by Proposed language in the House Farm Bill would explicitly introduce political interests and harm the integrity of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans—the foundation of school meal programs, SNAP, WIC, and other essential nutrition programs for American families—wrote the former Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee members Mary Story, PhD, RD, and Eric Rimm, ScD.
Among the many harmful proposals in the House Farm Bill, there is one that may be flying under the radar: efforts to undermine the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Dietary Guidelines are used to compile evidence-based advice on what people in the United States should eat and drink to maintain a healthy diet. USDA and Health and Human Services (HHS) update them every five years, guided by a scientific report with recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), an independent panel of nutrition experts. The Nutrition Guidelines serve as the foundation for federal government nutrition education materials and, more importantly, for 16 nutrition assistance programs, including the National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and the Older Americans Act. nutrition programs. As a result, the Dietary Guidelines directly affect the diets of one in four Americans.
In May, the House proposed Farm Bill language that would directly undermine the Nutrition Guidelines, stemming from industry lobbying and misinformation about the process for updating the Guidelines. The Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (HR 8467), introduced by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, proposes multiple provisions that would undermine the scientific independence and integrity of the Dietary Guidelines process. In large part, HR 8467 aims to install a new “Independent Advisory Board”—appointed in part by USDA and HHS and in part by members of Congress—that would determine the scientific topics reviewed by the DGAC. The DGAC’s research agenda is currently set by USDA and HHS in a year-long process that allows public comment; this change would explicitly introduce politics and does not ensure public participation in the process.
In addition, HR 8467 aims to limit the issues reviewed by the DGAC, preventing the influence of policies and other social and environmental factors (such as socioeconomic status and cultural practices) known to consider their influence on our diets. As Professors of Medicine and Nutrition and former members of the DGAC ourselves, we can attest to the risk of preventing the Dietary Guidelines from evolving along with the evidence and serving all Americans with the exclusions this, which is clearly ideologically motivated.
Forty public health and nutrition organizations opposed these provisions in a September 9 letter, citing potential harm to scientific integrity, public health and health equity. Unfortunately, misinformation about the Guidelines continues to circulate. Recently, an op-ed in The Hill went so far as to claim that the Dietary Guidelines actively contributed to our nation’s chronic disease epidemic. It is true that we are facing a national health and nutrition crisis, but the Dietary Guidelines are not to blame. In fact, they were, and can continue to be, part of the solution.
A 2024 systematic review found that eating a diet more aligned with the Dietary Guidelines, as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), was associated with a lower risk of death overall and from cardiovascular disease and cancer. However, the average American IAO score is 58 out of 100, indicating poor alignment with the Guidelines. There are many reasons for our dietary woes, but the federal government’s nutrition advice is not one of them.
As with any process, the Dietary Guidelines process can always be improved. For example, one positive recommendation in the Farm Bill is that public disclosure of all DGAC members’ conflicts of interest should be required. However, there is no doubt that the process has become more rigorous and transparent over time, which has led to improvements in the programs that the Nutrition Guidelines inform.
School meals, which came under attack in King and Achterberg’s opinion piece, are an excellent example of the Nutrition Guidelines actively improving nutrition outcomes through the food environment. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines recommended limiting added sugars to less than 10 percent of daily calories, but the 2020-2025 DGAC found that 70 to 80 percent of children still exceeded this limit. As a result, USDA introduced specific added sugar limits for school meals and the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which will be fully implemented by 2026. In short, school meals are admittedly high in sugar, but that is about to change for the better. because of the research-based recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. In fact, even before the new added sugar limit, evidence showed that schools were the healthiest source of meals for children due to improved alignment with the Dietary Guidelines.
Given the number of people and programs affected by the Dietary Guidelines, misinformation and lobbying by special interests (for example, the dairy industry’s continued push for limits on saturated fat and sugar further weakening, or the power of meat industry and agriculture interest groups to prevent food sustainability from being included in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines) threatens to undermine the science-backed nutritional guidance they provide. The language proposed in the Farm Bill creates a loophole for industry to exploit, which again betrays public trust.
In order for the Dietary Guidelines to have the greatest impact on the health and nutrition of families across the country, it is critical that USDA and HHS continually improve and facilitate public confidence in the process. However, politically motivated efforts to dismantle the current process have negative consequences for all of us, but more importantly they affect access to healthy food for the millions of Americans who rely on federal nutrition programs. Congress (and industry) should leave the science to the experts and abandon this proposal in the next Farm Bill.
