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 

A reader, Colleen Wysocki, sent me a note about this study, the basis of a Nutrition and Dietetics SmartBrief e-mailed to members from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to members.

 RD: Enhance yogurt’s probiotic power with honey…A study in the Journal of Nutrition published earlier this year found that clover honey helps probiotics in yogurt survive longer during digestion, particularly benefiting the probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis…honey adds antioxidants and acts as a protective agent for probiotics. Research advises using just one to two tablespoons of clover honey per serving to optimize probiotic survival.

Here’s the study: Alvarado DA, Ibarra-Sánchez LA, Mysonhimer AR, Khan TA, Cao R, Miller MJ, Holscher HD. Honey Varietals Differentially Impact Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis Survivability in Yogurt through Simulated In Vitro Digestion. J Nutr. 2024 Mar;154(3):866-874. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.01.010.

Method: This was an in vitro (petri dish) study of the effects of honey on bacterial counts, with and without the addition of “simulated intestinal fluids.”

Results: “Yogurt with 10-20% wt/wt clover honey increased B. animalis survivability after simulated in vitro digestion (≤ ∼4.7 Log CFU/g survival; P < 0.05).”

Conclusion: “Yogurt with added honey improves probiotic survivability during in vitro digestion.”

Funding: “This work was supported partially by the National Honey Board (HDH and MJM).”

Comment: Honey may be delicious, and no wonder; it is 82% sugar, mostly fructose (41%) and glucose (35%) and not all that different biochemically from sucrose (table sugar).  The reason why the Honey Board funded this study must surely be to demonstrate that adding honey (i.e., sugar) to your yogurt is good for you.  And don’t we all love results like this?

While we are on the topic of marketing to kids, Healthy Eating Research has published a major report on digital food marketing: Evidence-Based Recommendations to Mitigate Harms from Digital Food Marketing to Children Ages 2-17.  

Despite its importance, the report is dense, detailed, and not easy to summarize.  Fortunately, I received an email with Key Messages

• An expert panel convened by Healthy Eating Research reviewed research and current policies on digital food marketing and developed recommendations for government policies, industry practices, and further research.
• Digital food and beverage marketing is embedded in nearly every platform children and adolescents use (websites, mobile apps, social media, video sharing, gaming, streaming TV), promoting sugary drinks, fast food, candy, sugary cereals, and sweet/salty snacks, which is harming children’s health.
• National experts carefully assessed the evidence and found actions policymakers and industry can take to reduce children’s exposure to and the power of unhealthy digital food and beverage marketing.

My recommendation: start with the Fact Sheet for Parents.

The most common types of foods marketed to kids online are fast food, salty snacks, candy, sweet snacks, and sugary drinks. These ads appear on social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat; video sharing sites like YouTube and TikTok; gaming platforms like Roblox and Minecraft; livestream gaming on Twitch and Facebook Gaming; and mobile apps and websites. Younger kids see more ads for candy and sweet snacks, while older kids and teenagers see more ads for snack foods. About 75% of kids have seen ads for energy drinks.

That’s what parents are up against.  As for what to do about it, short of throwing away the phone, the report urges advocacy for phone-free schools and other policies at Fair Play for Kids  and Design It For Us.

It’t tough being a parent these days.  Join those groups and take action!

Resources

• Technical Report
• Executive Summary
• Fact Sheet for Parents

I don’t get it really.  These commercials don’t look any different to me.  Maybe you can tell the difference.

Coca Cola’s annual Christmas commercial has been created with AI this time. pic.twitter.com/xO72akwoBh

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) November 15, 2024

 

According to news reports, Coca-Cola is getting a big backlash.

Instead of recognizing it was a mistake and apologizing, as many expected, the brand justified its use of AI, stating that it “remains dedicated to creating the highest level of work at the intersection of human creativity and technology.”

This is all about marketing, and marketing to kids at that.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest did a big report on that some years ago.  It’s still worth reading.

Addition: my distant but dearly loved cousin, Michael Kravit, who is in this business, writes:

Well, since we’re talking advertising, this zevia commercial is their cheeky response to coke’s ad. And they are getting a lot of attention for it.

The Santa Cruz Sentinal says Measure Z soda tax officially passes in Santa Cruz.

According to the Santa Cruz County Elections Department, 15,780 votes were counted in favor of the ballot initiative, or about 52%, and 14,364 votes, or approximately 48%, were counted against the passage of Measure Z….“Despite being outspent $1.9 million to our $85,000 by corporate special interests, the people of Santa Cruz stood strong and made their voices heard.”

The tax has been a long time coming.  It was first proposed in 2018, but was blocked by a California state act backed by the soda industry which prevented taxes on groceries until 2031.  Lawsuits overturned the penalty provision of the act, which allowed tax proposals to continue.

Politico reviews the history of soda tax fights in California.

Berkeley voted to renew its existing tax, no doubt for these reasons and despite being outspent tenfold.

Research looking at the last decade of Berkeley’s sugary drink tax shows the tax is working: Consumption of sugary drinks dropped by 52% and water increased by 29% among Berkeley residents in diverse neighborhoods with a large proportion of Black and Latino residents. In addition, 16 hydration stations have been installed and $5.7 million has been invested into 18 community gardens at Berkeley Unified School District sites. Funding has also supported vital public health and sustainability programs through organizations like Lifelong Medical Care, Healthy Black Families, The Multicultural Institute, YMCA of the East Bay Early Childhood Impact and The Ecology Center.

The point of all this:

Sugary drinks are the largest source of added sugar in the American diet. The American Heart Association recommends no more than six teaspoons of added sugar per day for women and nine teaspoons for men. One 12-ounce can of sugared soda contains about 10 teaspoons.

 

 

I have to say, it’s thrilling to see chronic disease prevention at last getting the attention it totally deserves.  Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders’ Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee held a hearing: What Is the FDA Doing to Reduce the Diabetes and Obesity Epidemics in America and Take on the Greed of the Food and Beverage Industry?

Sanders was eloquent about the need to prevent obesity and its healtth consequences, particularly among children.

Food Fix has an excellent summary: Concern about chronic disease crisis takes a bipartisan turn

During the two-hour hearing, FDA was roundly criticized for not taking a more active role in combating diet-related diseases and cracking down on the food industry. (Nevermind that Congress has not been on FDA about these issues and has actually thwarted the agency’s work on nutrition over the years at the behest of industry, but I digress!)

If you were listening to this hearing, you really couldn’t tell which lawmaker was Republican or Democrat based on their comments alone. And as far as I could tell, no lawmaker came to the defense of the industry. Instead, there was broad, bipartisan agreement that the status quo isn’t acceptable.

….The sharpest exchange of the hearing this week came from Sen. Sanders. He pressed FDA Commissioner Robert Califf on what progress FDA has made to warn Americans about the harms of processed foods. Sanders noted that it was 14 years ago that FDA began looking into front-of-pack labeling, and a proposal has still not been released. Meanwhile, many other countries have gone ahead with such labels and/or gone further, implementing bold front-of-pack warning labels.

Califf, who I find thoughtful and impressively honest, was pushed hard by Sanders.  He explained the congressional restrictions on what FDA can do (money, laws).  Obviously, these can be changed.

Mostly, I found the emphasis on stopping marketing of junk food to kids particularly heartening.

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine published a terrific report on Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity?

One of its recommendations:

Recommendation 8: Government at all levels should marshal the full range of public policy levers to foster the development and promotion of healthful diets for children and youth.

It went on to say:

If voluntary efforts related to advertising during children’s television programming are unsuccessful in shifting the emphasis away from high-calorie and low-nutrient foods and beverages to the advertising of healthful foods and beverages, Congress should enact legislation mandating the shift on both broadcast and cable television.

Well, yes.  It’s been nearly 20 years since that report.  Surely, the time has come.

Jung J-S, Choi G-H, Lee H, Ko Y, Ji S. The Clinical Effect of a Propolis and Mangosteen Extract Complex in Subjects with Gingivitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Nutrients 2024, 16(17), 3000; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16173000

Results:  The results revealed that the PMEC group showed a significantly reduced expression of all measured GCF biomarkers compared to the placebo group (p < 0.0001) at 8 weeks, including substantial reductions in IL-1β, PGE2, MMP-8, and MMP-9 levels compared to the baseline. While clinical parameters trended towards improvement in both groups, the intergroup differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that PMEC consumption can attenuate gingival inflammation and mitigate periodontal tissue destruction by modulating key inflammatory mediators in gingival tissue.

Funding: This research was funded by Medibio Lab Co., Ltd.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors declare that this study received funding from Lab Co., Ltd. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of this manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Comment: This is a typical industry-funded study in which the authors put a positive interpretation of what appear to be null findings.  I can’t quite tell what this sponsoring company is.  One possibility is MediBioKorea.  Another is Medibios.  Both make supplements.

Here’s the announcement:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) today launched its 2024 Statistical Yearbook, offering an in-depth overview of the most significant trends shaping global agrifood systems. This year’s edition highlights critical challenges, including increased temperatures over land, the ongoing global struggle with food insecurity alongside increasing obesity rates, and the environmental pressures faced by agricultural production….

The 2024 Statistical Yearbook is also available in a digital, interactive format and comes with a companion pocketbook, offering a clear reference to key data on agriculture, food security, and sustainability. It is part of FAO’s ongoing effort to improve data accessibility, complementing the FAOSTAT platform, which hosts the world’s largest collection of free agricultural statistics, covering over 245 countries and territories.

It’s got great graphics.  One example:

A few highlights:

• The value of global agriculture: $3.8 trillion in 2022.
• Proportion of global workforce employed in agriculture: a decrease from 40% in 2000 to 26% in 2022.
• Hunger remains persistent: In 2023, between 713 and 757 million people were undernourished, 152 million more people than in 2019.  Most are in Asia and Africa.
• Obesity is rising: More than 25% of adults in the Americas, Europe and Oceania are obese.
• Meat production increased by 55% from 2000 to 2022, with chicken accounting for the largest share of this rise. 
• Pesticides increased by 70% between 2000 and 2022, with the Americas accounting for half global pesticide use.
• Vegetable oils grew by 133 percent between 2000 and 2021, largely driven by an increase in palm oil production.
• Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems rose 10% between 2000 and 2022, with livestock contributing to around 54% of farmgate emissions.
• Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are withdrawing each year 9 to almost 40 times their renewable freshwater resources available.

Comment: Food systems need immediate transformation to become healthier and more sustainable.