Harvard School of Public Health explains how the new U.S. government nutrition guidelines were developed without proper scientific oversight. The normal process is a transparent one where an expert panel reviews the latest evidence and submits a report with recommendations, supposedly without any bias or industry influence. (A cynic could probably look at these highly credentialed experts at leading universities and show that they receive research funding from industry and from government agencies being heavily lobbied by industry, because where else would they receive funding from? But they can at least channel any propaganda through some scientific and ethical guardrails you would hope.) USDA employees aren’t obligated to follow these recommendations to the letter, but they at least give them some weight and balance them against the economic and political factors. This time the panel submitted their report as usual, but USDA then cherry-picked a separate set of experts to produce a “supplemental report” without the transparency or adequate documentation. And the guidelines are then based on that. So they are not credible.

Even though the process was not credible, the consensus seems to be that the new guidelines are not really all that different. The main issues have to do with how they are being (badly) communicated, including an apparent emphasis on more saturated fat (which is not really what the technical guidelines say at all, but the concern is that very few people will drill into the technical guidelines). If I can try to clarify the saturated fat issue, it seems to be that a portion of the population that has no cholesterol issues may be able to increase saturated fat intake with no ill effects, but a portion of the population that has cholesterol issues will have more heart attacks and strokes and early death if they do so. Nutrition advice really should be more personal in an ideal world, but with public health guidelines, broad, simple, clear statements that benefit a majority of the public on balance seem to be the way to go. And replacing saturated fat with healthier plant-based fats and oils definitely seems to fall in this category. If people who are eating a lot of sugar and processed garbage were to replace it with meat, that might actually benefit them which may be what the guidelines are trying to say. Of course, they should be replacing it with fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, whole grains, healthy fats and proteins. And I want to state that I support vegetarians and vegetarianism on ethical and environmental grounds. These considerations are missing entirely from the government’s concept of “nutrition”, and they should not be.

Another criticism I have always had of these guidelines is the use of weight, like eat so many grams of fat per day, or fat should be X% of your calories. Even those of us who might consider ourselves reasonably quantitative and logical think in volume or area, not weight. If you told me to aim for X tbsp of vegetable oil per day or Y slices of cheese, I could do that. Tell me Z grams or ounces, and I have no idea what to do, and then I am supposed to convert that to energy units (calories) and determine what percentage it is of my total calories for the day. But people don’t pay much attention to these guidelines anyway. They need to be getting this information from “trusted messengers” like teachers and doctors, and if these messengers had simple clear messages from the government that they themselves understood and trusted, they could just pass them along. Something like a point system that approximates the weights and calories involved could work.

I don’t think these guidelines have much short-term impact just because us laypeople don’t pay attention, and the professionals that could help us eat better don’t get clear communication materials out of these guidelines that they can work with.

But the longer-term damage here is the damage to the credibility of government health and medical advice. When I tell my kids “not to believe everything you hear and read on the internet”, I tell them to be aware of the source of the information. And one source I would have considered credible in the past is a major federal agency like USDA, CDC, etc. If major government, academic, and professional journalistic sources are telling you the same thing and it matches what that social media influencer or your friend are telling you, it’s still not 100% guaranteed to be true but you can start to have some confidence. But the credibility of federal agencies has really been significantly damaged by this administration and it may take a long time to recover, even if the past norms are ever put back into place.