A peer-reviewed article argues removing the 300 mg/day cholesterol guideline because new studies show minimal carbons effect on serum LDL for most people. As a nutritionist, which evaluation of this argument is most defensible?

• A. The argument supports eliminating all dietary guidelines because nutrition science is inherently unreliable, so consumers should be given no guidance at all which is the most defensible public-health stance.
• B. The argument is irrelevant because cholesterol is the sole cause of cardiovascular disease and any removal of limits would immediately double population risk irrespective of saturated fat content.
• C. The argument is invalid because the 300 mg/day limit has no basis and should be strictly enforced even if evidence contradicts it because dietary rules must be immutable to change population diets.
• D. The argument has merit because evidence indicates dietary cholesterol's effect varies and is modest for many, but retaining a cautious guideline remains useful because cholesterol-rich foods are often high in saturated fats; thus policy should focus on food patterns rather than a single numeric cap.

Answer: (D)