, thirty or so? It's like flipping a coin that many times and hoping to get all heads.)
-
-
Even the 98% goal doesn't seem so hot from this perspective: 0.98 to the thirtieth power is 0.55.
-
True. 98% was motivated by a fear of promoting toxicity if everyone was fully covered.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.