![]()
The highly anticipated 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans were released on Thursday—and they’re proving controversial, with disagreement among industry and the nutrition community over whether red and processed meat should have been called out, and whether issues like sustainability should have been included. Months before the Guidelines came out, an independent group of experts—called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, or DGAC—proposed non-binding recommendations for the Dietary Guidelines. Some experts took issue with how the final product differs. Here, top experts in the field of nutrition provide their thoughts on the new Guidelines: “The 2015 Dietary Guidelines build upon the 2010 Dietary Guidelines to provide information to shape policy, design food and nutrition programs, and to help Americans make healthy dietary choices. There are useful updates from the previous guidelines, such as a specific limit on sugar intake to <10% of calories. However, although the Guidelines are required and purported to be “based on the preponderance of current scientific and medical knowledge”, they did not include some of the recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Committee and therefore do not describe an optimal dietary pattern. For example, the World Health Organization recently classified processed meat as a carcinogen and red meat as a probable carcinogen, based on evidence that has been in existence for some time. Yet the Dietary Guidelines make no mention of this and state that processed meat can be accommodated in a diet if the diet is within limits for other nutrients. There is not a strong emphasis on managing weight, less so compared to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines despite the continued high prevalence of overweight and obesity in the U.S. There also could be more specific information on some topics. For example, the guidelines mention that coffee has not been associated with an increased risk of major chronic diseases. While this is true, they do not mention that coffee has been associated with decreased risk of some diseases including type 2 diabetes, liver disease, and Parkinson’s disease. Despite some of these shortcomings, it is important to recognize that for most people, following the Dietary Guidelines will improve their nutritional status and health. —Dr. Donald Hensrud, a physician at Mayo Clinic and editor of the Mayo Clinic Diet “The science on the link between cancer and diet is extensive. By omitting specific diet recommendations, such as eating less red and processed meat, these guidelines miss a critical and significant opportunity to reduce suffering and death from cancer. For most Americans who do not use tobacco, the most important cancer risk factors that can be changed are body weight, diet and physical activity.” —Dr. Richard Wender, chief cancer control officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS). You can read the full ACS statement here. “The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There’s still a lot wrong with the USDA’s new Dietary Guidelines (like continuing to harp on saturated fat, and grouping eggs with red meat). But they got two things right. They pulled out “added sugars” as a separate item (hopefully the FDA will follow with a similar label change). And they provided a limit for added sugars and sodium, the two consumables for which we have causation of disease. Now let’s see if the processed food industry listens.” —Dr. Robert Lustig, professor at the department of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco “With obesity and its associated health consequences—namely type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease—on the rise throughout our country, the AMA also is extremely pleased that the new recommendations call for significantly reducing the amount of added sugars and sugar sweetened beverages from the American diet. The AMA has been working hard over the last two years to prevent the incidence of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, both of which are linked to excessive sugar consumption, and we will continue to support efforts aimed at improving the health of the nation.” —Dr. Steven J. Stack, President, American Medical Association “The good news about the new Dietary Guidelines is their emphasis on the way people actually eat—foods, diets, and dietary patterns. That works well for encouraging people to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. But the not-so-good news is that the Guidelines switch to nutrients—saturated fat, sugars, and sodium—as euphemisms for the foods that contain them. If they had carried out the food-based approach, they would have had to say eat less meat and cut down on sugary drinks and processed foods, but they don’t. How come? I’d guess politics. The result, alas, is unnecessary confusion about the messages they are trying to convey. —Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. Read her blog post reaction here. “I want to start out by saying what a fan I am of the 2015 DGAC report—I think the DGAC did a fabulous job. My criticisms here pertain to the ways their work has been adulterated by politics as usual. Since the DGAC report is in the public domain, and since that represents the work of public health scientists before political abuse, I invite every citizen who wants to eat in accord with expert guidance to refer to the DGAC report, and ignore the Dietary Guidelines!
