Search results: dietary guidelines

A Canadian reader, Michel Lucas, sent this one (merci).

The report: Benoît Lamarche, Arne Astrup, Robert H Eckel, Emma Feeney, Ian Givens, Ronald M Krauss, Philippe Legrand, Renata Micha, Marie-Caroline Michalski, Sabita Soedamah-Muthu, Qi Sun, Frans J Kok.  Regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods and cardiovascular diseases: perspectives for future dietary recommendations.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 121, Issue 5, 2025, Pages 956-964,  ISSN 0002-9165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.03.009.

The workshop: Saturated Fat in Dairy and Cardiovascular Diseases, Amsterdam, 15–16 April, 2024.

Findings: “The most recent evidence indicates that overall, consumption of milk, yogurt and cheese, irrespective of fat content, is neutrally associated with CVD risk. There is also no evidence yet from randomized controlled trials that consumption of regular-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese has different effects on a broad array of cardiometabolic risk factors when compared with consumption of low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese.”

Conclusion: “Thus, the body of evidence does not support differentiation between regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods in dietary guidelines for both adults and children.”

Implication: “Strategies focusing primarily on reduction of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, the main source of SFAs in Western diets, rather than on the fat content of dairy foods, are more likely to benefit the population’s cardiovascular health.”

Funding: The workshop “was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Dutch Dairy Association.”

Comment: Foods from animal sources—meat and dairy—are by far the main sources of saturated fatty acids in US diets (all food fats, no exceptions, are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids; it’s just the proportions that differ).

Cows eat grass; grass has fatty acids but they are mostly unsaturated; bacteria in the cows’ rumens saturate the fatty acids.

Pretty much everyone agrees that when saturated fatty acids are substituted for unsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids, they raise blood cholesterol and the risk for heart disease.  The disagreements are over by how much and whether clinically meaningful.

The dairy industry would like everyone to believe that the saturated fatty acids in dairy foods are benign.  Hence this workshop.

Conflict of interest: The disclosure statement begins with “The Dutch Dairy Association had no role in the discussions held at the high-level closed workshop and did not participate or provide comments during the development and writing of this manuscript.”  It didn’t have to.

Here’s the rest of the statement (I’ve emphasized dairy connections):

AA is a member of the Journal’s Editorial Board and is also an Associate Editor on The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and played no role in the journal’s evaluation of the manuscript, reports a relationship with Rééducation Nutritionnelle et Psycho-Comportementale Scientific Committee and American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that includes board membership; and a relationship with Ferrero that includes funding grants. QS reports travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. AA, RHE, IG, EF, RMK, PL, RM, M-CM, SS-M, and FJK reports financial support and travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. BL reports writing assistance provided by Chill Pill Media Ltd and relationship with Health Canada that includes funding grants. EF reports a relationship with Food for Heath Ireland and Teagasc Food Research Ireland that includes funding grants; relationship with Irish section of the Nutrition Society and British Journal of Nutrition that includes board membership; relationship with National Dairy Council Ireland that includes consulting or advisory and travel reimbursement. IG reports a relationship with Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Australia, Barham Benevolent Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Medical Research Council that includes funding grants; relationship with European Milk Federation, French National Interprofessional Centre for Dairy Economics, and Dairy Council Northern Ireland that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with ELSEVIER INC that includes consulting or advisory. RMK reports a relationship with Dairy Management Inc that includes funding grants. RM reports a relationship with National Institutes of Health and Gates Foundation that includes funding grants. M-CM reports a relationship with French Dairy Interbranch Organization, Sodiaal-Candia and Danone that includes funding grants; relationship with Sodiaal-Candia that includes consulting or advisory; relationship with International Milk Genomics Consortium that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with Danone Nutricia Research and French Dairy Interbranch Organization that includes travel reimbursement. SS-M reports a relationship with Dutch Dairy Association and Danish Dairy Research Foundation that includes funding grants.

 

 

The White House posted this video last week.

I can’t figure out how to make it play on this site, but you can watch it at this link.

It’s worth watching:

• It comes straight from the White House.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, does not recognize or know how to pronounce the vitamin riboflavin.
• USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins appears in this as a self-identified MAHA mom.
• It makes the point that food labels are hard to read.
• It issues a direct threat to the food industry to get artificial colors out of their products.
• It’s fun.

It also says a lot about MAHA priorities.  I’m all for getting artificial colors out of the food supply, but I view other food issues as far more important.

I want to see RFK Jr videos about what FDA is planning to do to really Make America Healthy Again.  What, for example, is the agency planning to do about:

• Food safety
• Ultra-processed foods
• Food marketing to kids
• Toxic chemicals in the food supply
• Mercury in fish
• School food

These are all issues he has raised, many of them requiring collaboration with USDA, EPA, FTC, and other agencies.

Tomorrow: Dietary Guidelines.

This is a deep personal as well as professional loss.  Here’s the obituary from the New York Times. which quotes me.

Marion Nestle, a nutritionist and public health advocate, said that Ms. Gussow “was enormously ahead of her time,” adding, “Every time I thought I was on to something and breaking new ground and seeing something no one had seen before, I’d find out that Joan had written about it 10 years earlier.”

“She was a food systems thinker before anyone knew what a food system was,” Ms. Nestle said, referring to the process of producing and consuming food, including the economic, environmental and health effects. “What she caught on to was that you couldn’t understand why people eat the way they do and why nutrition works the way it does unless you understand how agriculture production works. She was a profound thinker.”

I first met Joan in the late 1970s when I heard her give a talk in the Bay Area when I was first teaching at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine.  I had never heard anyone talk about the need to link agricultural production to nutrition and health—food systems, we now call that—and it felt revelatory.

Soon after, her publisher sent me the manuscript of what became The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, asking whether he should take it.  My reader’s report praised it to the skies, but I worried that it was so critical of mainstream nutrition that students would find it nihilistic.  She added a brilliant and utterly inspiring conclusion.

I am not alone in being inspired by her work.  I have followed it with great admiration.

Ahead of her time?  Absolutely.

You have discovered that the food industry influences food choices?  Try Joan’s Who Pays the Piper from 1980.

You think food systems should be sustainable?  See Joan’s “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability,” written with Kate Clancy in 1986.

Her students at Columbia were so lucky to be in her orbit.

I learned so much from her about how to think about food issues.

I am beyond sad at her loss.

If you want a better idea of her contribution, take a look at Brian Halweil’s 2010 profile of Joan for Edible Manhattan (I’m quoted).

Pam Koch at Columbia invites people to share memories, photos, or comments on what Joan meant to you at this link.

*For some reason, my original post did not get sent out so I am trying again

This is a deep personal as well as professional loss.  Here’s the obituary from the New York Times. which quotes me.

Marion Nestle, a nutritionist and public health advocate, said that Ms. Gussow “was enormously ahead of her time,” adding, “Every time I thought I was on to something and breaking new ground and seeing something no one had seen before, I’d find out that Joan had written about it 10 years earlier.”

“She was a food systems thinker before anyone knew what a food system was,” Ms. Nestle said, referring to the process of producing and consuming food, including the economic, environmental and health effects. “What she caught on to was that you couldn’t understand why people eat the way they do and why nutrition works the way it does unless you understand how agriculture production works. She was a profound thinker.”

I first met Joan in the late 1970s when I heard her give a talk in the Bay Area when I was first teaching at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine.  I had never heard anyone talk about the need to link agricultural production to nutrition and health—food systems, we now call that—and it felt revelatory.

Soon after, her publisher sent me the manuscript of what became The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, asking whether he should take it.  My reader’s report praised it to the skies, but I worried that it was so critical of mainstream nutrition that students would find it nihilistic.  She added a brilliant and utterly inspiring conclusion.

I am not alone in being inspired by her work.  I have followed it with great admiration.

Ahead of her time?  Absolutely.

You have discovered that the food industry influences food choices?  Try Joan’s Who Pays the Piper from 1980.

You think food systems should be sustainable?  See Joan’s “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability,” written with Kate Clancy in 1986.

Her students at Columbia were so lucky to be in her orbit.

I learned so much from her about how to think about food issues.

I am beyond sad at her loss.

If you want a better idea of her contribution, take a look at Brian Halweil’s 2010 profile of Joan for Edible Manhattan (I’m quoted).

Pam Koch at Columbia invites people to share memories, photos, or comments on what Joan meant to you at this link.

[*For some reason, this did not get sent out this morning so I am reposting it.]

This is a deep personal as well as professional loss.  Here’s the obituary from the New York Times. which quotes me.

Marion Nestle, a nutritionist and public health advocate, said that Ms. Gussow “was enormously ahead of her time,” adding, “Every time I thought I was on to something and breaking new ground and seeing something no one had seen before, I’d find out that Joan had written about it 10 years earlier.”

“She was a food systems thinker before anyone knew what a food system was,” Ms. Nestle said, referring to the process of producing and consuming food, including the economic, environmental and health effects. “What she caught on to was that you couldn’t understand why people eat the way they do and why nutrition works the way it does unless you understand how agriculture production works. She was a profound thinker.”

I first met Joan in the late 1970s when I heard her give a talk in the Bay Area when I was first teaching at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine.  I had never heard anyone talk about the need to link agricultural production to nutrition and health—food systems, we now call that—and it felt revelatory.

Soon after, her publisher sent me the manuscript of what became The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, asking whether he should take it.  My reader’s report praised it to the skies, but I worried that it was so critical of mainstream nutrition that students would find it nihilistic.  She added a brilliant and utterly inspiring conclusion.

I am not alone in being inspired by her work.  I have followed it with great admiration.

Ahead of her time?  Absolutely.

You have discovered that the food industry influences food choices?  Try Joan’s Who Pays the Piper from 1980.

You think food systems should be sustainable?  See Joan’s “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability,” written with Kate Clancy in 1986.

Her students at Columbia were so lucky to be in her orbit.

I learned so much from her about how to think about food issues.

I am beyond sad at her loss.

If you want a better idea of her contribution, take a look at Brian Halweil’s 2010 profile of Joan for Edible Manhattan (I’m quoted).

Pam Koch at Columbia invites people to share memories, photos, or comments on what Joan meant to you at this link.

So much is happening on the alcohol frontier these days that it is getting hard to keep up.  Let’s start with the multiplicity of reports on alcohol and health arriving one after another.  I’ve written about the NASEM and Surgeon General’s reports recently.  I’ve also written recently about their implications for the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines.

I.  The ICCPUD report.  Now we have yet a third report from the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).  This one says:

• Males and females who consumed 1 drink per day had an increased risk of liver cirrhosis, esophageal cancer, oral cancer, and injuries, but a lower risk for ischemic stroke…females had a higher risk for liver cancer and a lower risk for diabetes mellitus when they drank 1 drink per day…even infrequent high per-occasion drinking may eliminate the lower levels of risk for ischemic stroke.
• Alcohol use is associated with increased mortality for seven types of cancer (colorectal, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus [squamous cell type]). Increased risk for these cancers begins with any alcohol use and increases with higher levels of use. Women experience a much greater risk of an alcohol-attributable cancer per drink consumed.

II.  The Alcohol industry’s reaction to the ICCPUD report. The reaction to this from a group of National Agriculture, Beverage and Hospitality Associations is pretty tough.  In an email and press release titled “New U.S. Alcohol Report Tainted by Bias, Conflicts,” its representative said:

The controversial report, which is based on observational studies rather than any randomized controlled trials, is blatantly biased, with many panel members failing to disclose conflicts of interest, including affiliations with and funding from anti-alcohol and international temperance organizations…it’s essential to consider the findings of the recent Congressionally-mandated report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Health (NASEM), which found moderate drinking may be healthier than teetotaling (Axios).

Its recommendation

We urge the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health & Human Services to uphold the integrity of the DGAs to promote informed and responsible decision-making around alcohol. The agencies should disregard the ICCPUD report in their final assessments for the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines.

III.  Call for public comment on the NASEM and ICCPUD reports

From the HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (I am an alum)

HHS and USDA will invite the public to provide input on two separate but complementary reports [ICCPUDand NASEM] on the relationship between alcohol and health starting January 15. These reports and the public comments received will be considered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as the two departments collaborate to develop the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The comment period will close on February 14, 2025. Additional details on this public comment opportunity are available on DietaryGudelines.gov.

IV.  Treasury Department proposes new and more informative labeling of alcohol drinks, also with a call for public comment  

TTB Proposes Mandatory Disclosures of Major Food Allergens and Alcohol Facts in the Labeling of Wines, Distilled Spirits, and Malt Beverages.

Allergens: In Notice No. 238, we propose to require a label disclosure of all major food allergens used in the production of alcohol beverages…labels must declare milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, soybeans, and sesame, as well as ingredients that contain protein derived from these foods, if used in the production of the alcohol beverage.

Alcohol Facts: In Notice No. 237, we propose to require Alcohol Facts label disclosures for alcohol beverages subject to TTB’s regulatory authority under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. This disclosure would include the serving size of the product; the number of servings per container; alcohol content as a percentage of alcohol by volume; the number of fluid ounces of pure ethyl alcohol per serving; the number of calories per serving; and the number, in grams per serving, of carbohydrates, fat, and protein.

Wow!  This has been a long time coming.

To comment:

• For Allergens see Notice No. 238 and/orDocket No. TTB–2025–0003 at Regulations.gov and this comment form. 
• For Alcohol Facts see Notice No. 237 and/or Docket No. TTB–2025–0002 at regulations.gov and this comment form.

Electronic comments submitted via Regulations.gov are due by 11:59 p.m. ET on April 17, 2025, and comments submitted by postal mail must be postmarked by that date.

In its scientific report, the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommends substituting plant proteins for animal proteins.

The Committee recommends that the proposed Eat Healthy Your Way Dietary Pattern emphasizes dietary intakes of beans, peas, and lentils while reducing intakes of red and processed meats….The Committee also proposes reorganizing the order of the Protein Foods Group to list Beans, Peas, and Lentils first, followed by Nuts, Seeds, and Soy products, then Seafood, and finally Meats, Poultry, and Eggs.

It did not take long for the meat industry to respond: Animal vs. Plant Protein: New Research Suggests That These Protein Sources Are Not Nutritionally Equivalent.

As is my habit, I went right to the study.

The study: Connolly G, Hudson JL, Bergia RE, Davis EM, Hartman AS, Zhu W, Carroll CC, Campbell WW. Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2023; 15(13):2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132870

Conclusions: “The same “oz-eq” portions of animal- and plant-based protein foods do not provide equivalent EAA content and postprandial bioavailability for protein anabolism in young and older adults.”

Funding: “This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.”

Conflicts of Interest: “When this research was conducted, W.W.C. received research funding from the following organizations: American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center, Beef Checkoff, Pork Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. C.C.C. received funding from the Beef Checkoff. R.E.B. is currently employed by Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM); the research presented in this article was conducted in a former role and has no connection with ADM. G.C., J.L.H., E.M.D., A.S.H. and W.Z. declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.”

Comment: Amino acids, the building blocks of protein, are the same whether they come from plants or animals (or us).  Food animals are closer to us evolutionarily than are plants; the animo acid composition of their proteins is more like ours than the amino acid composition of food plants.  That is why protein complementarity matters; mix and match the plants you eat and their amino acid compositions will complement each other and fill in the gaps.  This doesn’t even have to be done at every meal.  Overall, it’s easier to get the needed amino acids from animal foods but it’s not all that hard to get them from plants as long as they are varied and you eat enough of them.  So the study isn’t wrong; it’s just not telling the whole story.

Thanks to Kevin Mitchell for sending this one.

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!