Together with

Conflicts Of Interest And Dietary Guidelines

The government's process to update national nutrition advice has recently come under fire, and for good reason. Critics argue that the committee tasked with advising on our nutrition policy has potential conflicts of interest. Color me surprised.

Here are the basics. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services work together to create the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, updating them every five years. A group of experts is picked to explore the current knowledge in nutrition science and prepare a detailed report. This report then helps to shape the updated recommendations. This group of experts is called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and they play a crucial role in shaping what eventually becomes our dietary guidelines.

A few weeks ago, a consumer group called the Center for Science in the Public Interest criticized the government agencies, claiming that the committee's potential financial conflicts of interest have been concealed. A list of the committee members' financial connections was posted online, but it didn't clarify which connections belong to which members. Why would they leave out that crucial information?

Rightfully so, critics have expressed their frustration with this format. Potential conflicts of interest should be outlined individually and in detail to provide the necessary level of transparency the public deserves.

There's always been political maneuvering about who's part of this committee and their views on different nutrition subjects. The process draws a lot of interest and influence, so any potential conflicts of interest are crucial, which is why the agencies in charge are facing growing demands for transparency.

Wouldn’t you want to know if committee members had ties to companies trying to peddle fake meat? Or if they were receiving any sort of funding from Big Food corporations or Big Soda? Wouldn’t any of those conflicts of interest raise some red flags that the public should know about? Is that really too much to ask for?

In 2015, Congress asked the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to review the process for creating our dietary guidelines. They made several suggestions to improve the process, including creating clear policies on potential conflicts of interest. However, the government agencies decided not to implement this recommendation, citing privacy issues. Privacy issues?! C’mon, man!

Last year, a study found that almost all committee members from the previous round of updates to the dietary guidelines had some form of conflict of interest with the food or pharmaceutical industries. Committee members had connections with Kellogg, Aboott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, and Danone.

Yikes.

The federal government responded by saying that the list of potential conflicts of interest is a voluntary disclosure by the committee and that it already surpasses what's required. Great…

The key takeaway? We have come a long way from the old food pyramid that suggested we eat more whole grains than fruits and vegetables combined. The new dietary guidelines are better, but they are still a long way from ideal, and to be honest, we may never get there. A lack of public funding for nutrition science means industry funding is often necessary, so conflicts of interest will always exist. This is a real issue without an easy solution, but a good start would be providing some transparency in disclosing the potential conflicts that exist today.

Together with Gratsi

Quality Wine, Zero Sugar

Gratsi is a sustainably packaged, quality wine with zero sugar. By working with American vineyards, avoiding the 76 FDA-approved additives, sugars and inefficient packaging, Gratsi reminds us to live slow & live more. We believe that quality wine should be packaged sustainably, and now it is, as well as remaining fresh for 30 days after opening!

The first 20 people to click the link below will receive our BACARO glasses for FREE with their order.