Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

CSPI on Dietary Guidelines

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 00:25:29 AM PDT

When the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee Report came out the other day, I shot an email over to Jeff Cronin at CSPI to ask what he thought. His response was so great that I replied, asking if I could post it on my blog. Here's what he said:

Our take is - and was in 2005 too - that what the government does to help Americans eat according to the guidelines is more important than the guidelines document itself. It's perfectly good advice but we're eating no where close to it as a population. But hopefully the Dietary Guidelines for Americans document itself (this is just the advisory committee report) will focus more on food than nutrients, like you say. Remember when the food pyramid had actual FOOD on it?
That said, changing the Daily Value for sodium to 1500 mg might be likely to spur some reforumulation to reduce salt in packaged foods--and will give consumers better context when they read nutrition facts labels. But still, we want government nutrition policy oriented around that recommendation.

Good point. What good are nutrition recommendations if everything else in food & ag policy leads Americans to eat foods that make them sick?

Jeff also asked that I link to CSPI's Nutrition Policy Directory Margo Wootan's statement, which you can read at the link.

Jill Richardson :: CSPI on Dietary Guidelines

Tags: CSPI, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Jeff Cronin, Margo Wootan, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

CSPI on Dietary Guidelines | 2 comments

DGA (4.00 / 1)

You guys know I'm a numbers freak, right? I am acutely aware that correlation between two things does NOT mean they have a cause-and-effect relationship. Nevertheless, I can't keep myself from meditating that we have been blessed (or cursed) with DGAs since 1980, about the time our overweight/obesity problem began to accelerate. Does DGA drive obesity? I don't know, but my opinion of the 2000 and 2005 DGAs was so low that I haven't bothered to read this one.

One severe problem with the DGA concept is that a DGA diet has never been scientically tested. Advisory committee people would contradict me, saying everything in the document has literature support, but far as I know, there never has been a long term study of how real people do on real life implementations of DGA. That's in 30 years, folks. 30 years of people sitting on their (fat) asses doing literature surveys. That is not science. A scientist uses a literature survey to guide research, but then the edifice collapses if the research is not done. Do the experiments! A literature search is not a satisfactory substitute for the experiment.

IF THE DGA CONCEPT IS IMPORTANT, AND IT IS, IT SHOULD BE TESTED.

The only experimental information we have is that Americans have become increasingly overweight since the introduction of DGA. That means one of two things, and the fact itself is not evidence for one or the other hypothesis. One hypothesis is that Americans pay absolutely no attention to DGA. The secod hypothesis is that DGA is counterproductive, to the extent that Americans do pay attention to it.

One possible problem is not about the DGA itself, which says some good things, but how people misinterpret or misuse it. Regardless of what DGA says, we seem to use it to justify gorging ourselves on white starch. A potato is a vegetable and a banana is a fruit - both are concentrated starch bombs and should be used in moderation, but hey, if I want to get my five-a-day, why not eat two potatoes and three bananas? I note in passing that potatoes are the cheapest and least nutritious vegetable calories in the store, and bananas are the cheapest and least nutritious fruit calories in the store.

Grain. DGA says eat whole grains. Good idea. Do we do that? A few weirdos (we) do, but Americans in general do not. We eat white spaghetti, white rice, de-nutritioned cornmeal, and white-flour baked goods. If we crave a warm and fuzzy feeling of virtue, we eat "whole grain" bread in which white flour is a large component, and may even be the largest component. Americans do not pay attention to DGA in this area. The federal government itself does not pay attention to DGA in this area. Sheesh! Most of our wheat and rice subsidies support the production of white rice and white wheat flour. That's crazy.

Portion size is another problem area. American restaurants and their patrons obviously disregard DGA portion size recommendations. For people cooking at home, I suspect that the only people who observe DGA portion size advice are those with obsessive-compulsive disorder. DGA does specify portion sizes, but that section of the document is bureaucratically arcane and not in line with customary usage. In fairness to those who disregard it, trying to use it is a nearly hopeless task.

...what the government does to help Americans eat according to the guidelines is more important than the guidelines document itself. It's perfectly good advice...

I disagree with all that. The government could help Americans eat more healthfully and most Americans eat less healthfully than they would if they followed DGA, but DGA is not "perfectly good advice" and eating "according to the guidelines" is not the same as eating healthfully. DGA might be better than nothing (but maybe not), but even if we observed DGA portion sizes and hewed to the standard of eating whole grains instead of processed grains, my arithmetic says DGA is not the recipe for a healthy America.

Don't believe me? Fine. Do the experiment.

by: count @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 09:34:34 AM UTC

most Americans (4.00 / 1)

Sorry, I cannot justify or support my statement about most Americans eating less healthfully than DGA. I should have written "many Americans", not "most Americans".

by: count @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 09:52:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]