The former Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee writes that the language proposed in the House Farm Bill would openly reveal political interests and undermine the integrity of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (the basis of school meal programs, SNAP, WIC, and other essential nutrition programs for American families). members Mary Story, PhD, RD, and Eric Rimm, ScD.
Among the many harmful proposals in the House Farm Bill, there is one that has been overlooked: attempts to undermine the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Dietary Guidelines are used to compile evidence-based recommendations for what people in the United States should eat and drink to maintain a healthy diet. They are updated every five years by the USDA and Health and Human Services (HHS), informed by a scientific report that includes recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), an independent panel of nutrition experts. The Dietary Guidelines form the basis of the federal government’s nutrition education materials and, more importantly, its 16 nutrition assistance programs, including the National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the Older Americans Act. nutrition programs. As a result, the Dietary Guidelines directly affect the diet of 1 in 4 Americans.
In May, the House proposed Farm Bill language that would directly undermine the Nutrition Guidelines, resulting from industry lobbying and misinformation about the process for updating the Guidelines. The Farm, Food, and Homeland Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467), introduced by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, proposes numerous provisions that would undermine the scientific independence and integrity of the Dietary Guidelines process. At worst, H.R. 8467 seeks to establish a new “Independent Advisory Board,” appointed in part by USDA and HHS and in part by members of Congress, to determine the scientific issues reviewed by the DGAC. Setting the research agenda for the DGAC is currently being conducted by USDA and HHS in a one-year process that allows for public comment; This change will clearly introduce politics and does not ensure public participation in the process.
Additionally, H.R. 8467 aims to limit the questions examined by the DGAC, prohibiting consideration of the impact of policies and other social and environmental factors (such as socioeconomic status and cultural practices) known to affect our diets. As Professors of Medicine and Nutrition and former members of the DGAC, we can attest that these clearly ideologically motivated exclusions risk preventing the Dietary Guidelines from evolving with the evidence and serving all Americans.
Forty public health and nutrition organizations opposed these provisions in a letter dated September 9, citing potential harms to scientific integrity, public health, and health equity. Unfortunately, misinformation about the Guides continued to spread. A recent column in The Hill went so far as to claim that the Dietary Guidelines are actively contributing to our nation’s chronic disease epidemic. It is true that we are facing a national health and nutrition crisis, but the Dietary Guidelines are not to blame. In fact, they have been part of the solution and can continue to be so.
A 2024 systematic review found that eating a diet better in line with the Dietary Guidelines, as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), was associated with a lower risk of death overall and death from cardiovascular disease and cancer. However, the average American HEI score is 58 out of 100, indicating poor compliance with the Guidelines. There are many reasons for our dietary problems, but the federal government’s nutritional recommendations are not one of them.
Like any process, the Dietary Guidelines process can always be improved. For example, one positive proposal in the Farm Bill is to require public disclosure of conflicts of interest for each DGAC member. However, the process has unquestionably become more rigorous and transparent over time, resulting in improvements in the programs informed by the Nutrition Guide.
The school meals attacked in King and Achterberg’s opinion piece are a perfect example of Dietary Guidelines actively improving nutritional outcomes through the food environment. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines recommended limiting added sugars to less than 10 percent of daily calories; but the 2020-2025 DGAC found that 70 to 80 percent of children still exceeded this limit. As a result, USDA has implemented specific added sugar limits for school meals and the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which will be fully implemented by 2026. In short, there’s undoubtedly too much sugar in school lunches, but that’s about to change for the better. Because of the Dietary Guidelines’ research-based recommendations. In fact, even before the new added sugar limit, evidence showed that schools were the healthiest source of meals for children due to improved compliance with the Dietary Guidelines.
Given the number of individuals and programs affected by the Dietary Guidelines, misinformation and lobbying efforts by special interest groups (for example, the dairy industry continually trying to weaken limits on saturated fat and added sugars, or the meat industry and agriculture interest groups arguing that food sustainability should not be included in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines) ) threatens to undermine the science-backed nutritional guidance they provide. The proposed language in the Farm Bill once again betrays the public’s trust by creating a gaping hole for industry to exploit.
For the Dietary Guidelines to have the greatest impact on the health and nutrition of families across the country, it is critical that USDA and HHS continually improve and facilitate public confidence in the process. However, politically motivated attempts to dismantle the current process have negative consequences for all of us; But more importantly, they jeopardize access to healthy food for millions of Americans who depend on federal nutrition programs. Congress (and industry) should leave the science to the experts and abandon this proposal in the next Farm Bill.