Search results: dietary guidelines

The USDA and Department of Health and Human Services are requesting nominations for the committee that will prepare the version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to be published in 2010. NutraIngredients.com points out that the committee’s first task is to decide whether the current guidelines need revision. That, of course, is a joke. What’s the point of appointing a committee if it doesn’t do anything. And in this case, the Dietary Guidelines badly need revision. What started out as a simple pamphlet with advice about healthy eating is now a 70-page textbook. The new committee will have some serious pruning to do. How to nominate someone to the committee? Both links explain.

I wouldn’t even ask such a silly question if the American Journal of Preventive Medicine wasn’t going to publish a paper arguing just this point. Along with one of the editors of that journal, I wrote an editorial commenting on the paper, to which its authors added a rebuttal to our editorial. The authors argue that the government has no business issuing advice based on weak evidence. I would agree except that evidence will never be as good as we wish it would be because research on human nutrition is really, really hard to do. And when it comes to diet, dietary guidelines are not exactly radical; the basic advice hasn’t changed in 50 years. I summarize it like this: “eat less, move more, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, and don’t eat too much junk food.” Michael Pollan gets it down to 7 words: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The Dietary Guidelines published in 2005 may take 70 pages, but in general, they say pretty much the same thing.

I always thought fiber had a simple definition: complex carbohydrates in food plants impervious to enzymes in our digestive tract.

OK, bacterial enzymes complicate the definition a bit.   But the real complication comes from what food companies toss into products to increase their apparent fiber content on food labels.

Now the FDA has issued guidance to industry about what companies can use to boost their products’ fiber content.  In FDA-speak:

We intend to exercise enforcement discretion for the declaration of dietary fiber, pending completion of a rulemaking regarding revising our regulations, if the declaration includes one or more of the following eight isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates, when present in a food and included in the amount of dietary fiber declared on the Nutrition or Supplement Facts label:

• mixed plant cell wall fibers
• arabinoxylan
• alginate
• inulin and inulin-type fructans
• high amylose starch (resistant starch)
• galactooligosaccharide
• polydextrose
• resistant maltodextrin/dextrin

What this means is that food manufacturers can use these to count as fiber.

Here, for example, is a happy announcement from Sensus, a company that manufactures “Frutafit” and “Frutalose” chicory root fibers.  It

welcomes the announcement that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes inulin-type fructans derived from chicory root as dietary fiber for the new nutrition facts label. The recognition consolidates the fiber status of chicory root fiber in the US and supports further opportunities for healthy food applications in the US.

The Sensus announcement explains that this decision came about as a result of a “joint citizen petition,” one in which you can bet this company was involved.

This decision is about marketing.

If you want fiber in your diet, the best sources are still foods: fruits, vegetables, beans, whole grains, nuts.

Yesterday’s Hagstrom Report quotes USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack’s comments to the Commodity Classic on the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee:

The “folks who put those reports together … have freedom. They are like my 3-year-old granddaughter. She does not have to color inside the lines.”

His 5-year-old grandson, he said, “is learning about coloring within the lines.”

“I am going to color inside the lines,” Vilsack said.

Sounds like the USDA has no intention of doing what the DGAC recommends.

This is why it’s so important to file comments @ www.DietaryGuidelines.gov by April 8.  You can also register there for the public meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, on March 24.

Addition, March 10: Secretary Vilsack’s speech and press conference remarks are here.

I received an e-mailed press release from The Peanut Institute: Peanuts and Peanut Butter Support Women’s Health.

When it comes to health, women face unique challenges that call for unique nutrition. In fact, research has found that women face a higher risk of dying from heart disease than men,¹ and may be at risk for other conditions such as hypertension,² certain cancers,³ and even Alzheimer’s disease.⁴  To help women protect their health, The Peanut Institute is sharing information on the benefits that regular consumption of peanuts and peanut butter delivers to females at every stage of life.

Here are excerpts from those stages.

• Birth to 24 Months:  A child’s first two years are referred to as “B24” and are a critical time in the growth and development of the brain and body. The most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans highlights peanuts as “an important source of iron, zinc, protein, choline and long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids.”²
• For youngsters and teens: On the subject of protein, at 7 grams per ounce, peanuts have more protein than any other nut.^6. That’s especially important for girls who work out since protein helps muscles grow, recover and stay healthy.⁷ Plus, peanuts are satisfying and an easy, on-the-go snack that can be stowed in a backpack, locker or car.
• For adults and seniors: The Journal of the American Heart Association found that following a plant-based diet with nuts, legumes, fruits and veggies can lower the risk of dying prematurely from multiple causes, including cardiovascular disease, one of the leading causes of death worldwide.⁸ In addition, phytosterols, like those found in peanuts, may inhibit the growth of cancers that affect millions of women, including lung, stomach, ovarian, colon and breast cancers.^9-12

I did not look to see whether the references were funded by the peanut industry, but there is plenty of precedent.  See, for example,

• Industry-funded study of the week: Peanuts
• Annals of industry-funded research: Peanuts this time
• Industry-funded request of the week: prove peanuts healthy

But there’s more.  A reader, Monica Baer, sent me another press release from the Peanut Institute: New Gut Microbiome Research Points to Positive Impact on Memory and Mood from Peanut Consumption

Research from the University of Barcelona on the gut microbiota has found that daily consumption of peanuts and peanut butter can produce compounds in the gut that help improve memory and reduce stress response, including anxiety and depression, in healthy young adults. Findings from the ARISTOTLE study were published online in the Journal of Functional Foods this September and shared by The Peanut Institute. 

I did look up this one: Isabella Parilli-Moser, Ricardo López-Solís, Inés Domínguez-López, Anna Vallverdú-Queralt, Sara Hurtado-Barroso, Rosa M Lamuela-Raventós, Consumption of peanut products enhances the production of microbial phenolic metabolites related with memory and stress response: Results from the ARISTOTLE trial, Journal of Functional Foods, Volume 108, 2023, 105746, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2023.105746.

Funding: This work was supported by funding from the Peanut Institute.

I like peanuts.  They are legumes and real foods.  But to attribute overall health and memory function to eating peanuts seems a bit far-fetched.  That’s why the Peanut Institute is funding research: to convince you peanuts are a superfood.  There is, of course, no such thing.  Superfood is a marketing term.  Should you eat peanuts?  Sure.  Why not?

Every five years or so, we have to deal with another farm bill.  Like the dietary guidelines, also every five years, the farm bill doesn’t really change much.  The arguments about both don’t change either.  So here we go again.

And just so you know where i”m coming from on this, here are my classic thoughts on the matter:  “The farm bill drove me insane.”

A quick summary of why it does: it’s a collection of dozens if not hundreds, of programs, each with its own constituency and lobbyists, and too complicated for outsiders (like me) to understand.  The elephant in the farm bill is SNAP, which takes up 80% or so of the funding and accounts for most of the fights.  What SNAP is doing there is a long story, but don’t even think about removing it; take it out and neither food assistance nor farm supports would have enough votes to pass.

On May 1, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee introduced her version of  this year’s delayed farm bill: The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.

A full summary of the bill is here. (Note: it’s vague on details)

A section-by-section is here. (Note: it’s 94 pages)

Title summaries

• Certainty for All Farmers
• Conservation
• Trade Promotion and International Food Aid
• Nutrition
• Credit
• Rural Development
• Research
• Forestry
• Energy
• Horticulture
• Miscellaneous

The House Committee’s counter-proposal is available here.

It’s too early for me to get into the weeds on this.

On SNAP (the Nutrition title), some advocates will be pushing for making it healthier as well as increasing benefits.

On farm supports (Certainty for All Farmers title, and others), advocates for animal rights, young farmers, and Black farmers will want more than they have received in the past.  Most of what’s in the farm bill goes to support feed for animals and fuel for automobiles.

On “specialty crops,” (translation: food for people)  in the Horticulture title, I was amused to see a $100 million increase per year, which sounds like a lot but is barely a rounding error in a bill costing $100 billion or more a year.

The farm bill ought to be an opportunity to bring agricultural policy in line with health policy and to focus on producing food healthy for people and the planet.

Well, the details are still to come, and reconciliation of the two versions is still a long way off .  Stay tuned.

The FDA Announces Qualified Health Claim for Yogurt and Reduced Risk of Type 2 Diabetes.

FDA intends to consider exercising its enforcement discretion for the following qualified health claims:

“Eating yogurt regularly, at least 2 cups (3 servings) per week, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. FDA has concluded that there is limited information supporting this claim.”

“Eating yogurt regularly, at least 2 cups (3 servings) per week, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes according to limited scientific evidence.”

FDA intends to consider exercising enforcement discretion for the above qualified health claims for when all other factors for enforcement discretion identified in Section IV of this letter are met.

All I can do is laugh.  As I told CNN,

Qualified Health Claims are ridiculous on their face.

Why would any sensible person think that all you have to do to prevent type 2 diabetes is eat 2 cups of yogurt a week?…All we can hope is that the yogurt is at least unsweetened, but since it’s really hard to find unsweetened yogurt [in small cups], this is telling people who want to avoid type 2 diabetes that sweetened yogurts are good for them…According to the FDA’s review of the studies, the amount of sugar in the yogurt made no difference to the results…Therefore, according to the FDA, sugar is a non-issue.”

The reason for my amusement?  Limited evidence.  Translation: if you want to believe this, go ahead, but it’s not on the basis of compelling evidence.

Take a look at the Danone petition.  The company asked for—and got—the qualified claim on the basis of observational evidence along with consumption data indicating that Americans currently do not eat much yogurt.

Given this low consumption, such a QHC is important to encourage food companies to increase yogurt in the food supply and inform consumers of current evidence in order to help them make informed choices.

It’s not that the FDA is ignoring the sugar issue despite its allowing the claim no matter how much sugar the yogurt contains.  In its letter of acceptance of Danone’s petition, the FDA said,

we are concerned that the use of a qualified health claim on yogurts that contain a significant amount of added sugars could contribute empty calories to the diet. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 recommend limiting added sugars to less than 10 percent of total calories and note that added sugars account on average for almost 270 calories, or more than 13 percent of total calories per day in the U.S. population.

…Consequently, while there is currently no disqualifying level for added sugars, given that Americans are exceeding recommended limits on added sugars, and some yogurts on the market are high in added sugars, FDA encourages careful consideration of whether to use the claim on products that could contribute significant amounts of added sugars to the diet.

Is this a warning to Danone to avoid using the claim on sugary yogurts?  We shall have to wait and see.

In the meantime, Danone is delighted: Danone North America Announces the FDA’s Decision on Their Petition for the First-Ever Qualified Health Claim for Yogurt, Linking This Dairy Aisle Staple to a Reduced Risk of Type 2 Diabetes

In response to efforts led by Danone North America, the new claim states that “eating yogurt regularly, at least 2 cups (3 servings) per week” may reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a condition 1.4 million Americans are diagnosed with every year.

Qualified Health Claims are about selling food products, not science.

Two examples of  beef-industry attempted influence:

I.  Science teachers

This one comes from Wired: Inside the Beef Industry’s Campaign to Influence Kids

Big Beef is wooing science teachers with webinars and lesson plans in an attempt to change kids’ perceptions of the industry.

A beef industry group is running a campaign to influence science teachers and other educators in the US. Over the past eight years, the American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture (AFBFA) has produced industry-backed lesson plans, learning resources, in-person events, and webinars as part of a program to boost the cattle industry’s reputation.

What is the AFBFA?

The AFBFA is a contractor to Beef Checkoff, a US-wide program in which beef producers and importers pay a per-animal fee that funds programs to boost beef demand in the US and abroad. In 2024, Beef Checkoff has approximately $42 million to disperse across its initiatives, and a funding request reveals that the AFBFA’s campaign for 2024 is projected to cost $800,000. The allocation of Beef Checkoff funding to programs like this is approved by members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and the Federation of State Beef Councils, two groups that represent the cattle industry in the US.

What does this program teach?

One lesson plan provided as part of the program directs students to beef industry resources to help devise a school menu. In another lesson plan students are directed to create a presentation for a conservation agency regarding the introduction of cattle into their ecological preserve. A worksheet aimed at younger students has them practice their sums by adding up the acreage of cow pastures. Another worksheet based around a bingo game aimed at 8- to 11-year-olds asks teachers to “remind students that lean beef is a nutritions source of protein that can be incorporated in daily meals.”

As for the answer to my question yesterday about whether this kind of training works:

According to survey data included in these documents, educators who attended at least one of the AFBFA’s programs were 8 percent more likely to trust positive statements about the beef industry. Some 82 percent of educators who participated in a program had a positive perception of how cattle are raised, and 85 percent believed that the beef industry is “very important” to society.

Again, this is a USDA-sponsored checkoff program.  The US Dietary Guidelines on beef call for it to be lean and unprocessed.  The checkoff does not.

II.  Public health professionals

I received this e-mailed message from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

I am a member of the Kentucky Public Health Association and so receive their email newsletters. The Beef Council promotion is fairly new. It is interesting to watch an industry PR campaign with health professionals happen in real time. I’ve also just realized that I don’t believe the Association has policies around sponsorships, something I had not worried about until the past few months.

She forwarded two messages sent to her from the Kentucky Public Health Association.  These are announcements from the Kentucky Beef Council: “Happy Nationl Nutrition Month,” and “Fueling Tween and Teens with Strong Minds and Bodies.”

The second is labeled as an advertisement; the first is not.

Both encourage visits to the Beef Nutrition Education Hub to get free continuing education credits and other resources.

Both say:

Thank you to our 38,000 Kentucky Beef Farmers! Fun Fact: Kentucky is the largest beef-producing state East of the Mississippi River

This email was sent on behalf of KY Beef Council and the content within shall be attributed to the sponsor. This email shall not indicate an endorsement on behalf of KPHA.

Copyright © 2023  Kentucky Public Health Association

Comment:  The Kentucky Beef Checkoff at work!   Regardless of the Kentucky Public Health Association’s protestations, these messages give the appearance of endorsement.  It should not be doing this.