Dietary Guidelines and Politics

On October 7, 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Medical Association (AMA) published an op-ed that implored “Keep Politics Out of Dietary Guidelines.”  I presume that most people think this would be ideal. But in reality, keeping politics out of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans is pretty near impossible.

Every five years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are charged with developing our national dietary guidelines. Over time, the guidelines have increasingly focused on the importance of consuming plenty of whole plant foods. So every five years, lobbyists for the meat, dairy, egg, and processed food industries bark at recommendations that are unfriendly to their financial interests. This always results in watered-down recommendations and, in my opinion, explains why the USDA and the HHS gets away with ignoring the large amount of evidence that supports whole food plant-based (WFPB) diets as the healthiest for human beings.

The guidelines are informed by an expert committee made up of scientists, doctors and nutritionists who are selected by the federal government after a rigorous vetting process. They evaluate the evidence and provide independent advice to the U.S. government in the form of dietary guidelines. There is also an extended time period for citizens to share comments. This process takes quite a bit of time which is why the guidelines are updated every five years.

As far back as the 1980’s, experts advised that the guidelines should explicitly state that Americans should eat more fruits, vegetables and whole grains and that Americans should eat less meat. As you might imagine, this did not sit well with the meat industry. So the guidelines have never explicitly said “eat less meat”. They’ve encouraged people to eat less saturated fat and dietary cholesterol. This recommendation may be removed from the 2015 Guidelines which may result in Americans eating more meat.

The process of developing our national dietary guidelines is intentionally removed from the political process, but food industry lobbyists never allow it to be completely removed.

On the same day that the AAP and AMA published their op-ed piece, the Secretaries of the USDA (Tom Vilsack) and the HHS (Sylvia Burwell) were being grilled by congressional representatives during a house agricultural committee meeting. The night before, October 6, 2015, Secretaries Burwell and Vilsack posted an article that proclaimed that environmental sustainability would not be considered as a factor in determining the 2015 dietary guidelines. Environmental sustainability strengthens an already strong case for the promotion of a diet high in whole plant foods and lower in animal-based food products. It’s pretty clear that the HHS and USDA caved under political pressure fueled by the animal food industry.

I’ve already written about how I do not believe that sustainability should be a main focus when developing our national dietary guidelines. However, I do believe sustainability should be a part of the discussion; especially when industry interests always end up as part of the discussion.

Many of the representatives questioning Burwell and Vilsack approved of their decision to kick sustainability to the curb and stated as much. But many of these science- challenged folks expressed their concerns that the upcoming guidelines do not appear to be supported by strong science. I feel bad for Vilsack and Burwell for having to answer stupid questions and listen to inane comments.

Many of the representatives seemed to agree with the sentiments of South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association President Todd Wilkinson who is pushing for congress to cut off funding to implement the guidelines.

Here are some gems from some of Congress’s finest:

Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson – on his concerns about the dietary guidelines:

“ There seems to be more focus on ideology and marketing food products than on providing clear advice to the general public.”

According to Congressman Peterson, his constituents don’t think the dietary guidelines are very relevant.

“For my constituents, most of them don’t believe this stuff anymore. So that’s why I say, I wonder why we’re doing this?”

Texas Congressman Mike Conway (Committee Chair) scolded Burwell and Vilsack for even considering sustainability issues.

“This could result in misguided recommendations that could have ill effects on consumer habits and agricultural production.”

Texas Congressman Filemon Vela appears to be clueless about how national school meal programs have been providing access to dairy foods for 75 years!.

“How do we make sure that students have access to appealing and nutritious dairy products?”

Pennsylvania Congressman Glenn Thompson– shared Vela’s concern about the possible reduction in milk consumption.

“What can we do to remove policies that hinder milk consumption, and to promote policies that could enhance milk consumption?”

Congressman Thompson was clear in his disdain for the very existence of dietary guidelines:

“The fact is, because of the rate of nutrition research, as soon as you publish these guidelines, they’re inaccurate. “I don’t think these recommendations are effective.”

Missouri Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler expressed a clear lack of confidence in the expert advisory committee’s ability to recognize scientific rigor when she asked:

“In the guidelines, are there any disclaimers that studies may not be true?”

Mississippi Congressman Trent Kelly seems distrustful of science itself.

“We’re concerned that the public at large has lost faith in the dietary guidelines,” Maybe the “preponderance of scientific evidence” is not a reasonable standard?”

California Congressman Doug LaMalfa expressed his concern about the seeming lack of scientific consensus of what constitutes a healthy diet.

“Someone was talking to me this weekend, a constituent, who lost weight because they’re staying away from fruit. “How are people supposed to know what to do when the ideals are changing all the time?”

Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers thinks that the only thing that matters about nutrition is calories:

“Why don’t you just say not to eat over a certain caloric level? Why would there be a category of things not to eat?”

Congressman Rogers’ ideal nutritionist would only need to have a good grasp of basic math.

Indiana Congressman Bob Gibbs shares Rogers’ view on nutrition. He thinks that people who are overweight should be told to “take in fewer calories”.

Illinois Congressman Mike Bost sees a general set of guidelines as dangerous.

“Back in my athletic career, I took salt pills,” “Now I retain water, so I’m on a low-sodium diet. This sort of thing is very personal. It depends strictly on your DNA, that sort of thing. In my opinion, it’s dangerous to set forth guidelines.”

The final 2015 National Dietary Guidelines are expected to be released prior to the end of this month. It’s expected to include guidelines for three different healthy meal patterns as encouraged by the expert advisory committee. One of the three is a vegetarian meal pattern. It will be interesting to see if the vegetarian pattern reflects a whole food plant based pattern or if it will include dairy, eggs and extracted oils.

I think it is a safe bet that the vegetarian diet will be a lacto-ovo version (with dairy and eggs), but I won’t let it bring me down too much. Just having a vegetarian option is another step in the right direction.

If the guidelines are released without the inclusion of a vegetarian pattern, it will probably be due to the influence of the “enlightened” members of the house agricultural committee.