[[link removed]]

PORTSIDE CULTURE

DIETARY GUIDELINES SHOULD BE LED BY SCIENCE—NOT POLITICS  
[[link removed]]


 

Mary Story, Eric Rimm

Center for Science in the Public Interest News
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Proposed language in the House Farm Bill would explicitly introduce
political interests to and harm the integrity of the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans—the foundation of school meal programs,
SNAP, WIC, and other necessary nutrition programs. _

The bill contains multiple proposes thar would harm the scientific
independence and integrity of the Dietary Guidelines process.,
freshidea – stock.adobe.com

 

Amidst the many harmful proposals in the House Farm Bill
[[link removed]],
there is one that may be flying under the radar: attempts to undermine
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Dietary Guidelines are used
to compile evidence-based advice on what people in the United States
should eat and drink to maintain a healthy diet. They are updated
every five years by the USDA and Health and Human Services (HHS),
informed by a scientific report with recommendations from the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), an independent panel of
nutrition experts. The Dietary Guidelines serve as the foundation for
federal government nutrition education materials and, importantly, for
16 nutrition assistance programs, including the National School Lunch
Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC), and Older Americans Act nutrition
programs. As a result, the Dietary Guidelines directly influence the
diets of 1 in 4 Americans [[link removed]].  

In May, the House proposed Farm Bill language that would
directly undermine the Dietary Guidelines
[[link removed]],
stemming from industry lobbying and misinformation around the process
to update the Guidelines. The Farm, Food and National Security Act of
2024 (H.R. 8467
[[link removed]]),
introduced by House Agriculture Committee Chairman G.T. Thompson,
proposes multiple provisions that would harm the scientific
independence and integrity of the Dietary Guidelines process. Most
egregiously, H.R. 8467 aims to install a new “Independent Advisory
Board”—appointed partially by USDA and HHS and partially by
members of Congress—that would determine the scientific topics
reviewed by the DGAC. Setting the research agenda for the DGAC is
currently carried out by USDA and HHS in a yearlong process
[[link removed]] that
allows for public comment; this change would explicitly introduce
politics and does not ensure public involvement in the process.  

Furthermore, H.R. 8467 aims to limit the questions reviewed by the
DGAC, prohibiting consideration of the impact of policies and other
social and environmental factors (such as socioeconomic status and
cultural practices) that are known to influence our diets. As
Professors of Medicine and Nutrition and former members of the DGAC
ourselves, we can attest that these exclusions, clearly ideologically
motivated, risk preventing the Dietary Guidelines from evolving along
with the evidence and serving all Americans.  

Forty public health and nutrition organizations opposed these
provisions in a September 9 letter
[[link removed]],
citing the potential harm to scientific integrity, public health, and
health equity. Unfortunately, misinformation about the Guidelines has
continued to spread. Recently, an op-ed in The Hill
[[link removed]] went
so far as to claim that the Dietary Guidelines have actively
contributed to our nation’s chronic disease epidemic. It is true
that we are facing a national health and nutrition crisis, but the
Dietary Guidelines are not to blame. In fact, they have been, and can
continue to be, part of the solution.  

A 2024 systematic review
[[link removed](23)01453-9/fulltext] found
that eating a diet more aligned with the Dietary Guidelines, as
measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), was associated with a
lower risk of death overall and from cardiovascular disease and
cancer. However, the average American HEI score is 58 out of 100
[[link removed]], showing poor
alignment with the Guidelines. There are many causes of our diet woes,
but the federal government’s nutrition advice is not one of them. 

Like any process, the Dietary Guidelines process can always be
improved. For example, one positive proposal in the Farm Bill is that
public disclosure of each DGAC member’s conflicts of interest
[[link removed]] should
be required. However, the process has unquestionably become more
rigorous and transparent over time, subsequently leading to
improvements in the programs that the Dietary Guidelines inform.  

School meals, which came under attack in King and Achterberg’s
opinion piece, are a perfect example of the Dietary Guidelines
actively improving nutrition outcomes through the food environment.
The 2015 Dietary Guidelines recommended limiting added sugars to less
than 10 percent of calories daily, yet the 2020-2025 DGAC found
that 70 to 80 percent
[[link removed]] of
children still exceeded this limit. As a result, USDA introduced
specific added sugar limits
[[link removed]] for
school meals and the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which will be
fully implemented by 2026. In short, school meals admittedly have too
much sugar, but that is about to change for the better because of the
research-based recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. In fact,
even before the new added sugar limit, evidence
[[link removed]] showed
that schools are the healthiest source of meals
[[link removed]] for
children due to improved alignment with the Dietary Guidelines.  

Given the number of people and programs impacted by the Dietary
Guidelines, there are serious risks for public health
if misinformation
[[link removed](24)00280-6/fulltext] and
lobbying from special interests (for example, the dairy industry
continuously attempting to weaken saturated fat
[[link removed]] and added
sugar limits
[[link removed]],
or the power of the meat industry and agriculture interest groups to
prevent food sustainability
[[link removed]] from
being included in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines) threaten to undermine
the science-backed nutrition guidance they provide. The proposed
language in the Farm Bill creates a gaping hole for industry to
exploit, betraying the public trust yet again. 

For the Dietary Guidelines to have the greatest impact on the health
and nutrition of families across the country, it is crucial that USDA
and HHS continuously improve and facilitate public trust in the
process. However, politically motivated attempts to dismantle the
current process have negative ramifications for all of us, but more
critically they compromise access to healthy food for the millions of
Americans who depend on federal nutrition programs. Congress (and
industry) should leave the science to the experts and abandon this
proposal in the next Farm Bill.  

* Farm Bill
[[link removed]]
* dietary guidelines
[[link removed]]
* Science
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit portside.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 



########################################################################

[link removed]

To unsubscribe from the xxxxxx list, click the following link:
[link removed]