Flipping the food pyramid: Understanding the new U.S. dietary guidelines
By Meg Cunningham/Kansas-Missouri Health Journalism Fellow
A panel at HJ26 discussed how the newly released Dietary Guidelines for Americans have raised concerns among nutrition experts about transparency, scientific consensus and how journalists should cover changing federal nutrition recommendations.
Speakers on the panel said the latest guidelines diverge from the traditional process used to develop federal dietary and nutrition benchmarks, potentially creating confusion for consumers, health professionals and reporters.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are updated every five years and serve as the foundation for federal nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and school meals. “It affects every program in the U.S.,” said Joanne Slavin, a professor of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota who served on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
Traditionally, recommendations made in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are informed by an independent Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which reviews nutrition research and produces a scientific report. Previous advisory committees relied heavily on consensus among independent scientists and medical reviews.
Grace Chamberlain, a senior policy associate at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the latest guidelines departed from that model. Chamberlain said the final guidelines rejected or altered many recommendations from the advisory committee’s report and instead relied on a separate scientific review process organized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Chamberlain warned that the new process may bypass the traditional backstops against conflicts of interest or ideological bias from any individual on the committee.
“The bias of individuals cannot determine your dietary guidelines for Americans,” Chamberlain said. “Ideological bias is OK, as long as we have these checks and balances in place.”
Panelists highlighted a number of changes which stood out to them, including a greater emphasis on protein and animal-based foods, promotion of full-fat dairy products and a reduced emphasis on whole grains and plant-based foods. Panelists said those recommendations do not align with the broader scientific consensus, which have been reflected in previous versions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
“We have no data that we need more protein,” Slavin said. “We have no data that we need more red meat.”
Panelists suggested reporters look to guidance from the American Heart Association or the World Health Organization in addition to guidance posted in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Alice Callahan, a nutrition reporter at The New York Times who moderated the panel, said the changes present challenges for health journalists. Nutrition science is already difficult to distill for large audiences, she said, and changing guidelines can create confusion for audiences.
The panelists encouraged journalists to keep a close eye on potential conflicts of interest, understand how scientific consensus is reached and look beyond federal guidelines in the U.S. when reporting on nutrition topics.
Panelists emphasized that access to healthy food remains a major barrier in improving nutrition and public health outcomes in the U.S. Even the strongest nutrition recommendations, they said, will have limited impact if families cannot consistently afford healthy foods.
Meg Cunningham is the Missouri rural health reporter at The Beacon.
