Search results: USDA meat

The USDA announced last week the arrival of the Scientific Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC).

The DGAC deserves much praise for getting this job done on time under what I consider to be difficult constraints (large committee size, large areas of research to review, requirement that all recommendations be “evidence-based” which sounds good, but is unreasonable given the inability to conduct long-term controlled clinical studies).

The report is now open for public comment (see information at bottom of post).

The process to develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030 is under way. Get involved by providing written and oral comments to the Departments on the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (Scientific Report). You may also sign up to receive email updates on news related to the development of the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines…For more information, visit the Public Comments to the Departments page.

A reminder about the process:  The DGAC report is advisory.  Since 2005, the agencies appoint an entirely separate internal governmental committee to write the actual guidelines.  This, of course, makes the process far more political and subject to lobbying (file comments!).

The recent election will install new leaders of USDA and HHS.  If they follow the same process, they will appoint and instruct the new committee.  Or, they can change the process entirely.

Another reminder: When I was on the DGAC in 1995, our committee chose the research questions, did the research, wrote the scientific report, and wrote the actual guidelines.  Those were the days.

Comments on the DGAC report

For starters, it’s 421 pages.

Its bottom line:

This healthy dietary pattern for individuals ages 2 years and older is: (1) higher in vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, whole grains, fish/seafood, and vegetable oils higher in unsaturated fat; and (2) lower in red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, refined grains, and saturated fat. A healthy dietary pattern, as indicated by the systematic reviews, may also include consumption of fat-free or low-fat dairy and foods lower in sodium, and/or may include plant-based dietary options.

The proposed guidelines:

1. Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage. At every life stage—infancy, toddlerhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, pregnancy, lactation, and older adulthood—it is never too early or too late to eat healthfully.
2. Customize and enjoy nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect personal preferences, cultural traditions, and budgetary considerations.
3. Focus on meeting food group needs with nutrient-dense foods and beverages, and stay within calorie limits.
4. Limit foods and beverages higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

This looks like all the other Dietary Guidelines since 1980.  Its bottom-line statement is more explicit than previously about reducing red meat and sugar-sweetened beverages.

Worth reading

• Support federal data.  I especially appreciated the strong support for strengthening nutrition monitoring, food composition data (FoodData Central, an invaluable resource), and updating the Dietary Reference Intakes.  Yes!
• The chapter on portion size.  At last!  Larger portions have more calories!

What’s missing

• A separate chapter on calories stated explicitly.  The report discusses concerns about obesity and diet-related chronic disease in an excellent paragraph on page 1, and mentions calories but “stay within calorie limits” doesn’t get at what’s needed.  I want more on “…adults and children [should] consume smaller portions of foods and beverages that are high in energy density and low in nutrient density.”
• A guideline to reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods.  This committee, unwisely in my view, chose not to advise minimizing intake of ultra-processed foods, deeming their definition too uncertain and ignoring what are now three controlled clinical trials demonstrating that diets based on these food induce people to overconsume calories.

What’s confusing

–The addition of recommendations for diets in early childhood.  This was done for the 2020-2025 guidelines and it involved doubling the size of the committee. This makes the committee’s work much harder and its report insufferably long.  I would rather see a separate report on children (this could deal with the effects of food marketing as well).

–The health equity lens.  I’m all for this but its discussion dominates the report.  It is discussed in a separate chapter but then in boxes and other places throughout.  The word “equity” is mentioned 217 times and “health equity lens” 38 times.

Although prior Committees incorporated basic demographic factors such as age, race, and ethnicity into their reviews of the science, this Committee considered additional factors and did so in a holistic manner as it reviewed, interpreted, and synthesized evidence across data analysis, systematic reviews, and food pattern modeling. In particular, this Committee considered factors that reflect social determinants of health (SDOH). In doing so, the Committee could interpret the evidence based on both demographic factors (which are considered to be downstream, i.e., more proximal in terms of their influence on behavior) and socioeconomic and political factors (which are considered to be upstream, i.e., broader societal factors that influence the distribution of power and resources). Addressing SDOH is considered key to achieving a just, equitable society.

Other comments

From the Meat Institute:  Meat Institute Issues Statement on the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

“The Meat Institute remains strongly opposed to the Report’s recommendation to reduce meat consumption and will urge the agencies to reject it,” said Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts.

From the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine: Prioritizing Plant-Based Protein in the Scientific Report of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee is a Step Forward, Doctors Say

For the first time, the advisory committee tasked with making scientific recommendations for revising the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines “include more nutrient-dense plant-based meal and dietary recommendation options,” prioritize plant-based protein over animal protein, and recognize the many benefits of beans, peas, and lentils as a protein source. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) continued to discourage consuming foods like red meat, eggs, and dairy that are high in saturated fat, while also suggesting that the next Dietary Guidelines for Americans specifically recommend plain drinking water as the primary beverage for people to consume.

I can’t wait to see what comes next.

How to commennt

A 60-day public comment period on the Committee’s Scientific Report is open through February 10, 2025. More information about how to provide written and oral comments to the Departments is available at DietaryGuidelines.gov.

• Read about opportunities to provide public comments, including requirements for oral comments 
• Register to provide oral comments to the Departments.   Note: do this now.  Spaces are limited.
• Submit written public comments to the Departments
• Register to attend the virtual public meeting to hear oral comments on the Scientific Report  

Read the Committee’s Scientific Report 

Food trade is always a big issue, but it’s one I have a hard time keeping up with.  It’s in the news right now because President-elect Trump is threatening to increase tariffs with unsettling effects.   His vows, vows to slap new tariffs on U.S. trading partners on Day One, according to Politico, “has sent ripple effects through the U.S. agricultural industry, which relies on exports to boost profits for vital commodity crops like soy and corn.”

On top of that, the USDA predicts a record $45.5 billion deficit in food trade this year: U.S. Agricultural Exports in Fiscal Year 2025 Forecast at $170.0 Billion; Imports at $215.5 Billion.

As Agricultural Dive explains,

An already record agricultural trade deficit in the United States is expected to get even bigger, the Agriculture Department said Tuesday.  The U.S. farm trade deficit in fiscal year 2025 is on track to reach $45.5 billion, according to an updated USDA outlook. Government analysts were previously forecasting a $42.5 billion deficit in August….

While U.S. producers have been able to modestly increase exports of livestock, dairy, corn and sorghum since the USDA’s August forecast, trade of other major commodities — namely cotton and soybeans — has declined. Crop farmers have been hit the hardest by a decline in global prices and are expected to bear the brunt of the widening trade deficit….

Trade with two of the U.S.′ biggest markets faces additional risks next year as President-elect Donald Trump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trade with both countries has soared in recent years, with Mexico replacing China as the top U.S. agricultural market.

Much of the deficit is our fault, apparently.  We have a voracious demand for “ever-larger amounts of imported fruits, vegetables, wine, alcohol, coffee, and beef.”

The issue of Mexico as our top market raises questtions about the GMO corn we send there.  US Right to Know has published or reproduced a series of articles on this issue.

• GM corn and glyphosate science: Documents from Mexico-US trade dispute 
• New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks
• Mexico’s Scientfic Dossier on GMO Corn and its Effects
• Leading scientist defends Mexico’s food sovereignty from GM corn and glyphosate

The trade dispute works both ways: US suspends Mexico cattle imports after New World screwworm detected: The United States has relied on livestock from the country as ranchers struggle to rebuild depleted cattle herds.

Finally, for now, a new FAO report offers guidance and data on integrating nutrition goals into food trade policies: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2024.

While trade liberalization has numerous benefits for food security, questions linger about whether it is conducive to healthy diets. An analysis for SOCO 2024 using FAO’s Cost and Affordability of a Healthy Diet indicator found that higher import tariffs are associated with higher food prices irrespective of the healthy qualities of the foods, indicating that, in general, trade openness does not have a disproportionate effect on high-energy low-nutrition foods.

A reader writes:

Can you address the current food crisis outlining the many foods, long time frame, economic impact, and personal effort involved in this event?

I did not realize until I read the NPR email news brief this morning that one factory is the source of nine  deaths,  that multiple meat products are suspect, that many stores are involved, that sell-by dates extend into October, that products may be in appliances at home, and that all food in the appliance must be disposed of and that the empty appliance must be thoroughly cleaned.

My immediate response was to say that this is yet another recall due to foodborne illness and I’ve written previously about lots of these.  But this one is especially tragic.

• The products—meat contaminated with Listeria—killed people who ate them.
• The plant in which they were produced is inspected daily by an on-site USDA inspector.
• Even so, the plant was especially dirty and unsafe.

The CDC reports: “Epidemiologic, laboratory, and traceback data show that meats sliced at delis, including Boar’s Head brand liverwurst, are contaminated with Listeria and are making people sick.”

This particular outbreak began in June.

The USDA issued a recall notice at the end of July.

FSIS [USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service] is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ refrigerators and in retail deli cases. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them and retailers are urged not to sell these products with the referenced sell by dates. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. Consumers who have purchased these products are also urged to clean refrigerators thoroughly to prevent the risk of cross-contamination.

Boar’s Head published a list of the recalled products.  These include several brands and product types.

CBS used FOIA to request USDA’s records of Boar’s Head inspection results.  These take up 44 pages.

Food Safety News did a summary: “Inspection report reveals history of sanitation issues at Boar’s Head plant linked to deadly Listeria outbreak.”

Over a year of repeated sanitation failures — totaling 69 violations — at Boar’s Head’s Virginia plant, appears to have fueled the ongoing Listeria outbreak that has sickened 57 people across 18 states and claimed nine lives…The violations documented in the report include the presence of mold and mildew on surfaces that employees use to wash their hands, on the outside of steel vats and in holding coolers between smokehouses. These conditions are particularly concerning given the ability of Listeria monocytogenes to thrive in cold, moist environments.

CBS did a news video on the inspection results: “Mold, mildew and bugs linked to listeria outbreak, records show.”

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler is calling for a Congressional Investigation.

…years of inspection reports leave little doubt that the Boar’s Head plant’s HACCP [required safety plan] must have been either non-existent or used for toilet paper. It is hard to wrap your head around how food could be produced in these conditions by this company and under the un watchful gaze of FSIS inspectors.

Today’s New York Times points out that food safety recalls have additional consequences.  The economic viability of the town that houses this Boar’s Head plant depends on it for employment and purchases of local services.

Comment

Few of the food safety issues I’ve written about recently involve meat.  This is because of a major overhaul of USDA requirements for meat safety in the 1990s.  Once the USDA required meat producers to develop and use HACCP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point] safety plans, outbreaks due to contaminated meat declined.  When done right, these plans are highly effective.  They require producers to identify places in production where contamination could occur, take steps to prevent contamination at those critical control points, and monitor to make sure those steps were taken.  USDA inspectors are supposed to make sure all that happens.

But the inspection system has a built-in conflict of interest.  The system is voluntary.  The USDA cannot force compliance or order recalls.  All it can do is to withdraw its inspectors, thereby forcing the plant to close.  Nobody ever wants to do that.

The food safety system, divided between two agencies as it is (with different legislative mandates and different powers), needs an overhaul.  Lives are at risk.

If you have any Boar’s Head products in your freezer, better take a look at what they are and get rid of any on the recall list.

And let your congressional representatives know that you want better food safety oversight.

Additions

Thanks to Michael Jacobson for sending a link to the Boar’s Head website and the company’s promotional video.  After seeing it, this feels like even more of a tragedy.

Here’s Bill Marler’s legal complaint, just filed.

7-31-24: USDA withdraws inspectors

9-13-24: Boar’s Head announces plant closure

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine, which said that the courts were required to uphold regulatory decisions of federal agencies unless Congress said otherwise.  The court majority called the doctrine “fundamentally misguided.”

The decision involves food politics in two ways: (1) the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involved fishing, and (2) it has profound implications for food regulations.

(1) The case, as described in SCOTUSblog: “Can fishermen be required to pay for federal monitors? And by the way – should Chevron be overruled?”

Summary: The National Marine Fisheries Service had been requiring “the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing… the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.”  Commercial fishing companies, which do not like having observers on board, challenged the Chevron doctrine.  Koch Industries paid for the challenge, as part of its long-standing deregulatory agenda.

Significance: businesses objecting to agency regulations can sue the agencies and let judges decide.

The courts (politically appointed judges) can overrule the agencies ‘ public health and safety regulations.

(2) Implications for food, nutrition, and public health regulations

The decision is widely interpreted as putting food and nutrition policies at grave risk, particularly those of the FDA.  Here is a preliminary list of what is at stake.

• FDA: food safety, sodium, front-of-package nutrition labeling, the healthy front-of-package label claim, GRAS determinations, dietary supplements, chemical toxins.
• Many of these proposed regulations were already at risk because of disinterest or lack of understanding by agency officials who seem unwilling to argue forcefully for public health measures.  This lack is seen most clearly in a Wall Street Journal interview with Jim Jones, the FDA’s new Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, who appears uninterested in taking on regulations to reduce production as well as consumption of ultra-processed foods. [this discussion runs from 13:20 to 17:02].
• USDA: meat and poultry safety, Salmonella and E. coli as adulterants, pesticides, herbicides, meat industry consolidation reduction, safe handling instructions, labeling requirements.
• EPA: slaughterhouse pollution, water quality, PFAS
• FTC: dietary supplement health claims

Comment: There are undoubtedly more regulations in play that I haven’t thought of.   Food companies (like businesses in general) do not like being regulated.—too cumbersome, too expensive, too intrusive, too limiting on profits.

Now, a company fviewing any of these rules as inconvenient can take the FDA to court.  Doing so:

• Leaves scientific and public health matters to the personal views of judges.
• Ties up federal agencies in legal challenges.
• Reduces agency resources for inspections and other regulatory work.
• Casts a chill on developing new regulations development.

This decision has been applauded by the business community.

For those of us wanting diets to be healthier and more sustainable, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

I’ll bet we won’t have to wait long for the first cases to be filed.

I don’t like writing about the dietary guidelines process while it is still ongoing because so much can change between now and the time the advisory committee submits its report, and USDA and HHS issue the actual guidelines.

But this Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is dealing with the concept of ultra-processed foods and is tied in knots over it.

So I will devote this week to the guidelines.

• Today: Why knots?
• Wednesday: Why isn’t NIH funding more rigorous nutrition research?
• Thursday:  Why all the fuss when guidelines always say the same things?

OK.  Let’s get to it.

Why do I think the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) is tied in knots over ultra-processed foods (UPF)?

1. It  is required to make evidence-based recommendations.  This is impossible with observational evidence.
2. It is required to exclude the one existing controlled clinical trial from consideration (because it was too short).

Therefore, it had to conclude: ““Limited evidence suggests that dietary patterns with higher amounts of foods classified as UPF consumed by adults and older adults are associated with greater adiposity (fat mass, waist circumference, BMI) and risk of obesity/overweight. Evidence Grade: Limited.”

The DGAC is in an impossible position, and doing the best it can under the circumstances.

I need to say a word about evidence-based recommendations.  How I wish they could be.   If all you have is observational studies, you need to interpret them carefully.  Interpretation is subject to bias.

When I was a DGAC member (1995 guidelines), the agencies recognized what we were up against.  They instructed us to review the available research and give the best advice we possibly could based on it.

All of this raises a philosophical question: Should government agencies issue advice based on incomplete and inadequately controlled observational research?  Or should they say nothing?

This committee, apparently, is considering saying nothing about ultra-processed foods: “It would be hugely problematic to tell people to avoid 60% of the food supply without having something good to replace it.”

Really?  Plenty of “something good” is available.  It’s called food: fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, fish, dairy, eggs.

These—unprocessed and minimally processred—can be delicious, nutritious, and satisfying, and at reasonable cost.

—–

Tomorrow: Why don’t we have more rigorous research?

Addition:  The video of the meeting.  The discussion of ultra-processed foods starts at 3:51:45 .

A reader, Tara Kenny, sent me this one.  She wrote that she had seen a chart from this paper posted on X (Twitter) “showing  how pork, chicken, eggs, fish and turkey are almost the same as beans and nuts in terms of mean GHGs/50g of protein so I figured this paper would have likely have some conflicts of interests…It does.”

I went right to it.

• The paper: Perspective: The Place of Pork Meat in Sustainable Healthy Diets. Advances in Nutrition.  Adam Drewnowski.  Advances in Nutrition.  Volume 15, Issue 5, May 2024, 100213.
• Rationale. “The present analyses explore the place of pork in sustainable healthy diets worldwide, given the need for high-quality protein and the predictable patterns of global food demand.”
• Method: “This Perspective article aims to assess the place of fresh pork in the global sustainability framework, drawing on data from United States sources and from international agencies. The present goal was to examine the sustainability of pork as a source of meat protein, considering nutrition, affordability, environmental impact, and future food demand.”
• Conflict of interest: “AD is the original developer of the Naturally Nutrient Rich (NNR) and the Nutrient Rich Food (NRF) nutrient profiling models and a member of scientific advisory panels for The National Pork Board, Nestlé, FrieslandCampina, BEL, and Carbohydrate Quality Panel supported by Potatoes USA and has worked with Ajinomoto, FoodMinds, KraftHeinz, Nutrition Impact LLC, Nutrition Institute, PepsiCo, and Samsung on quantitative ways to assess nutrient density of foods.”
• Funding: “Analyses of publicly available USDA, FAO, and World Bank data were supported by the National Pork Board. The funders were not involved in the development of databases, analytical models, data analysis or interpretation, manuscript preparation or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

Comment: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced by agriculture is an important goal.  Most researchers think industrialized countries should produce less meat (particularly beef) as a necessary first step.  This analysis suggests we stop worrying about the effects of pork on climate change (never mind the effects of industrial pork production on air, land, and water within smelling distance). This article, by my old friend and colleague Adam Drewnowski, is an excellent overview of pork nutrition.  But why do it?  The title alone raises the question, “Who paid for this?”

I’m trying to make sense of the ongoing spread of bird flu to chickens, dairy cows, and an occasional person.

Bird flu, avian influenza, is (obviously) a viral disease in wild birds, but highly pathogenic strains can and do infect chickens, animals, and people.

It was considered sporadic and not much of a problem until we started industrial chicken production, crowding tens of thousands of chickens together in on huge barn.  Viruses can spread easily under those conditions.

Once bird flu gets into a chicken flock, the common practice is to—and here is one of my favorite euphemisms—“depopulate” the birds.

Or try another euphemism: The virus has “claimed” 2 million chickens in Texas.

“Culling” (another term) is expensive and cruel.  And taxpayers pay for it.

But now, to further complicate matters, bird flu has spread to at least 13 herds of dairy cows.

This is being attributed to contagion from migratory birds.  But milking and herd transport may also be responsible.

Bird flu has also spread to at least one person who worked with dairy cows.

Oh dear.  This has “spooked” cattle and dairy stock prices.

But there’s more: Scientists suspect bird flu may be responsible for widespread deaths of penguins in Antarctica.

This virus is causing lots of problems and I’d like to know a lot more about what is causing its transmission.

In the meantime, the CDC says the risk to humans is low, but people who work with chickens or susceptible animals should take precautions.

Masks and handwashing?  Always a good idea.

This one is about activities of the National Pork Board, a USDA-sponsored checkoff program recipient (see comment at end).  It comes from a reader, Lily Doher, reproduced with her permission.

I receive emails from the National CACFP [Child and Adult Care Food Program] Sponsors Association and occasionally click to see what free trainings they’re offering providers. I was encouraged by a training that described how providers play a pivotal role in developing childrens’ food habits and preferences and how providers can create positive food environments that support healthy eating. I clicked on the link and was surprised to see the training was sponsored and presented by the National Pork Board, and even more surprised to see the egregious industry influence throughout the training. Hosted by a registered dietitian nonetheless.

• “Empowering children to explore new foods, like lean pork, is key to addressing nutritional challenges faced by children.”
• “…pork has a huge role to play in discussions around food choice, exposure, language, and acceptance in children.”
• “Dr. Hicks-Roof then shed light on the crucial role of pork in shaping children’s food preferences and dietary habits…”
• “She also shared the science behind hunger and satiety, emphasizing the pivotal role of protein intake and importance of lean pork in informing conditional satiety.”
• ” Additionally, she shed light on pork’s affordability, nutrition and cultural significance as pork is a widely consumed meat globally.”
• “Dr. Hicks-Roof clarified that pork is the ultimate carrier food for busting through food neophobia in children, unlocking a new world of varied food exposures, and supporting opportunities to use positive, inclusive language during conversations about food with children.”

While this training is being highlighted by National CACFP, this type of industry influence is ultimately what led me to leave the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and I am disheartened to once again see a fellow registered dietitian be the puppet for Big Food. Our children, and the providers that care for them, deserve better.

Comment: CACFP is the USDA’s Child and Adult Care Food Program.  It provides reimbursements to providers of meals at child care centers, day care homes, and adult day care centers.  I wrote about it most recently in a previous “weekend reading” post.  Of course the National Pork Board, which runs the USDA-sponsored checkoff program, wants to encourage dietitians to promote pork.  It must welcome the opportunity to provide free continuing education credits.  Dietitians are required to complete 75 such credits every five years.  As I’ve written previously, they can easily do that with free industry-sponsored coursses.

Do those courses influence what dietitians tell clients?  Perhaps the Pork Board can answer that question (I wonder if it ever did before-and-after surveys).  I’m guessing it must view the expense as worthwhile.