Weekend reading: Three thoughts on the MAHA “movement”
I. Darius Mozaffarian, a nutrition professor at Tufts University, has an editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:“The Dietary Guidelines for Americans—is the evidence bar too low or too high?”
He writes about an analysis of the systematic literature reviews SRs) that form the basis of science-based decisions in the guidelines. His comments gives an insight into the Dietary Guidelines process worth seeing.
For the 2025–2030 DGAC, I served as a peer reviewer for the SR on UPFs…I felt that the SR’s question, design, and planned methods were appropriate, but that its implementation and conclusions were weakened by important deviations from these standards. For example, contradicting its stated eligibility criteria, the SR included numerous studies that did not appropriately or adequately define or assess UPF. Following inclusion of such heterogeneous studies, the SR concluded that the scientific evidence on UPF was limited due to many studies having serious concerns around exposure misclassification as well as evaluating dietary patterns not directly varying in amounts of UPF. This demonstrated a circular and dismaying reasoning: the SR included studies it should not have that had heterogeneous and poorly characterized assessments of UPF, and then concluded that heterogeneous and poorly characterized assessments of UPF limited the strength of the evidence.
He observes:
Most importantly, the DGA and SR requirements make clear that guiding Americans toward a healthier diet is an unfair fight from the start. The food industry can do almost anything it wishes to our food, combining diverse ingredients, additives, and processing methods with virtually no oversight or required evidence for long-term safety In contrast, the DGAs and other federal agencies can only make recommendations to avoid certain foods or limit certain manufacturing methods when there is extensive, robust, and consistent evidence for harm. In this severely imbalanced playing field, industry wins again and again.
II. Senator Bernie Sanders posted on Facebook Sanders Statement on How to Make America Healthy Again. Among other issues, he’s taking on the food industry.
Reform the food industry. Large food corporations should not make record-breaking profits addicting children to the processed foods which make them overweight and prone to diabetes and other diseases. As a start, we must ban junk food ads targeted to kids and put strong warning labels on products high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. Longer term, we can rebuild rural America with family farms that are producing healthy, nutritious food.
III. California Governor Gavin Newsom “issues executive order to crack down on ultra-processed foods and further investigate food dyes.”
The food we eat shouldn’t make us sick with disease or lead to lifelong consequences. California has been a leader for years in creating healthy and delicious school meals, and removing harmful ingredients and chemicals from food. We’re going to work with the industry, consumers and experts to crack down on ultra-processed foods, and create a healthier future for every Californian.
Comment
Mozaffarian offers these opinions despite disclosing financial ties to food companies. Sanders is a welcome addition to the handful of legislators concerned about food issues. Newsom is making it easier for other states to take similar steps.
Maybe there’s a glimmer of hope for coalition building among advocates for healthier food systems. Maybe this really is a movement!
How’s that for a cheery thought for 2025. Happy new year everyone!
