The US dietary guidelines have become the bible for the government and thousands of Americans who want to live longer and avoid disease. But a recent report suggests they may not be entirely credible.
New York journalist and author of The Big Fat Surprise released a report on the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on Wednesday, Sept 23, suggesting these dietary guidelines may be seriously flawed due to the lack of adherence to standard methods for review.
The dietary guidelines, which was introduced in 1980, is updated every 5 years to supposedly reflect any new health- or nutrition-related evidence. A committee composed of at least 11 experts is tasked to review recent relevant data and then make nutrition recommendations. It then publishes its recommendations, which will then be reviewed by the government. For this year, it's expected that the guidelines will be available by fall.
However, according to the BMJ report, the committee had allegedly "abandoned" any established standards in analyzing new and relevant studies. In 2010, in an effort to create a more rigorous and reliable procedure, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) created the Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL). But the committee failed to use NEL for more than 60% of its topics including controversial ones such as saturated fats, which are linked to heart disease, and low carbohydrate diets.
Rather, the committee relied on the systemic reviews that were conducted by recognized health organizations and associations like the American Heart Association (AHA). The experts also examined scientific literature even if the criteria for selection and process of evaluation were not well defined.
The lack of a reliable, solid, and thorough review process has made the guidelines more susceptible to third-party agendas and internal biases.
Congress has already intervened and has proposed to the committee to base their recommendations on "hard science." A hearing is set this October.