declared that recommendations on dietary fat intake should always be based on the totality of the evidence, including physiologic and biochemical knowledge and associations from observational epidemiology. RCTs and meta-analyses have their shortcomings, but well-conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses support a transparent process for developing dietary fat guidelines. Participants agreed that evidence-based decision-making for dietary guidance should consider all the best available evidence using a transparent, systematic review.
Introduction and PropositionTo strengthen the scientific basis for dietary guidelines, the strongest types of evidence, such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews, well-designed, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), and prospective cohort studies take precedence over weaker study designs, such as casecontrol and cross-sectional studies, opinions, and beliefs. Recent dietary fat guidelines have drawn withering criticism [3,4] . The ensuing controversy and (mis)use of systematic reviews to bolster a particular position can restrain or obstruct the development of more effective public health policy [5] . Further, the "mass" production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached "epidemic" proportions [6] , suggesting that many are redundant, flawed, or conflicted. This raises the concern that systematic reviews may be at risk of corruption [7] . Given the importance of well conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the hierarchy of scientific evidence and development of dietary guidelines, the question of whether such evidence is decisive in formulating dietary fat guidelines was forcefully contested at the 2016 congress of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL), Stellenbosch, South Africa, September 7, 2016. The debate was held under the auspices of the International Union of Nutritional Sciences and the International Expert Movement to Improve Dietary Fat Quality (IEM, www.theiem.org). Berthold Koletzko, LudwigMaximilians-University, Munich, Germany, moderated the exchange. This paper describes that forum.
Proposition SupportSupporting the proposition, Clemens von Schacky of Ludwig Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany, examined the evidence for the current dietary recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice [8] . One by one, von Schacky marshaled examples of the weaknesses in existing data: inability to accurately assess dietary intake in population samples [9] , changes in surrogate risk markers that do not affect clinical outcomes or mortality [10,11] , insufficient evidence that omega-6 (n-6) fatty acid consumption affects clinical endpoints in cardiovascular disease (CVD) [12] , and participant or response variability [13] that can obscure differences in outcomes [14] . He particularly highlighted the unexpected lack of association in Europe between intake of trans-fatty acids and increased risk of CVD mortality [15] . Taken toget...