Nutrition Coalition Asks for A Warning Label on next Dietary Guidelines: “For Healthy Americans ONLY.”
BMJ on Former Guidelines' Committee Members Calling For End to Sat Fats Caps
Analysis of 2020 Guidelines Process Finds Science Drawn Mostly from White Populations
Limited Screening! Don't miss seeing this excellent film: Sacred Cow, on how “better meat” can help the environment

    

**Dietary Guidelines Needs a Warning Label: "For Healthy Americans Only"**

In anticipation of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) being released before the end of the year, The Nutrition Coalition recently wrote a letter to the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (USDA-HHS) asking them to include a prominent warning label on the upcoming DGA to make clear that the recommendations are "For Healthy Americans Only.”

The DGA has long limited its advice to be for "prevention only” and not for the  treatment  of chronic diseases. This means that, during the 2020 DGA process, the science on disease treatment was simply not reviewed. Further, the 2020 DGA Advisory Committee made the decision to exclude all studies on weight loss,[1] even though historically, one of the Guidelines’ principal goals has been to help people “reach and maintain a healthy weight.”[2]

The implication is that for the 60% of Americans diagnosed with diet-related chronic diseases, including the 42.4% of the adults with obesity, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines are not for them.[3]

Many people understand that a diet for a healthy person is not the same as one for someone whose metabolism has tipped into ill-health. The DGA’s guidance to consume six servings of grains per day, including three servings of refined grains, plus up to 10% of calories as sugar, cannot be tolerated by a person with diabetes, for example. Unhealthy Americans need to know that the Guidelines provide inappropriate advice for their conditions.

Chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in the U.S., costing $3.5 trillion annually. Obesity alone accounts for nearly 21% of all annual medical spending in the U.S.

The fact that the Guidelines have not reviewed nutrition science for treating disease is especially problematic given our current battle with Covid-19. Diet-related diseases, including obesity, diabetes and hypertension, have consistently shown to dramatically increase the risk of complications for Covid-19, including higher rates of hospitalization and death.[4] People with these diseases urgently need to receive dietary advice appropriate for their conditions.

To support these efforts, click this link HERE. This is our last effort—the last time we will be asking for you to lend your voice. Despite our efforts, we realize now that we cannot change the DGA to reflect the best and most current science, but we can at least try to restrict their overreach. Read more and speak up, one last time.

BMJ: US nutritionists call for dietary guideline limits on saturated fat intake to be lifted

An article published in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) highlights an important letter from leading nutritionists, including three former members of previous Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committees (DGACs), including the Chair of the 2005 DGAC, calling on members of Congress to “urgently rethink” the 2020 DGA, in particular the caps on saturated fats—currently limited to 10% of calories. The scientists' letter to Congress points out that “there is no strong scientific evidence that the current population-wide upper limits on commonly consumed saturated fats in the US will prevent cardiovascular disease or reduce mortality. A continued limit on these fats is not justified.” This letter is based on a paper, by the same authors, called a “State of the Art Review” on saturated fats, recently published in the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The letter itself can be viewed here.

Analysis Shows Science Behind Guidelines Does Not Take into Consideration Race, Ethnicity, and/or Socio/Economic Status. Most Studies on White, Middle-Class Populations

A recent in-depth analysis by the Food4Health Alliance shows that more than 90% of the 56 systematic reviews with significant findings in the Scientific Report by the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee did not account for race, ethnicity, and/or socio-economic status. Moreover, they relied on predominantly white populations, which are questionably generalizable to the broader US population.

Congress intended for the Dietary Guidelines to be for the “general public,” yet today, the public is more than one quarter (26%) non-white, including nearly 13% black/African American and 17.6% Hispanic/Latinx. These populations have seldom been included or accounted for in the studies reviewed in the 2020 DGA report.

The disturbing implication is that the 2020-2025 DGA will be questionably appropriate for historically disadvantaged populations.

Exclusive Film Preview: Sacred Cow, a pivotal food and environment film will be available for a limited time

Filmmaker, dietician, and writer Diana Rodgers has been working for years to get the word out about the importance of sustainability when it comes to diet, and she has just finished her book and documentary film, both entitled Sacred Cow, that addresses this complex, yet critically important topic.

Beef is framed as the most environmentally destructive and least healthy of foods, but while many argue in favor of greatly reducing, or even eliminating meat from our diets, Sacred Cow takes a critical look at the assumptions and information presented about meat.

Sacred Cow will be available for viewing for a limited time from November 22 through November 30. Simply head over to this page, enter your email, and you’ll be set to receive the film in your inbox on the 22nd.

Biden USDA Transition Team Announced

We don’t know many of the people on this list, yet we are hopeful given that the administration-elect has pledged itself to elevating the importance of good science.

That said, we note the participation of the Good Food Institute, based in Berkeley, CA, a group that works extensively with industries developing meat alternatives.

We also note the presence of Deb Eschmeyer, who led Michelle Obama's successful efforts to eliminate whole and 2% milk from the National School Lunch Program as well as require low-salt meals for children.

**YOUR VOICE MATTERS. ONE LAST CHANCE TO TAKE ACTION!**

There are only a few short weeks before we expect the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) to be released. It is therefore  our last opportunity to act--and  the LAST TIME  we  will  be asking  you to take action.

Our final request is to Congress—to ask that the 2020-2025 Guidelines  carry a prominent  warning label, to let  people know that the Guidelines are  “For Healthy Americans Only.” 

Your voices have been critically important  throughout this process, and we’ve clearly had an impact. Members of Congress have written letters to the USDA-HHS asking for changes to the Guidelines, to improve methodological rigor and to revisit the caps on saturated fats. Due to our efforts, many members of Congress are now aware of the problems with the Guidelines, and this will bode well for the future. Together, we’ve made it impossible for Congress to pretend that the Guidelines comprehensively reflect the best and most current science—or that this policy applies to all Americans.

We know now that we can't fix the 2020 Guidelines. But we can urge Congress to restrain the DGA's reach. Thank you again for you continued support and action on this critically important issue. We are so grateful for your efforts. Please join us in one last push to reform the DGA.

Take Action

Please Donate

The Nutrition Coalition would be grateful for your support! Like so many others, we’ve have had to cut back during this difficult time. If you are one of the fortunate people with something to give, we hope that you might consider a donation! Reducing diet-related diseases has always been urgent, perhaps now more than ever. We believe there is still good reason to hope that we can make a difference for these 2020 Guidelines.

Donate

Footnotes:

Public meeting of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, March 23, 2020, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4d5666bff20053c65b7ff2/t/5e73d18616772f0fd8940644/1584648584430/March+12%2 C+2020+-+Afternoon+Session+-+2020+Dietary+Guidelines+Advisory+Committee+Public+Meeting.pdf, Minute 29:16
https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/about-dietary-guidelines, Accessed, Oct 15, 2020.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html#obesity

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

The Nutrition Coalition is a nonprofit educational organization working to strengthen national nutrition policy so that it is founded upon a comprehensive body of conclusive science, and where that science is absent, to encourage additional research. We accept no money from any interested industry.

Nina Teicholz 9/24/20 Nina Teicholz 9/24/20

Newsletter Update | September 2020

FEATURED
The Dietary Guidelines (DGA) are on track to come out by the end of 2020—what should we expect?

Ken Berry, Maria Emmerich and many others take part in our video campaign showing how people have regained their health by ignoring the Guidelines.

Wisconsin lawmakers wrote a letter to USDA-HHS to address concerns over saturated fat limits in the 2020 DGA.

The Nutrition Coalition submitted its final public comments to USDA regarding the expert report by the 2020 DGA Advisory Committee.

Take Action: Your Voice Can Still Make a Difference!

Download a PDF version of this issue

In This Issue:
The Dietary Guidelines (DGA) are on track to come out by the end of 2020—what should we expect?
Ken Berry, Maria Emmerich and many others take part in our video campaign showing how people have regained their health by ignoring the Guidelines.
Wisconsin lawmakers wrote a letter to USDA-HHS to address concerns over saturated fat limits in the 2020 DGA.
The Nutrition Coalition submitted its final public comments to USDA regarding the expert report by the 2020 DGA Advisory Committee.
Take Action: Your Voice Can Still Make a Difference! (See Below)

    

Update on the Dietary Guidelines—What Should We Expect?

The final expert report came out in August, and officials at U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (USDA-HHS) are now working on converting this 800+ page report into a short policy document to disseminate to the public. During this time, food companies often lobby to try to alter the outcome of the report. The Nutrition Coalition (TNC) has made an effort to make public officials aware of the lack of rigorous science in the report overall and its exclusion of large bodies of scientific evidence, including all studies on weight loss and the last decade of science on saturated fats. TNC has also emphasized how tragic it is to have a massively influential nutrition policy that focuses exclusively on healthy people—now only about 12% of our population (For more, see the public comments TNC submitted, below).

A big part of TNC’s efforts has been to get people across America to contribute their voices to this effort. We salute all of you who have done that and want to remind you that it's still possible to have your voice heard!

Video Campaign

Last month, individuals from all walks of life and all corners of the country shared success stories about how they have attained better health by eating virtually the opposite of what the DGA recommends. In an online social media campaign, Americans detailed how, after years of failed attempts to regain their health by following the Guidelines, they looked to the science to find solutions that have helped them sustainably lose weight and reverse chronic, diet-related diseases.

Here are just a few of the many Americans who have shared their stories about how they achieved better health by ignoring the Guidelines:

Ken Berry, MD: “I feel better now at 51 years of age than I felt when I was 35 and following the USDA My Plate Guidelines. So, until we can come up with some sensible guidelines that actually help people meaningfully improve their health, I say we delay these guidelines for further study.”
Maria Emmerich: “I researched what was causing my PCOS [polycystic ovarian syndrome], plus IBS [inflammatory bowel syndrome] and acid reflux--and guess what I started doing: the exact opposite of what the government guidelines told me to do. I started eating a lot of red meat and foods high in cholesterol like lobster, when I could, and butter. And I got better.”
Michael William Wood: “I have a Master’s Degree in Public Health. I followed the USDA Dietary Guidelines for 35 years and became pre-diabetic with 30 pounds of excess fat, a CAC [Coronary Calcium Score) of 514, hypertension and GERD. I urge the Congress and the USDA to stop the madness of their failed Dietary Guidelines…the [Dietary Guidelines Advisory] Committee did not review all of the relevant literature, and it was stacked with members associated with the processed food industry…”
Dan Cadmus: “I experienced several failed attempts at losing weight using the standard Dietary Guidelines. I would lose about 10-20 pounds and then gain it back within a matter of months. At that point, I really just accepted that [being overweight] as a way of life. Four years ago, I was 360 pounds and an anxiety-filled wreck. Now at age 29, I feel better than I ever have, no thanks to the Dietary Guidelines.”
Bart Simmons : “The USDA food guidelines never worked for me. They caused me grief; they caused me misery.”
Amanda Z.: “Exactly four years ago, I discovered I had type 2 diabetes…I discovered that it was actually quite easy to reverse type 2 diabetes, all you need to do is to get rid of all the food recommended by the Dietary Guidelines, so the “healthy whole grains,” the cereals, the toasts, low-fat skim milk, the vegetables oils and replace that with meat, and dairy, and fish, and eggs, and saturated fats. Within six months, my HbA1c [the measure of T2 diabetes] was under 4.2, so I was completely non-diabetic, and it’s been that way ever since for the last for years.”

Wisconsin Lawmakers Letter to USDA/HHS

On September 3, a group of Wisconsin legislators, including Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Glen Grothman (R-WI), Tom Tiffany (R-WI) and Ron Kind (D-WI), sent a letter to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue and HSS Secretary Alex Azar urging these agencies to address concerns over the Guidelines, specifically the DGA Committee’s (DGAC) failure to consider a large body of recent peer-reviewed research determining that the longstanding caps on saturated fats are not supported by robust science.

Over the last decade, a growing body of research on saturated fats has determined that the longstanding caps are not justified by science. Included in this growing body of science is a recent “State-of-the-Art Review” written by a group of leading nutrition scientists in the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). Among the prominent authors of the paper are two former members of previous DGACs and the Chair of the 2005 DGAC.

The scientists who authored this this review also sent a letter to the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services about their findings.

So far, it’s been radio silence from USDA-HHS on this issue and whether they might reconsider their review of saturated fats, especially since the Subcommittee reviewing this science was one-sided and unbalanced, according to our review.

TNC Public Comments

The Nutrition Coalition submitted its public comments to USDA on the final expert report by the 2020 DGAC. The Coalition re-expressed concerns over a number of issues, including the lack of adherence to a rigorous, verified methodology for its scientific reviews, as recommended by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and ongoing concerns that the DGA focus exclusively on “healthy” Americans while ignoring the majority of Americans with diet-related chronic disease. These Guidelines therefore do not serve the “general public,” as required by law.

Read TNC’s full comments HERE.

Guidelines are Failing People of Color

A number of recent articles and op-eds have touched on the importance of nutrition in light of the impact of Covid-19, given that those with obesity, diabetes, hypertension and other diet-related conditions have far higher risks of hospitalization, intubation, and death. Minorities and underserved communities have higher rates of these diseases, and have also suffered more from Covid-19.

These articles emphasize the crucial role of the Dietary Guidelines, in driving the foods that are provided for individuals who rely on school lunches/breakfasts, food baskets for women and infant children, feeding programs for the elderly, SNAP, etc. Since the Guidelines are designed only for healthy people, they are often a mismatch for communities with high rates of chronic disease.

Dr. Linda D. Bradley, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at the Cleveland Clinic and the first African American surgeon to practice there, describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Dietary Guidelines. She notes the Guidelines do not meet basic nutrient needs. In the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Reporter Ruben Castaneda from U.S. News & World Report interviewed a collection of registered dieticians and nutritionists who all make the point that the Guidelines do not take into account the preferences or needs of communities of color and highlight the importance of the Guidelines for these communities.
Elena Rios, president and CEO of the National Hispanic Medical Association, in a recent op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, argues that the Guidelines must take into account the nutritional needs of different groups, including the Latinx community and those with one or more chronic disease.

**YOUR VOICE STILL MATTERS**

**You can still take action and urge Congress to take action to prevent the USDA-HHS from simply rolling over another flawed Dietary Guidelines that doesn’t reflect the best or most recent science.**

Please take time to reach out to your member(s) of Congress to let them know you are concerned with the direction the 2020-2025 Guidelines are headed. We need Congress to push USDA-HHS to address the serious scientific concerns with the DGA as well as the urgent need for these Guidelines to address obesity, diabetes, and other diseases that are not only crippling our country but are now making us more vulnerable to Covid-19.

Contact Your Member(s) of Congress TODAY

Please Donate

Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

Nina Teicholz 7/15/20 Nina Teicholz 7/15/20

Newsletter Update | July 2020

FEATURED
TweetStorm to #DelaytheDGA on July 7 led to 5500+ tweets in just a few hours

Another paper rejects low-saturated-fat diet for heart-disease prevention

New book on red meat: Sacred Cow

Take Action: Your Voice Needed! (See Below)

Download a PDF version of this issue

In This Issue:
TweetStorm to #DelaytheDGA on July 7 led to 5500+ tweets in just a few hours
Another paper rejects low-saturated-fat diet for heart-disease prevention
New book on red meat: Sacred Cow
Take Action: Your Voice Needed! (See Below)

    

TweetStorm

On July 7, nutrition groups, doctors, and grassroots citizens joined in a TweetStorm to urge a delay in the expert report for the Dietary Guidelines, until major concerns have been addressed. These concerns are: the exclusion of large bodies of science, such as all studies on weight loss, the exclusion of virtually all low-carb studies, and the exclusion of all recent studies and reviews on saturated fats. Also, the USDA continues to use its “black box” methodology that does not explain how its experts are evaluating or grading the science—effectively making their reviews unable to replicate (Replication is a hallmark of good science). The expert report is due out this week.

And perhaps most importantly, the Dietary Guidelines continue to be designed only for “healthy Americans,” thereby excluding the 60% of the population with one or more diet-related chronic disease.

Within just a few hours, the TweetStorm generated overwhelming engagement, with more than 5,700 posts, reaching more than 1.6 million people and generating nearly 5.8 million impressions.

Here are just a few of the posts:

More Evidence that Lowering Saturated Fats Does Not Fight Heart Disease

Following upon the groundbreaking “State of the Art” Review on saturated fats published in the highly influential Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) came a review last week, by another international group of ten experts on heart disease and diet, including five cardiologists, in the prestigious BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. These experts challenged the idea that a diet low in saturated fat is an ‘evidence-based’ recommendation for people with extremely high cholesterol—a condition called familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

These papers add to the nearly 20 review papers, published over the past decade, almost all of which conclude that saturated fats have no effect on cardiovascular or total mortality. Our list of the papers is here. The 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, in concluding that caps on saturated fats should be continued, ignored all these papers.

Read the full BMJ paper HERE.

New Book Challenges Conventional Wisdom on Red Meat

A new book, Sacred Cow, challenges the conventional view that beef is the most environmentally destructive and least healthy of foods. Sacred Cow takes a critical look at the assumptions and science on meat. Among its arguments is that meat and animal fat are essential for human life and that a sustainable food system cannot exist without animals. It further argues that regenerative cattle ranching is, paradoxically, one of our best tools at mitigating climate change

For a highly worthwhile read, order Sacred Cow here. (For those who buy and submit receipts to sacredcow.info/book by July 14th, they will receive pre-pub materials and a preview link to the companion film.)

The Dietary Guidelines’ final report is due out in 2 days. You can still take action!

YOUR VOICE MATTERS.

For Everyone:
With the expert report coming out in just two days take action now and call for change. Please take time to reach out to your Member(s) of Congress to let them know you are concerned with the current Dietary Guidelines and care about evidence-based Guidelines for all Americans.

Contact Your Member(s) of Congress TODAY

For Doctors, and PhDs:
Please consider also signing an open letter asking for a delay in final the report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, currently due out July 15, in order to have time to remedy the serious failures of science described above. The Guidelines must include all the science “that is current at the time.” U.S. residents only, please.

Open Letter for Doctors and PhD's

Please Donate

Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

Nina Teicholz 6/30/20 Nina Teicholz 6/30/20

Newsletter Update | June 2020

FEATURED
Update on the final meeting of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee:

Aims to Push Caps on Saturated Fats Even Lower

Has Been Unable to Complete its Work

Unable to Find Low-Carb Studies

New Film, “Fat Fiction” Explains How We Mistakenly Learned to Fear Fat

New Group, Food4Health, Wants a more inclusive Guidelines w/ Sound Science

COVID-19 Shows, all the more, Why Metabolic Health is So Important

Download a PDF version of this issue

In This Issue:
  
  Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Draft Report Released: Ignores all concerns:

    Still excluding ~all trials on weight loss, on low-carb diets
Still using a “black box” methodology—not reproducible
Take Action: Your Voice Needed! (See Below)
MAJOR new paper on sat fats says gov. limits not warranted

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Draft Report Announced

The draft report presented at the final meeting of the 2020 DGAC on June 17 was yet another disappointment in the process for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). Although numerous groups in recent weeks expressed profound concerns about the myriad of ways the process lacks scientific rigor and transparency, as well as the policy’s narrow scope—the Guidelines are focused only on healthy people—the DGAC made no attempt to address these issues. To read more about the committee’s draft report, read our blog post.

There was one spot of good news: a proposal to reduce the cap on added sugar from 10% to 6% of calories.

The New York Times published an article (6/17):

Scientific Panel on New Dietary Guidelines Draws Criticism From Health Advocates

"More than half the members of a panel considering changes to the nation’s blueprint for healthy eating have ties to the food industry."

The article is paywalled. Here's an excerpt on TNC's work:

Nina Teicholz, executive director of The Nutrition Coalition, who has championed the health benefits of diets low in carbohydrates and high in fat, said the panel had largely overlooked recent studies, some of them controversial, that question longstanding admonitions against consuming excess saturated fats.

She said she feared the agency would continue to promote patterns of eating that are overly reliant on grains and other carbohydrates.

“It’s pretty self evident that the guidelines have done nothing to prevent our country’s epidemics of obesity and diabetes,” she said.

The final report of the DGAC is due out in mid-July.

YOUR VOICE MATTERS.

Please take time to contact your Member(s) of Congress to let them know that you care about evidence-based Dietary Guidelines for all Americans—not just for the healthy but also for those in minority, disadvantaged communities, the elderly, who have different nutritional needs, and the majority of our population that now suffers from one or more diet-related disease--in short, all those people excluded by the Guidelines who most need reliable nutrition advice to help them regain their health.

Take Action Now

Major New Paper on Saturated Fats

A group of leading nutrition scientists, including a former member of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and the Chair of the 2005 DGAC, were among the prominent authors of a “State-of-the-Art Review” in the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): “Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-based Recommendations.” This review found that government limits on saturated fats are not justified by the science.  

Advice to limit saturated fats has been a basic pillar of the Dietary Guidelines for 40 years. Yet this advice has never had any substantial scientific backing, according to a large and fast-growing body of scientific literature, which now includes the JACC paper.

The JACC abstract reads:

“The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke. Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL which are much less strongly related to CVD risk. It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group, without considering the overall macronutrient distribution. Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.

The paper also notes, “These historical facts demonstrate that saturated fats were an abundant, key part of the ancient human diet.”

By contrast, the 2020 DGAC released a draft report last week asserting that the evidence was “strong” that saturated fats cause heart disease in both adults and children and that these fats should continue to be capped at 10% of calories. The Committee’s final report is due out in mid-July. This means that low-fat dairy and lean meat would continue to be advised over the regular versions of these foods and that a daily consumption of nearly 30 grams of industrially produced soybean oil would continue to be recommended over butter, a natural food.  

Early iterations of the Guidelines simply advised people to “reduce” or “limit” saturated fats. Specific numeric caps such as 10% were formally included starting in 2000—without explanation. In fact, in an email obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the chair of the 2015 DGAC acknowledged that the 10% limit was based on “no data….There is no magic/data for the 10% number or 7% number that has been used previously.” 

The JACC paper comes after the group of scientists attended a workshop, “Saturated Fats: A Food or Nutrient Approach?” in February. Members of that workshop wrote a consensus statement, submitted  two formal public  comments  to USDA, and sent a  letter  to the Secretaries of U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (USDA-HHS) on their findings which concluded that limits on saturated fats are not justified and should be re-examined. The USDA-HHS have not yet replied to their letter. 

More than 300 PhDs, Doctors and other Health Care Professionals Call for Reform

Last week, we released an open letter signed by more than 300 PhD’s, doctors and other healthcare practitioners —representing a wide-range of specialties, practicing in communities across the country—calling on the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (USDA-HHS) to delay the expert report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to ensure adequate time for a thorough investigation of allegations made by one or more members of the DGAC about the Dietary Guidelines process. The MD/PhD letter urges USDA-HHS, which together oversee the Guidelines, to seriously consider the allegations made by this/these DGAC member(s) in order to ensure that the DGA is grounded in a rigorous scientific methodology and includes all relevant evidence on nutrition and chronic illness.

From the producers: "What if the 'low fat, heart healthy' diet represents one of the most damaging public health recommendations in the history of our country? FAT FICTION is a film that questions decades of diet advice insisting that saturated fats are bad for us. Along the way, the film reveals the lies we've been told about fats, learn what fats are good, what fats really are bad, and what we can do to reclaim our health."

There’s still time to sign!

Take Action Now

TAKE ACTION

For Everyone:
Now is the time to take action. We know that many of you have written comments to the USDA, but we can see now that the agency is unresponsive, and our efforts have fallen on deaf ears. Yet we cannot, at this point, give up. We are urging our friends and followers—anyone who cares about sane, science-based nutrition advice to restore good health to Americans—to please contact your member of Congress HERE. We’ve made it easy for you: we’ve written suggested text and summarized the important points. We just need for you to click on the blue button right here.

Contact Your Member(s) of Congress TODAY

Without change in the current process, we will be living with the same misguided Guidelines for another five years—affecting our children in schools, our elderly, our military, our hospitals, and so much more.

For Doctors, and PhDs:
Please consider also signing an open letter asking for a delay in the report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in order to remedy the failures in the science described above. The Guidelines must include all the science “that is current at the time.” U.S. residents only, please.

Open Letter for Doctors and PhD's

Please Donate

Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

Nina Teicholz 4/30/20 Nina Teicholz 4/30/20

Newsletter Update | April 2020

FEATURED
Update on the final meeting of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee:

Aims to Push Caps on Saturated Fats Even Lower

Has Been Unable to Complete its Work

Unable to Find Low-Carb Studies

New Film, “Fat Fiction” Explains How We Mistakenly Learned to Fear Fat

New Group, Food4Health, Wants a more inclusive Guidelines w/ Sound Science

COVID-19 Shows, all the more, Why Metabolic Health is So Important

Download a PDF version of this issue

In This Issue:
  Update on the final meeting of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee:

    Aims to Push Caps on Saturated Fats Even Lower
Has Been Unable to Complete its Work
Unable to Find Low-Carb Studies
New Film, “Fat Fiction” Explains How We Mistakenly Learned to Fear Fat
New Group, Food4Health, Wants a more inclusive Guidelines w/ Sound Science
COVID-19 Shows, all the more, Why Metabolic Health is So Important

    

2020 Dietary Guidelines Update

The final meeting of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) took place in March, and the results were disappointing. Our articles below contain not only information but also links if you would like to take action. We find it hard to imagine another five years of Guidelines recommending 6 servings of grains, 27g soybean oil, and 10% of calories as sugar per day.

On Saturated Fats:
At the March meeting, DGAC members suggested that they’d like to lower the caps on saturated fats even further: from the current 10% of calories down to 7%—or even zero. These ideas are entirely contrary to a steadily growing consensus over the past decade, among top researchers around the world, that the caps on saturated fats were never based on strong science and ought to be reconsidered.

Indeed, as a recent panel of senior scientists from the U.S., Canada, and Denmark stated, in a letter to the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (USDA-HHS), “we respectfully request….that [you] give serious and immediate consideration to lifting the limits placed on saturated fat intake for the upcoming 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). This request is based on a review of the most rigorous scientific data available.”

Further, they stated, “…'[M]aking recommendations based on anything but the most rigorous science available is likely to have unintended or even potentially harmful consequences to health.”

To read the rest of this article and also make your voice heard on this issue, click here.

On Lack of Rigorous Science:
The last two meetings of the DGAC have revealed many alarming shortfalls in the scientific process. At a minimum, the process lacks transparency, does not use any verified methodology for reviewing the science, and excludes large numbers of rigorous studies--relying often instead on weak data for its conclusions.

For example:

At least a dozen of the DGAC's reviews are based on outdated science. By law, the DGA must reflect the “scientific and medical knowledge which is current at the time the report is prepared,” yet the 2020 process does not meet that standard. At the DGAC meeting in January, committee member Katherine Dewey stated that the 13 reviews undertaken for the “B-24” population (birth-through-24-months) had looked at the scientific literature systematically only through 2016. For studies conducted after 2016, Dewey said the committee had done “an informal search to identify new evidence that has emerged since 2016” but “did not locate any studies that would have changed [their] conclusions.” Dewey did seem concerned, however, that these 13 reviews had perhaps missed some of the science from the past few years. She said,

“We would like to ask the public to please submit public comments if you know of any articles published since 2016 that meet the inclusion criteria and would also significantly affect these conclusions…we do appreciate any comment that the public would like to provide.”

It is, of course, completely unscientific to rely upon random submissions from the public for studies. Thus, the DGA’s B-24 reviews are already out of date before even being published.

To read the rest of this article and make your voice heard on this issue, click here.

DGAC Can’t Find Low-carb Studies:
The DGAC could find no studies on low-carbohydrate diets with carbs as 25% of energy or less, according to an article by the Low-carb Action Network (L-CAN) reports. In fact, L-CAN has documented 52 such studies. The DGAC also apparently excluded all the studies on weight loss. This is inexplicable given that 2/3 of Americans have overweight or obesity. Click here to read this blog post.

Launch of Food For Health

A group called Food For Health launched last week, with the primary goals of promoting a Dietary Guidelines based on rigorous science and inclusive of all Americans. Currently the Guidelines are only for "healthy Americans," according to USDA statements, and the policy has never served the needs of Americans from traditionally under-served and underrepresented communities. The Nutrition Coalition is proud to be a member of this group!

The launch was covered by POLITICO in their Morning Ag newsletter: “NUTRITION DEBATE RAMPS UP AHEAD OF DIETARY GUIDELINES REPORT: Several organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, NAACP and National Hispanic Medical Association, today formed the Food4Health Alliance to lobby for federal nutrition guidelines tailored to the needs of tens of millions of Americans who have diet-related diseases like hypertension, obesity and Type 2 diabetes — conditions that disproportionately affect minorities and underserved communities.” Read more here.

Fat Fiction documentary

People typically think that Americans have become fat and sick because they don’t follow the Dietary Guidelines (or their doctors’ advice). Is that true?

Now Streaming on Amazon, Vimeo on Demand and FanForceTV:

https://bit.ly/FF_on_Amazon
http://bit.ly/FF_on_Vimeo
https://bit.ly/FF_on_FF_Premieres

"This is such a powerful documentary. This is exactly the type of informative movie we need to help educate the public."

- Dr. Bret Scher, Cardiologist

COVID-19 shows--All the More--Why Metabolic Health is So Important

We are, like all of you, deeply concerned about COVID-19 and the heartbreaking toll it’s taking on people across the world. We extend our sympathy to all who are suffering, gratitude to all those on the front lines taking care of patients, and support for those facing isolation and the loss or separation from loved ones.

We’ve heard from some people that they feel it's insensitive to bring up issues of chronic disease during this time, and we understand this concern. Yet the Nutrition Coalition is continuing its work precisely because COVID-19 exposes, now more than ever, the importance of helping people restore their metabolic health. This virus has revealed the added risk faced by people with diet-related, chronic diseases. What data is available to date finds that people with diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure, among other illnesses, tend to suffer poorer outcomes than do healthy people. This is a heartbreaking, added toll for people already burdened by these conditions—and makes our work all the more important.

Diet-related diseases need diet-related solutions. As the 2020 Dietary Guidelines process marches on, so must we, to ensure that this policy is based on the best and most current evidence—in order to better reduce the load of chronic diseases that are such a burden—and a risk—to the American public.

For an interesting article on the connection between metabolic disease and COVID-19, see this op-ed, by Harvard’s Dr. David Ludwig, recently published in the New York Times.

Donate to support our work!

The Nutrition Coalition would be grateful for your support during this difficult time. Like so many others, we’ve have had to cut back due to the economic downturn. If you are those fortunate enough to help, we hope that you might consider a donation to support our work. Reducing diet-related diseases has always been urgent issue for the health of our country, perhaps now more than ever. We believe there is still good reason to hope that we can make a difference in these 2020 Guidelines. Thank you.

Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

Nina Teicholz 12/28/19 Nina Teicholz 12/28/19

Newsletter Update | December 2019

FEATURED
USDA Joins Food Industry Behemoths in New Group Focusing on Portion Control

Obesity will affect Nearly Half of All Americans by 2030, says study

New Group Aims to Ensure Low-Carb Diet is in 2020 Dietary Guidelines

New “Sunshine” Database on Nutrition Scientists Includes Members of the Dietary Guidelines Committee

Please Give to the Nutrition Coalition! Our End-of-Year Fundraising Appeal

Download a PDF version of this issue

In This Issue:
  USDA Joins Food Industry Behemoths in New Group Focusing on Portion Control
Obesity will affect Nearly Half of All Americans by 2030, says study
New Group Aims to Ensure Low-Carb Diet is in 2020 Dietary Guidelines
New “Sunshine” Database on Nutrition Scientists Includes Members of the Dietary Guidelines Committee
Please Give to the Nutrition Coalition! Our End-of-Year Fundraising Appeal

NEW FOOD INDUSTRY GROUP REVIVES ENERGY BALANCE FOCUS; USDA SIGNS UP, DESPITE SIGNIFICANT DISPUTE ON THIS TOPIC

A new group called the Portion Balance Coalition (PBC) has been formed to promote the idea that the amount rather than the type of food a person eats is the most crucial factor for good health. Swiss food-industry giant Nestle launched the group earlier this year, with the intention of emphasizing the importance of portion control. This is an apparent revival of Coke’s dismantled “energy balance” group which aimed to convince Americans that all calories are the same: i.e., those in sugar are no different than those in salmon. A growing number of scientists disagree with this idea; they counter that the type of calories is what matters most, along with the presence of needed nutrients. Public health groups have questionably allied themselves with such food giants as Unilever and KraftHeinz in the PBC, yet participation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deserves particular scrutiny, given its weighty responsibility to deliver the nation's dietary policy free of industry influence and also not to take sides in scientific debates. Read our blog on the PBC, including its decision to focus on "Millennials with children...as our initial primary target."

**THE EPIDEMIC WITHOUT END? HALF OF AMERICANS WILL HAVE OBESITY BY 2030**

According to a new study, fully half of Americans will have obesity by 2030 if current trends continue. Official advice—to eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and seeds while minimizing butter, regular meat, and dairy have self-evidently failed to protect American health. The USDA and its defenders claim that not enough Americans follow USDA advice, but the government’s food availability/consumption data clearly contradict this claim. Clinical trial results to show that following the USDA Dietary Guidelines will prevent disease are also lacking. A separate report, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has equally grim news, stating that rates of pre-diabetes have risen to 1 in 5 adolescents and 1 in 4 adults. This condition, which almost inevitably progresses to a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes, provides more evidence that current official solutions to chronic disease are not delivering positive results.

NEW "SUNSHINE" DATABASE ON NUTRITION SCIENTISTS' CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The news organization ProPublica launched a “Dollars for Profs” database documenting conflicts of interests among university scientists who’ve received federal funds. Several members of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee were among those studied. These include Purdue University’s Richard Mattes, who has consulted for or received research support from at least nine companies and trade groups in the past five years, such as Procter & Gamble, and PepsiCo Global R&D, Japanese food and biotechnology company Ajinomoto, the California Walnut Commission, the Almond Board of California, Welch Foods, and the Alliance for Potato Research and Education. Mattes also served on the scientific boards of ConAgra and the Grain Foods Foundation, and he has consulted for ConAgra and life-science clinical-research company Biofortis. Meanwhile, another Purdue professor on the Guidelines committee, Reagan Bailey, has received funding from the dietary supplement company Pharmavite and has served as a scientific adviser and government liaison for the ILSI North America Committee on Fortification, a food industry-backed nonprofit whose members include the Coca-Cola Co., General Mills, the Kellogg Company, Nestle USA and PepsiCo Inc.

The Nutrition Coalition has been working to create a comprehensive data base of such conflicts of all members of the Guidelines committee, to be published in 2020. Our brief overview, when the committee was first appointed, can be found here—in which we note that the Committee includes a virtual employee of Nestle USA.

NEW GROUP LAUNCHES TO ENSURE THAT A "TRUE" LOW-CARB DIET IS INCLUDED IN THE 2020 DIETARY GUIDELINES

A new group called the Low-Carb Action Network (L-CAN), a coalition of doctors, academics, and average Americans with personal success stories using low-carb diets, has launched to urge U.S. nutrition leaders to include a true low-carb diet as part of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. L-CAN members point to a large and rapidly growing body of strong scientific research showing that carbohydrate restriction is a safe and effective strategy for the prevention and even reversal of chronic, diet-related conditions such as pre-diabetes/Type 2 diabetes, overweight/obesity, and high blood pressure, along with a broad array of other cardiovascular risk factors. L-CAN members are concerned that the USDA, in its current scientific reviews, is using an inaccurate definition of the diet that is not up-to-date with current science and will lead to misleading, untrustworthy results. Specifically, the USDA is defining “low-carb” as 45 percent of total calories or less, when leaders in the field agree this number should be 25 percent.

END-OF-YEAR APPEAL: PLEASE GIVE TO THE NUTRITION COALITION!

We are the only group anywhere in the world working to instill scientific rigor in nutrition guidelines. Please consider a donation to this important cause. If the Dietary Guidelines remain the same, children will continue to get donuts for breakfast at school, hospital cardiac patients will continue to be served white toast with margarine, and our military will continue to be told pasta is “fighting food” while meat “slows you down” in mess halls. All this unhealthy food and inaccurate advice are driven by the Guidelines—which clearly have to change to reflect the science. We wrote an end-of-year giving appeal that you can read--or head straight to our donation page. We hope you will contribute to this important work. Thank you!

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

Download a PDF version of this issue

Nina Teicholz 11/27/19 Nina Teicholz 11/27/19

Newsletter Update | November 2019

FEATURED
2020 Dietary Guidelines Repeating Past Mistakes, Still Lack Scientific Rigor

Top Scientists Say Guidelines' Committee Errs on Saturated Fats

U.S. Rep. Fortenberry Notes that Obesity Epidemic Began with the Guidelines

Download a PDF version of this issue

The latest #real nutrition facts beyond the headlines

The Nutrition Coalition Update | November 25, 2019

2020 Dietary Guidelines Repeating Past Mistakes, Still Lack Scientific Rigor
Top Scientists Say Guidelines' Committee Errs on Saturated Fats
U.S. Rep. Fortenberry Notes that Obesity Epidemic Began with the Guidelines

RECAP OF guidelines' advisory committee latest meeting: 2020 PROCESS repeating past mistakes, still lacks scientific rigor

The expert committee reviewing the science for America’s nutrition policy, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), held its third, two-day meeting in Washington, D.C., towards the end of October. While the committee is working hard to review the science, the process still suffers from significant flaws. These include a lack of up-to-date methods for reviewing the science as well as fundamental problems in the reviews on low-carb diets and saturated fats. Methods for reviewing the science are at the crux of ensuring a trustworthy, reliable DGA. Without adequate protocols, the risk of cherry-picking studies and lax reviews of the evidence can creep into the process, resulting in unreliable recommendations. We’ve seen this in the past, with erroneous caps on dietary cholesterol and total fat. Unless changes are made to the current process, we are headed towards another set of flawed dietary guidelines. Read the blog by Nina Teicholz, Executive Director of The Nutrition Coalition, on the meeting of the DGA Advisory Committee.

Saturated fats' review by guidelines committee flawed, say leading scientists

A large, international group of scientists submitted a public comment to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, regarding the latest consensus science on saturated fats, published recently in The BMJ. This comment makes a number of important points regarding saturated fats, none of which are currently being addressed by the USDA review on the topic. Among the BMJ's points are: "1) Saturated fatty acids is not a single group with identical biological effects, but many different fatty acids with very diverse effects. 2) The effects of saturated fatty acids on CVD not only depends on the specific fatty acid, but also on the food matrix they exist in. 3) Therefore the approach to look at saturated fat as one group is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. 4) You need to move from a nutrient based analytical strategy to a food based [strategy], which also makes sense for the translation of conclusions to advise to the public – 'people are eating foods not nutrients.' "

congress is also concerned that the guidelines has not led to better health in america

“The beginning of the Dietary Guidelines pretty much coincides with the start of the obesity epidemic,” observed Rep Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), in a meeting of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. He goes on to discuss the lack of rigorous, systematic reviews of science in the Dietary Guidelines.

low-carb action network

A new group, called the Low-Carb Action Network (L-CAN), is making its voice heard, wiith the aim of ensuring that a 'true' low-carb diet is included in the 2020 Guidelines. The group's early efforts resulted in some 350 people submitting public comments to the DGA Committee about its proposal to define a “low-carb” diet as 45% of calories or less. Leading experts in the field generally consider a low-carb diet to have a maximum of 25% of calories as carbohydrates. The 350 comments by low-carb advocates represent a startling 85% of total comments during the two-week period allowed for public input on the 2020 protocols.

Learn more about L-CAN by signing up here, or follow the group on Facebook and Twitter.

nutrition news

The controversy over red meat and whether it causes disease has been much in the headlines since the first rigorous systematic reviews on the subject were published on October 1, in the Annals of Internal Medicine. An important aspect of these reviews is that they used the “GRADE” methodology for reviewing the science, a system adopted by more than 150 public health groups, including the World Health Organization. The debate over the red-meat findings has raised the question of whether our Guidelines ought to be based on a similarly rigorous review methodology, as recommended by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In case you missed it, Nina Teicholz, wrote an op-ed on the red-meat study and its wider implications, for the Los Angeles Times.

We’re always surprised by how much bullying we see in nutrition science. The red meat studies, with their controversial findings, have drawn particular ire from the epidemiologists at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, who have long promoted a vegetarian diet. These researchers, together with the vegetarian advocacy group, The True Health Initiative, tried to get the red-meat papers retracted before they were even published and have vigorously criticized the scientists responsible for the reviews. See, for example, this recent presentation slide from Harvard’s Walter Willet, in which he claims that a “Disinformation Triangle” is at work behind the red-meat reviews. He lambasts Gina Kolata, a science writer at the New York Times, for her relatively balanced piece on the red meat studies; He diminishes evidence-based science by putting the term in quotes, and he accuses Patrick Stover, one of the papers' authors, as having undisclosed conflicts of interest. The language here strikes us as immoderate and reminds us of when Willett called a 2014 paper he disliked “a pile rubbish." For this, he was rebuked by no less than the editorial board of Nature, for his apparent attempts to stifle contrary findings "purely because they don't blend uncertainty into a simple mantra.'

Finally, a Bloomberg op-ed this month highlights the importance of the Guidelines, echoing the lasting, negative consequences that have resulted from this policy's flaws since 1980. The piece discusses the recent red-meat papers and highlights how the science has flip-flopped.

Annual Giving: It’s that time of year for many people who are planning end-of-year gifts. Please consider supporting The Nutrition Coalition! We are the only group anywhere in the world working to instill scientific rigor in nutrition guidelines. Because we accept no industry support, we rely on the generosity of people like you to support our mission, purely in the interest of the public health. Donations can be made here. Thank you!

Download a PDF version of this issue

Nina Teicholz 7/30/19 Nina Teicholz 7/30/19

Newsletter Update | July 2019

FEATURED

Dietary Guidelines Using Non-Systematic Process, Won’t Be “Trustworthy,” Experts Warn

Guidelines Have Excluded Majority of Rigorous Trial Evidence for Decades

New Review Says No Evidence for Current Recs on Fish Oils, Sat Fats, and more

Download a PDF version of this issue

The Nutrition Coalition Update | July 29, 2019

Dietary Guidelines Using Non-Systematic Process, Won’t Be “Trustworthy,” Experts Warn

Guidelines Have Excluded Majority of Rigorous Trial Evidence for Decades

New Review Says No Evidence for Current Recs on Fish Oils, Sat Fats, and more

Guidelines ARE Using Non-Systematic METHODS--Won’t Be “Trustworthy,” Experts Warn

USDA officials directing the Guidelines stated earlier this year that their scientific reviews would follow the “GRADE” system for evaluation of the science, GRADE is considered one of the top systems in the world for producing reliable scientific reviews and guidelines. However, in a recent public comment to the USDA, GRADE co-founder, Dr. Gordon Guyatt, expressed strong concerns that the USDA’s decision to “modify” GRADE would lead to Guidelines that are “unlikely to be trustworthy.” A principal problem, wrote Guyatt, is that the USDA has no methodology to distinguish between high- and low-quality evidence; “This distinction between high- and low-quality evidence lies at the core of any rigorous evaluation of science and is at the heart of the GRADE methodology,” stated Guyatt. A Distinguished Professor in the Department of Health Research Methods at McMasters University, he urged the USDA not even to use the word GRADE, “because doing so would give the appearance of rigor where it did not exist.”

TNC’s Nina Teicholz Tells Guidelines’ Committee of History of Excluded Evidence.

In oral testimony to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) on July 11 in Washington, D.C., Teicholz emphasized that the Guidelines have, since their launch in 1980, excluded nearly all the rigorous, clinical-trial literature on nutrition and health. This ignored clinical-trial (“gold standard”) evidence was “funded mostly by governments around the world and included more than 75,000 people, in studies lasting up to 12 years,” stated Teicholz, citing her peer-reviewed 2015 article in The BMJ. The Nutrition Coalition has updated these numbers and now estimates that data from 136,780 people studied in clinical trials over a total of 139 years have been excluded. The cost of all the excluded studies is not available, but for a fraction of the studies (17), the cost of this research was $904,234,637, suggesting that the overall cost of excluded studies is likely to be in the billions of dollars. “Unfortunately, instead of informing our nation’s nutrition policy; this gold-standard evidence has been ignored.” said Teicholz.

Dietary Guidelines Committee Meeting Dominated by Industry, Vegetarian Advocates.

The July meeting of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee was the second of five it will be holding as part of the process to review the science for the next set of Guidelines, due out in 2020. While all of these meetings are open to the public, only two—including this one--are inviting people to make oral comments. Typically, industry representatives dominate these events, and July’s meeting was no different, with about one third of commenters representing various food industries, ranging from whole grains to chewing gum. Their messages generally followed the line of ‘recommend more of my food group, please.’ Another one third or so of commenters came from non-profits or other groups advocating for vegetarian diets. A few argued that “dairy is racist,” because African Americans tend to have higher rates of lactose intolerance. Some, like the Physicians for Responsible Medicine, come with an animal-rights agenda, while others told their stories of health success on vegetarian diets. Most of these groups are long-timers at lobbying the Dietary Guidelines’ process. By contrast, a novelty this year was the appearance of about a dozen doctors from around the country calling for USDA to adopt a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern.” These doctors talked about how they could not help their patients when following the Guidelines yet reversed those failures upon adopting a real-foods, lower-carbohydrate approach.

For its part, the Guidelines Committee listened patiently, largely poker-faced, to more than three hours of comments.

If any of these issues are of concern to you, please consider making an oral to the committee at its January meeting in Houston, and/or submit a public comment to USDA. See our post on how to do this.

The Wild World of Nutrition Science

What Protects Against Heart Disease? No diets or supplements tried so far, according to an enormous new systematic review of various interventions to prevent heart disease. Nothing the researchers reviewed was supported by strong evidence for effective prevention. Not fish oils, not saturated-fat reduction, not the low-fat diet, not the Mediterranean diet, nor any supplement--including anti-oxidants, beta-carotene, selenium, or any Vitamin. Some of these interventions have been tested more than others. Diets low in fat and saturated fat as well as fish oil supplementation have all been tested in multiple large, long-term controlled clinical trials, and these have not shown 'positive' results. Thus, as this paper suggests, it’s fair to cross those off the list as effective interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease.

A “Review of Reviews” Paper on saturated fats finds that there are now 17 meta-analyses that have looked at the rigorous (clinical trial) literature on the question of whether saturated fats cause heart disease, and the authors conclude: “the results of most meta-analyses do not support the diet-heart hypothesis or the recommendation to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat.” This ought to be another nail in the coffin of the “diet-heart hypothesis” (which holds that saturated fats cause heart disease), launched some 70 years ago by scientists at the University of Minnesota. Sadly, there’s currently very little chance that the next Dietary Guidelines will effectively re-examine its caps on saturated fats, because USDA staff has decided not to look at any outside review papers, like this one or any of the 17 meta-analyses it cites. Plus, the original trial data is now outside the date range of USDA’s scientific reviews. All those data were excluded/ignored, as Teicholz noted in her oral comments, and there seems to be no mechanism for revisiting them.

Meanwhile, the WHO is proposing a tax on saturated fats. Wonder what science they’re reading?

Download a PDF version of this issue

Nina Teicholz 6/27/19 Nina Teicholz 6/27/19

Newsletter Update | June 2019

FEATURED

Dietary Guidelines’ New B-24 Guidelines: An Industry Giveaway?

Scientific Rigor and Scope Still Major Questions for the Guidelines

Former USDA Chief of Staff Weighs in on Guidelines

Download a PDF version of this issue

The Nutrition Coalition Update | June 26, 2019

Dietary Guidelines’ New B-24 Guidelines: An Industry Giveaway?

Scientific Rigor and Scope Still Major Questions for the Guidelines

Former USDA Chief of Staff Weighs in on Guidelines

Dietary Guidelines’ New B-24 Guidelines: A Possible Industry Giveaway?

The expert committee for the next Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) has begun to deliberate on the first-ever set of guidelines for the “birth-to-24-month” population. This effort is part of the “Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months (P/B-24) Project,” a joint initiative led by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (USDA-HHS).

An important question is whether the influence of the $70 billion global baby food and formula industries could be at play in influencing these guidelines. While the development of B-24 advice is needed, worrisome signs have emerged that there is limited data for this age group and that these guidelines could, in fact, become little more than a giveaway to the infant formula and food manufacturers. Read our blog post on this issue, including the many potential conflicts of interest of the B-24 Subcommittee.

Scientific Rigor and Scope Still Major Questions for the Guidelines

We queried the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), the USDA office in charge of the Guidelines, about some issues we found regarding the scientific process that produces the Guidelines. For instance, (1) CNPP has said that it will exclude studies that look exclusively at people with nutrition-related chronic diseases (thereby ignoring the nearly 2/3 of all Americans who are diagnosed with one or more of these diseases), and (2) CNPP has stated that it will follow “GRADE,” an internationally recognized process for reviewing scientific studies (GRADE was chosen in response to a recommendation made by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.) Why then, can we find no mention of “GRADE” on the CNPP website? To read CNPP’s answers, see “UPDATES” in our blog post here.

If any of these issues are of concern to you, please submit a public comment to USDA. See our post on how to do this.

Former USDA Chief of Staff Wonders If Guidelines are Doing Their Job

Ray Starling, recently retired from his position as the Chief of Staff to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, said in an interview that he recognizes that the Dietary Guidelines are enormously important:

“We spend an inordinate amount of time bickering over what’s going to be in these federal guidelines and that’s because these are used to set so many other standards for federal government and so many programs administered not just by USDA, but by other agencies as well.” He adds, “The industrial complex came in fighting over what’s in, what’s out [of the Guidelines]…that’s where we got bloated."

He thinks it's time to start a conversation about whether the Guidelines are working:

"We haven’t always had Dietary Guidelines, but in the years since it’s started, the health of Americans has gotten considerably worse. It would be really nice to have a fresh conversation. Do we even need to be doing this? Does government need to be in the business of telling people what to eat? Or should we leave that to…physicians, etc.? I’m sure I’m not going to make everyone happy with that observation, but I think it’s worth bringing up.”

Corruption in Nutrition

ILSI, the International Life Sciences Institute, which has funded many studies and is a leader in nutrition, “should be regarded as an industry group—a private body—and regulated as such, not as a body acting for the greater good,” states a researcher in The BMJ, after reviewing thousands of emails obtained via the requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A non-paywalled version of the story is here. This should not be surprising to anyone who has followed the news on ILSI. A blog post from several years ago disclosed: “It’s hard to say where Coca-Cola ends and ILSI starts. Coca-Cola Vice President Rhona Applebaum served as ILSI’s President through the end of 2015. ILSI has led the industry’s assault on the World Health Organization’s tobacco policies, the CDC’s chronic disease efforts, and most recently, the dietary guidelines that limit sugar intake.” Other key ISLI members are Monsanto (producer of vegetable oils), Mars, and McDonalds.

Nutrition Study Highlight:

Meat causes mortality: This is an epidemiological study, based on unreliable data from food-frequency questionnaires with reported associations so small that they do not rule out confounding variables (such as the fact that meat eaters tend to engage in less healthy behaviors generally, so one cannot know whether the meat is to blame or these other factors). These studies finding meat to be unhealthy are a favorite of the Harvard School of Public Health, whose leaders have actively been promoting a near-vegan diet, high in nuts and vegetable oils (coincidentally, industries that have contributed generously to the school).

Also, we’d like to remind everyone that red-meat consumption has declined by 28% in the U.S. since 1970, according to government data, at the same time that chronic diseases have risen exponentially and life expectancy has declined, so this data on red meat must give one pause about the hypothesis that this food could be a driver of disease or mortality.

Rates of Type 2 Diabetes are Down…!

The CDC reports that “New cases of diagnosed diabetes in the U.S. decreased by 35 percent since a peak in 2009 – the first sign that efforts to stop the nation’s diabetes epidemic are working…” What is the reason? One major change that we can see is that two nutritional approaches have been established by clinical trials to reverse T2 diabetes: (1) the keto diet or (2) a very-low calorie formula diet. Perhaps people are finding out about these options. A third evidence-based option for reversing T2 diabetes is bariatric surgery.

Download a PDF version of this issue

Nina Teicholz 5/24/19 Nina Teicholz 5/24/19

Newsletter Update | May 2019

FEATURED

1st Dietary Guidelines Meeting: Policy is only for “Healthy Americans”

New Amer. Diabetes Assoc. Review Highlights Carb Restriction

New Salt Recs by Nat'l Academies Return to “Lower is Better”

Can a Low-Fat Diet Reduce Deaths from Breast Cancer?

Download a PDF version of this issue

The Nutrition Coalition Update | May 24, 2019

1st Dietary Guidelines Meeting: Policy is only for “Healthy Americans”

New Amer. Diabetes Assoc. Review Highlights Carb Restriction

New Salt Recs by Nat'l Academies Return to “Lower is Better”

Can a Low-Fat Diet Reduce Deaths from Breast Cancer?

Dietary Guidelines are only for Healthy Americans?

The advisory committee for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines recently held its kick-off meeting in Washington, D.C., and we learned that the Guidelines are only for healthy Americans. This means that the 60% of the population diagnosed with obesity, diabetes, etc.--will be ignored. Yet the Guidelines are applied equally to everyone, sick and well alike. And the law authorizing the Guidelines states that the policy should apply to the “general public.” Since the majority of the public is now overweight and/or suffering from some kind of metabolic disease, could this mean that the Guidelines' narrow focus is possibly illegal? It seems tragic for the government to be spending nearly $13 million on a policy that is relevant to only a minority of Americans—and will therefore do nothing to reverse the epidemics of disease we now face. Read a recent op-ed by the Nutrition Coalition’s Executive Director Nina Teicholz on this topic in the Washington Post here.

Dietary Guidelines’ Process Lacks Rigor from the Start

The kick-off meeting for the Guidelines revealed a number of disturbing aspects about the lack of scientific rigor in the Guidelines’ process, such as: (1) a lack of prioritization of clinical trials over other, weaker forms of evidence, (2) a lack of protocols for reviews of the science, (3) the use of “hand searches” for scientific papers, a process that opens up vast possibilities for bias, despite the fact that nearly 100% of papers are now searchable online, and (4) a heavy reliance on government data that has been deemed by multiple experts to be “invalid” or “inadmissible.”

These are worrisome signs for the development of reliable, scientifically sound guidelines. A lack of “scientific rigor” in the Guidelines process was identified as a problem by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Read our recent blog post on the many issues of concern in the DGA’s scientific process.

If the lack of scientific rigor and/or the narrow focus of the Guidelines is of concern to you, please submit a public comment to the USDA. See our post on how to do this (scroll down).

American Diabetes Association (ADA) Publishes Scientific Consensus Paper with New Focus on Carb Restriction

The recent “Consensus Report” on adult therapy for the first time strongly emphasizes carbohydrate restriction. Three out of the four recommendations for treating type 2 diabetes include some mention of reducing carbohydrates, including the need to "minimize grains and sugars" and that "[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia." The report also includes the keto diet as a viable option. Only the low-carb and Mediterranean diets were considered to be supported by “robust” evidence for the treatment of type 2 diabetes; evidence for the DASH or plant-based diets was considered less strong.

New Academies’ Salt Guidelines Return to “Lower is Better”

How much salt is optimal for good health? According to a report last month by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), lower is indeed better. This conclusion contradicts the organization’s own 2013 review of the data, however, and since that time, the evidence supporting moderate (not low) salt intake has only grown stronger. Thus, it is something of a mystery as to why this latest NASEM report reverted to a previous orthodoxy on salt. NASEM’s current report sets the adequate intake (AI) of sodium to 1,500 mg/day for anyone over age 19, far lower than the 2,300 mg/day previously set by the organization. Read more in our blog post on the Academies’ report, which includes an analysis of bias on the expert panel.

Can a Low-Fat Diet Reduce Deaths from Breast Cancer?

It’s surprising that journalists would report on this study as if it were a rigorous clinical trial or that they would report on it at all, since (1) it hasn’t been published yet, and (2) it’s not, actually, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) clinical trial. That large, NIH-funded, randomized controlled clinical trial ended more than a decade ago, with results showing that a low-fat diet does not prevent breast cancer. This recent study, by contrast, is an epidemiological follow-up on the WHI population. Quite a few reporters didn’t seem to understand this distinction. Epidemiology is not an intervention and is therefore a far weaker kind of evidence, with results, in nutrition, that have been shown to be correct only 0-20% of the time.[1] Our belief is that the media should not report on studies with such poor odds for accuracy.

SPOTLIGHT ON WAYWARD SCIENCE

“Decades of early research on the genetics of depression were built on nonexistent foundations. How did that happen?” This article in The Atlantic shows how a hypothesis about a gene came to be adopted as fact, spurring “a thousand research papers,” all of which turned out to be a waste. “We built whole imaginary edifices on top of this idea,” one scientist lamented, yet it was wrong. How do expert communities let this happen?

A new study found that 57% of studies overstate (“spin”) their heart-disease results, i.e., they portray non-significant findings as significant. This raises the question: If medical journals go along with publishing these results, who will protect good science?

To end on a less depressing note, we are reviving a 2015 story about an investment banker who’s trying to raise “The Kobe Beef of Pork.” It’s a passionate endeavor, and he’s still at it.

[1] 20%: Ioannidis JPA. The challenge of reforming nutritional epidemiologic research. JAMA. 2018;320:969-970; 0%: Young SS, Karr A. Deming, data and observational studies. Significance. 2011;8:116-120.

Download a PDF version of this issue

Nina Teicholz 3/26/19 Nina Teicholz 3/26/19

Newsletter Update | March 2019

FEATURED

Eggs Are Unhealthy, Redux

Newly Appointed Dietary Guidelines Committee Meeting this Week - Guided by Science or Religion?

Finding: Only 8.3% of Guidelines by American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology are Based on Strong Evidence

Fake Facts on Keto

Meatless Mondays for NYC Public School

Download a PDF version of this issue

The Nutrition Coalition Update | March 25, 2019

Eggs Are Unhealthy, Redux

Newly Appointed Dietary Guidelines Committee Meeting this Week - Guided by Science or Religion?

Finding: Only 8.3% of Guidelines by American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology are Based on Strong Evidence

Fake Facts on Keto

Meatless Mondays for NYC Public Schools

2020 Dietary Guidelines: Committee Appointed, and First Meeting Set for March 28-29

The expert committee that will review the science for the 2020 Guidelines was announced earlier this month. Much to our disappointment, the agencies in charge of this process, USDA-HHS, did not include an evidence-based policy expert, as The Nutrition Coalition had urged. Thousands of people sent letters to the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, emphasizing the importance of including this type of expert. Instead, the committee's 20 members include someone quite different: a professor from a 7th Day Adventist Church university. This church promotes the use of a vegetarian diet as a matter of faith, and our question is: What is religion doing in our Guidelines? See our post on the 2020 committee here.

Anyone who wants to watch the first committee meeting via webcast or attend in person, see our blog post on this and other ways you can make your voice heard during the Guidelines process.

Weak Science Undermines Guidelines by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC)

According to a new analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Only 8.5% of recommendations in ACC/AHA guidelines…were classified as level of evidence A (supported by evidence from multiple RCTs [randomized controlled clinical trials]), compared with 11.5% of recommendations…in 2009.” In other words, more than 90% of the recommendations put out by these groups are not based on rigorous evidence. And this problem has gotten worse, not better.

In fact, the just-published new set of AHA/ACC lifestyle recommendations for the primary prevention of heart disease are disappointing on this front. Most key recommendations are not supported by rigorous science, as judged by their own reviewers (which were not the authors themselves but a group in Oregon to which the science reviews were outsourced).

Not based on “Grade 1” evidence were recommendations to:

Replace saturated fat with unsaturated fats (oils)
Reduce dietary cholesterol and sodium
Minimize intake of processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages

The sole nutrition recommendation given a Grade 1 rating was:

A diet emphasizing intake of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, whole grains, and fish

Yet this advice is heavily dependent on a single Mediterranean diet trial whose data has come under serious question.

Also, the full report (but not the executive summary) contains a statement that low-carbohydrate diets are associated with cardiovascular risk. This statement does not appear to be the product of any systematic review but was instead inserted by the authors, based on epidemiological evidence (principally an analysis of ARIC data, which has also been seriously questioned).

We are concerned about the scientific integrity of these guidelines. This concern is both for heart patients, whose doctors will likely only read the top-line summary and not notice the moderate quality of the supporting evidence, and for all Americans, since the U.S. Dietary Guidelines have historically patterned themselves closely on these AHA/ACC lifestyle reports.

Current Guidelines on Salt Still Controversial

A recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) recommends 1,500 mg/day of sodium as the adequate intake (AI) level. This is much lower than the 2,300 mg/day recommended by a 2013 NASEM report, which stated that below this level, there was evidence for increased cardiovascular risk. Since then, studies by separate teams of scientists have tended to favor the 2013 conclusion. We’ll have more on salt in a future post. Meanwhile, see our review of the evidence here.

Diet Wars

Eggs cause heart disease (redux). This story, in headlines around the world, was also the product of an epidemiological study (see our video about these types of studies). This paper showed only an association between eggs and cardiovascular (but not coronary) heart disease. Since coronary heart disease is a major part of cardiovascular heart disease, one should already be wondering if the paper’s findings make sense. Among the paper’s numerous problems was that it tried to count eggs contained in “mixed dishes” such as casseroles, pies, etc., from six different studies, each of which may have defined its “mixed dishes” differently. Considering that the original data, coming from self-reported food-frequency questionnaires, is already highly unreliable, the likelihood that the authors could have accurately measured egg consumption seems quite small.

Most surprisingly, the authors do not mention the large body of clinical trials (the rigorous studies that can show cause-and-effect) that have already tested the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease. Even Ancel Keys, one of the original proponents of this hypothesis who tested it extensively, found only “trivial effects” of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol, and by 1955, stated that this question needed “no further consideration.”[1] Since then, many trials have been conducted, confirming Keys’s findings—a rigorous body of evidence that has led most European nations to drop their cholesterol caps in recent years, and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines to do the same in 2015. If a hypothesis has been tested and found lacking, why go back to a hypothesis-generating paper, as these authors have done?

#FakeFacts on Keto

We support legitimate debates about the science and don’t intend to focus on any one diet, but we can’t help noticing the intensity of the recent flood of attacks on the ketogenic diet, or “keto.” Our stance is simply that this dietary approach is evidence-based and has shown promise for people with metabolic diseases, especially diabetes. It should be one possible option. So why all the scary headlines?

For example, a slew of headlines claimed that the keto diet is linked to heart arrhythmias. These stories were the result of a decision, by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), to issue a press release of an unpublished talk that had not yet been presented. It was not a published paper and therefore not peer reviewed. This kind of very preliminary data is hardly ready for prime time, and it’s strange that the ACC would promote this finding so prematurely.

Another set of anti-keto stories based on no evidence were particularly offensive. They took aim at women, spurring more than one observer to dub them “misogynistic.” These would be the “keto crotch” stories: 28 of them in just 8 days, including some by mainstream media such as Forbes, the New York Post and Yahoo. There was no evidence for these headlines—not a survey or study of any kind. One citizen of the twitter sphere researched the reporters and experts involved in these stories. It seems they were #fakenews, a well-funded PR campaign, in other words.

Non-Evidence Based Policy…Redux

NYC Public Schools announced they will adopt Meatless Mondays, based on health and environmental reasons. Regarding the health benefit claims, rigorous science cannot be found to support them, i.e., there is a dearth of evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials demonstrating harm from red meat. (See our two-pager of the clinical trial evidence on red meat. The negative health findings on meat come from epidemiological studies—again, see our video on this type of weak science.)

The NYC government appears to have been successfully lobbied by the group Meatless Mondays, which is funded by 46 food companies, from bean producers and Ronzoni pasta to “Tofurky,” and “Walnut Burgers,” all of which stand to benefit when meat is removed from the diet.

Moreover, it’s not clear that NYC policy makers knew about the potential negative health consequences of their policy. For poor children, especially, who rely upon school meals, meat is an important source of complete amino acids (proteins) needed for healthy growth as well as many essential vitamins (B12, D3, K2, iron, choline, zinc, and the bioavailable type of omega 3s), none of which are available or nearly as bioavailable in plant foods. NYC Public Schools should be doing everything possible to foster the healthy minds and healthy bodies of children, not submitting them to the food lobby or teaching them that there is something inherently wrong with eating meat based on so little evidence.

[1]Tested the question extensively: “Diet and the Epidemiology of Coronary Heart Disease,” Journal of the American Medical Association 164, no. 17 (1957): 1912–1919. Quote in Ancel Keys et al., “Effects of Diet on Blood Lipids in Man Particularly Cholesterol and Lipoproteins,” Clinical Chemistry 1, no. 1 (1955): 40.

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter here.

Download a PDF version of this issue

Aaron Bradshaw 1/30/19 Aaron Bradshaw 1/30/19

Newsletter Update | January 30, 2019

FEATURED

Close to A Thousand Americans Write USDA Secretary Perdue Asking for Balance on the Dietary Guidelines Committee

Vegan-leaning EAT-Lancet Found to be Biased, Backed by Vast Corporate Interests

Lancet Article says Observational Studies Limited to “Hypothesis Generation” Only

Download a PDF version of this issue

The Nutrition Coalition Update | January 30, 2019

Close to A Thousand Americans Write USDA Secretary Perdue Asking for Balance on the Dietary Guidelines Committee

Vegan-leaning EAT-Lancet Found to be Biased, Backed by Vast Corporate Interests

Lancet Article says Observational Studies Limited to “Hypothesis Generation” Only

CLOSE TO A THOUSAND AMERICANS ASK USDA SECRETARY PERDUE TO CHOOSE BALANCED DIETARY GUIDELINES COMMITTEE

With just a few weeks before USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue is expected to select members for the expert committee that will determine the 2020 Dietary Guidelines, close to a thousand Americans wrote to ask Perdue to please choose a balanced committee that will represent up-to-date views of the most rigorous available science. Also, many believe the committee needs an expert in evidence-based policy who understands the difference between weak science (epidemiology) and strong (clinical trials). Why the need for this push? We’ve heard that USDA bureaucrats who’ve overseen the same one-size-fits-all guidelines for decades are not—understandably—amenable to change. Nominee applications that our group has supported have reportedly been “lost” or passed over. It’s not too late to add your voice—and make a difference. This post explains why and how to lend your voice to this effort.

EAT-LANCET REPORT BACKED BY CORPORATE GIANTS, LACKS RIGOROUS SCIENCE ON VEGAN DIET

Launched by corporate behemoths such as Mars, Nestle, Kellogg’s plus seven of the world’s largest chemical companies, the EAT-Lancet report claims that the only way to save the planet is to drastically reduce red meat consumption and replace it with grains, soy, and rice along with 8 teaspoons of sugar per day and 14% of calories as vegetable oils. Sound like a formula for health? The EAT diet, which is demonstrably deficient in essential nutrients as well as low in complete proteins, is supported by virtually no human clinical trials showing that it can either sustain healthy human life or protect against nutrition-related diseases. See our overview of this report, from its pervasive, undeclared potential conflicts of interest to the lack of rigorous science. What’s at stake? This industry-backed report calls for dramatic government interventions to drastically cut back on the consumption of natural foods…meaning that meat taxes could very well become a reality.

Also, for a quick primer on why more plant-based foods are unlikely to be the solution to reversing obesity and diabetes, see this chart, based on the best-available government data.

This chart makes no claims that plant foods cause these diseases; it demonstrates only that increasingly plant-based foods has not worked so far. (For a chart that breaks out sugar from the plant-foods total, see this, here).

LATEST IN NUTRITION SCIENCE

U.S. Health is Continuing to Worsen: According to a recent study from the University of North Carolina, just 12 percent of Americans meet targets for cardiometabolic health without medication. And this crisis doesn’t just affect those who are obese or overweight. The UNC study found that less than one third of normal-weight adults are metabolically healthy.
- Given that the U.S. Dietary Guidelines are mandated to serve only “healthy Americans,” this means that our national nutrition policy is irrelevant for almost 90% of the American public.

Canada Announces a New Food Guide that Eliminates Dairy and Meat as food groups
- Canadian health representatives said they did not do their own reviews of the scientific literature but instead relied on those done by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. If the U.S. is indeed leading the world on nutrition, then it’s extra-important that we get it right.

The New York Times calls out the lack of evidence for the efficacy of low-salt dietary regimens. When it comes to heart failure, the evidence is shockingly thin — only nine clinical trials with a total of just 479 subjects. Worse, “there were no data that showed that salt restriction reduced mortality or cardiac disease” in heart failure patients. Wow… please pass the salt.

“How did America’s plan for eating right get it so wrong?”

Watch the Big Fat Lie trailer for the answer.

LATEST SCIENCE

The Lancet published an important opinion piece stating that observational data is a limited science that should only be used for generating hypotheses.“[E]ven with the use of sophisticated methods to address various sources of bias,” observational data cannot replace randomized, controlled trials for establishing cause and effect. People like to say, yes, but what about smoking? There was never a clinical trial on cigarettes to show they caused lung cancer. That’s true, yet the effect sizes between heavy smokers vs. never smokers for risk of lung cancer were in the magnitude of 10-30 times greater. By contrast, the effect sizes seen in observational science on diet and health are usually <1.5. This is not strong enough to rule out confounding bias and significant measurement errors that come from self-reported food intake.

This paper by statisticians should be a classic. It states that the claims made by meta-analyses in nutritional epidemiology "are not statistically supported" given the large numbers of of food items sampled. This paper has widespread implications, since such meta-analyses commonly used for setting policy and more.

PARADIGM CHANGE—IT'S HAPPENING

“Praise the Lard: Why the Fine, White Fat is Making a Culinary Comeback,” says the Financial Times (paywall).

What are “Phat Fats,” and why is Whole Foods listing them as a top food trend for 2019?

The keto diet was the number #1 most Googled diet of 2018. Also in the top five: the Carnivore and Mediterranean diets. Absent from the top five: DASH, vegetarian, and vegan.

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter here.

Download a PDF version of this issue

Aaron Bradshaw 11/8/18 Aaron Bradshaw 11/8/18

Newsletter Update | November 7, 2018

FEATURED

Rigorous Evidence on Reversing Type 2 Diabetes Gets Heard on Capitol Hill

USDA Sends Positive Signals that Next Dietary Guidelines Won’t be ‘More of the Same’

New reports on staggering economic costs of obesity, diabetes in America

The Nutrition Coalition Update | November 7, 2018

Rigorous Evidence on Reversing Type 2 Diabetes Gets Heard on Capitol Hill
USDA Sends Positive Signals that Next Dietary Guidelines Won’t be ‘More of the Same’
New reports on staggering economic costs of obesity, diabetes in America

REPORT TO CONGRESS: LOW-CARB DIET YIELDS GROUNDBREAKING RESULTS FOR T2 DIABETES

Sarah Hallberg, chair of the Nutrition Coalition’s Scientific Council, took her breakthrough research on reversing type 2 diabetes to Congress last month. In a briefing to the bipartisan “Food As Medicine” group in the House, Dr. Hallberg detailed results from the large, university-based controlled clinical trial she leads, which reversed T2 diabetes in 60% of participants after just one year on a very low-carb diet (with support provided by a mobile app). Sixty percent reversal of diabetes! This ought to make headlines around the world. No other diet has had results that come close. By contrast, the American Diabetes Association reports only 0.1% reversal on their nutritional program. We could not be happier that Congress listened to this important science regarding a disease that is crippling our country.*
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) calls for the next Dietary Guidelines committee to be more balanced, diverse and to include “fresh points of view.” Additionally, USDA is largely prohibiting previous committee participants from being reappointed. This is a significant step toward ensuring that the next Dietary Guidelines will not simply rubber stamp the status quo. Read our post on this important development here.
Speaking of the status quo, an analysis by the Nutrition Coalition found that 11 of 14 of the last DGA committee members, in 2015, were vegetarian diet advocates. This is exactly why we need fresh perspectives and a greater diversity of views going forward.

WHY THE DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER

$1.72 trillion each year. That's the real economic cost of overweight/obesity in America, according to a new report by The Miliken Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank in Santa Monica, CA. The estimates include both direct health care costs and indirect costs due to lost productivity.
And t he latest numbers on the cost of diabetes? For adults with type 2 diabetes, direct medical costs over their lifetime ranged from $54,700-$130,800, according to a new report by Paul Keckley, a health policy analyst. That’s more than twice the cost for non-diabetics. Keckley calculates that the total diabetes hit to the economy in 2015 – direct costs and lost productivity – was $322 billion, nearly twice the impact in 2007.
CNN reports on a detailed study, published in The Lancet last week, that forecasts life expectancy changes across 195 countries between 2016 and 2040. Spain is predicted to edge out Japan for the longest lifespan – 85.8 years. By contrast, study authors believe that the U.S. is likely to fall from 43rd to 64th place in the rankings of high-income countries. Why is the U.S., a rich country, falling behind? Lifespan is largely determined by nutrition…which leads us, again, to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines and the need for these nutrition recommendations to be based on good science--to keep us healthy.
A staggering number of U.S. troops weigh too much, according to a new RAND report. Rates vary by service, with the Army reporting highest rates of obesity and overweight – 69%, and the Marines with the lowest rate – 61%. The Coast Guard (68%), Navy (65%), and Air Force (63%) fall in between. The military gets plenty of exercise and follows the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. Need we say more?

NEWS FROM NYC

In a widely reported move aimed at reducing obesity, the New York City Health Department (NYCHD) intends to lead a voluntary campaign to get food and beverage companies to reduce the amount of sugar in their products. Specifically, NYCHD will seek a commitment from food manufacturers to lower average sugar levels in packaged foods by 20%, and a commitment from beverage manufacturers to cut sugar in sweet beverages by 40%.

MORE NEWS FROM WASHINGTON

The FDA makes it official, finalizing the complete elimination of artificial trans fats from America’s food supply. Politico reports that the FDA will “revoke all prior sanctioned uses” of partially hydrogenated oils.

BEYOND ALT FACTS

In another story that undermines our faith in nutrition science, a prominent Harvard doctor was exposed for scientific fraud, leading to the retraction of more than a dozen papers. Among other things, Harvard allowed this researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital to start a company profiting from his scientific findings at the same time that he continued to research them--a huge conflict of interest. Harvard seems to have a more general problem in allowing its researchers to be tied to commercial interests, as we reported on here.

PARADIGM CHANGE—IT'S HAPPENING

Following an exposé revealing that the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) was targeting journalists who investigated the sugar and cereal lobbies, the association announced recently that it will cut ties with the food industry. Great move. We’d be delighted if the American Diabetes Association would do the same.
That said, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes did take a step forward by adding a new therapeutic option for patients with diabetes: a low-carb diet. This change serves to acknowledge the strong evidence in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of low-carb and ketogenic diets in fighting diabetes.

LATEST IN NUTRITION

Does prediabetes contribute to male infertility? A study by Italian researchers found that 15% of 744 men with primary infertility met the criteria for undiagnosed prediabetes.
A study out of Japan shows that patients who develop type 2 diabetes show signs of metabolic dysregulation 10 years before diagnosis. A gradual rise in blood glucose levels and decline in insulin sensitivity are thought to be the telltale signs.
The Dept. of Veterans Affairs is outed for the bad choices it makes in stocking hospital vending machines. According to a new study, options are mainly soda, candy, chips, and other junky snacks.

Why should kids be getting donuts for breakfast at school? Because donuts comply with the Dietary Guidelines. We need your support as we work towards evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again.

DONATE

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us/newsletter/

With thanks to Jenni Callahan for contributing story ideas.

*Note: Virta Health funded the study, and Dr. Hallberg is a Virta Health employee, in addition to serving as the medical director for the Indiana University-Arnett Health Medical Weight Loss Program.

Aaron Bradshaw 10/22/18 Aaron Bradshaw 10/22/18

Newsletter Update | October 18, 2018

FEATURED

Keeping fingers crossed for next round of Dietary Guidelines

Battling headlines in the trenches of the low-carb debate

How sometimes proper nutrition can cut a politician down to size

View this email in your browser

The Nutrition Coalition Update | October 18, 2018

Keeping fingers crossed for next round of Dietary Guidelines
Battling headlines in the trenches of the low-carb debate
How sometimes proper nutrition can cut a politician down to size

Apologies for the long hiatus in our newsletter! Much has happened since we’ve been away. We can’t catch up on all the news, but we include a selection of top stories here and promise to return to you with a regular, more timely schedule of newsletters in the coming weeks.

THE 2020-2025 DIETARY GUIDELINES PROCESS IS UNDERWAY

Nominations recently closed for the all-important expert committee that will review the science for the next guidelines. We are hoping that USDA-HHS will select nominees who will push for evidence-based guidelines.
Some good news: USDA-HHS has said that “low-carb” diets and “saturated fats” will be among the topics selected for review. You, members of The Nutrition Coalition, helped make that happen!
The bad news: USDA-HHS dismissed most of the ideas suggested by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (in the first-ever outside peer-review of the Guidelines) on how to improve transparency and manage bias on the Dietary Guidelines' expert committee. That’s a shame. Read our post on it here.

IMPORTANT NEWS WE'VE MISSED

Dr. David Kessler, the former FDA Commissioner, takes on food pundit Marion Nestle about what we really know about healthful eating: "I think we have failed in giving nutritional advice to people. If diet & exercise were the answer, we'd all do it & there wouldn't be a problem...I would try to get answers to very basic questions...Is a calorie a calorie?"
One of the world's leading oncologists, Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee of Columbia University Medical Center (and of The Emperor of All Maladies fame), is set to launch a human trial of ketogenic diet therapy as an accompaniment to drug therapy in specific types of cancer treatments. Recent mouse studies demonstrate the efficacy of administering ketogenic diets—which lower insulin levels—while treating some types of cancer.
Scientific American asks, does ingesting artificial sweeteners cause us to eat more?
The FDA on the new “added sugar” designation on Nutrition Facts Labels… The question of whether honey and maple syrup should count as “added sugars” led to the great maple syrup fiasco... and is why the FDA has gone back to the drawing board on this issue.

DIET WARS: DO LOW-CARB DIETS SHORTEN LIFE?

The past two months have seen a proliferation of headlines about how low-carb diets shorten life, based mainly on a paper in Lancet Public Health. The idea that low-carb diets might harm long-term health is contradicted by the significant benefits found in the near term (with experiments up to two years long). Here are some responses to the Lancet piece that lend some balance to an issue which, on the whole, the media presented in a quite one-sided way:

A Wall Street Journal op-ed by Nina Teicholz (behind a paywall).
A long piece in Medscape by Nina Teicholz and Dr. Fabiano Sefarty (free but registration required).
A post in Psychology Today by Dr. Georgia Ede.
A blog post on the limits of epidemiology by Dr. Chris Kresser.

WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER

Problems with sugar start early and get worse. According to reports on a new CDC study, American toddlers build up to 7 teaspoons of added sugar per day by age 2. "High amounts of added sugar can be hidden in seemingly healthy food: a single-size serving of yogurt with fruit at the bottom can contain up to 6 teaspoons of sugar. In a regular 8-ounce serving of apple or orange juice, there are 5.5 teaspoons of sugar, on average."
Cancer is linked to nutrition as well (of course): A CDC report says that obesity accounts for 40% of all cancer cases in the US.
Obesity is a bigger problem in rural America, according to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
And remember, according to a recent report by the CDC, rates of exercise have been increasing…just to remind you that you can’t exercise your way out of a bad diet.

Or just skip reading all of the above and watch the trailer to a new film, Fat: A Documentary.

CARDIOLOGISTS' CORNER

The Washington Times ran an op-ed entitled "Carbohydrates are Killing Us" by cardiologist Eric Thorn. He writes, "Many doctors, myself included, have seen with our own eyes how low-carb diets help patients lose weight, reverse their diabetes and improve their cholesterol."
Another cardiologist writes, “Want a Healthier Heart? Eat a Steak,” in an op-ed for the Houston Chronicle.

PARADIGM CHANGE—IT'S HAPPENING

Mayors in the US start sharing their personal successes with their constituents:
1. California mayor, Sean Wright, is sharing his success with a keto diet for weight loss, reversing prediabetes, and resolving fatty liver. He invites fellow residents of Antioch to learn more and join him in a journey to better health.
2. Pittsburgh area politician, John Fetterman, loses ~150 pounds by cutting out sugar/grains and walking more. Will this mayor and Democratic nominee for LT Governor help bring the message of reducing sugar and starch for better health to the people of Pennsylvania?
In the UK, Deputy Labor Leader Tom Watson, lost 96 pounds in eleven months by cutting out sugar and starch and eating more fat, as featured on the BBC. Watson asks (rightfully, we’d say) if government should be giving dietary advice when there is such scientific controversy surrounding nutrition.

We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines--to make America healthy again.

DONATE

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us

Aaron Bradshaw 6/22/18 Aaron Bradshaw 6/22/18

Newsletter Update | June 21, 2018

FEATURED

Science shines at groundbreaking conference in Zurich

Tim Noakes speaks to Nina Teicholz about his victory

New paper on "Virta” study: In addition to reversing T2 diabetes, most heart-disease risk factors improved

View this email in your browser

The Nutrition Coalition Update | June 21, 2018

FEATURED

Science shines at groundbreaking conference in Zurich
Tim Noakes speaks to Nina Teicholz about his victory
New paper on "Virta” study: In addition to reversing T2 diabetes, most heart-disease risk factors improved

"MIRACLE" CONFERENCE IN ZURICH

The BMJ and global reinsurer SwissRe co-hosted a “Food for Thought” conference in Zurich last week, which BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee launched by saying, “There is no such thing as miracle diet, but if there’s a miracle meeting, this is it.” The “miracle” referred to the fact that for the first time, real debate took place on key contested issues in science, including saturated fats and low-carb diets, with speakers on all sides of the issues. Participants included some of the chief architects of our current nutrition policy, such as Walter Willett from Harvard, Dariush Mozaffarian from Tufts, and Nita Farouhi from Cambridge, as well as critics of that policy, including researcher Zoe Harcombe, author/journalist Gary Taubes and Executive Director of The Nutrition Coalition (TNC) Nina Teicholz. The conference videos are all available on the conference website, and we would particularly recommend watching Godlee’s closing remarks. At minute 1:33, she says, “One big reversal [in our thinking] is the demonization of fat. I think we’ve got to recognize those reversals, acknowledge them, and have some humility about what is said. I think there may be a tipping point that we're hearing about the reversal of some conditions, diabetes and obesity being two. I also think that the humility must extend to the [dietary] guidelines.'”

TIM NOAKES DECLARED INNOCENT -- AGAIN!

In a unanimous decision, South African authorities acquitted professor Tim Noakes, for the second time, of all charges claiming that he had endangered the public health by tweeting to a mother that she could safely wean her child to a low-carb diet. S. African officials had declared Noakes innocent in April 2017 but then appealed their own verdict. Learn more about this important case and its potentially global implications here.

To support Noakes during this second hearing, an international group of doctors launched a petition -- signed, in the end, by more than 42,000 people . TNC's Teicholz recently interviewed Noakes and his wife about the difficulties they've endured over the past four years, and Noakes thanked his petition signers, which you can watch here.

POLITICS OF NUTRITION

If the Noakes case can be seen as an effort to silence voices speaking about the benefits of carbohydrate restriction, an echo of this tactic occurred recently when the Australian Medical Association asked Netflix to stop distribution of the film The Magic Pill, claiming that the real-food advice promoted for various health conditions in the movie was “irresponsible.” This effort backfired, and Netflix is expanding its distribution of the film world-wide as a result. TNC recommends this film.

THE NEW SCIENCE ON METABOLIC DISEASES

Diabetes reversal is possible on a low-carbohydrate diet -- while also improving cardiovascular health. That is the latest news from the “Virta study,” in which a ketogenic diet, combined with a smartphone-based monitoring app, resulted in a stunning 60 percent reversal of type 2 diabetes. Most cardiovascular risk markers improved during that time as well, according to this detailed post by the Virta team based on a paper recently published in Cardiovascular Diabetology. Virta also found that patients with diabetes on their program saved an average of $4,300 in annual medication costs.

"The science is clear. Reversing diabetes is possible -- and should now be our goal,” writes Dr. Sarah Hallberg in a recent op-ed in Detroit News.

Intermittent fasting is fast-growing in popularity but has been little studied. A new study shows intermittent fasting, particularly with an early time restricted feeding window (8am-2pm), improves insulin sensitivity, blood pressure, and oxidative stress -- even without weight loss -- in men with prediabetes.

The low-carbohydrate diet is also reported to hold promise for patients with type 1 diabetes, giving them exceptional glucose control, according to a survey conducted by Boston Children's Hospital, published in AAP's Pediatrics and covered by the The New York Times. It's been considered nearly impossible for people with type 1 diabetes to achieve normal blood glucose -- but this survey gives hope that it is possible.

POLICY NEWS

A recent recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Nina Teicholz questions why our government now requires chain restaurants to post calories on menus when science cannot demonstrate that these regulations have any meaningful effect on calorie restriction.

The World Health Organization has announced plans to recommend a cap on saturated fat, at ten percent of total calories, as well as a virtual ban on trans fats. Unfortunately, the limits on saturated fats are not based on rigorous scientific evidence. The public comment period lasted only a month.

Cato Institute reports that despite the growing evidence that sugar is bad for health, U.S. lawmakers do not seem inclined to reduce subsidies to the sugar industry.

WHY THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES MATTER

"A Medical Mystery: What happened to U.S. healthcare spending, beginning around 1980?" asks The New York Times in an article about how U.S. spending shot up in this particular year. Yet compared to peer countries, American life expectancy gains have fallen behind. The Times article does not mention one likely factor: the year 1980 is when the U.S. launched its high-grain, low-fat Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Could this policy have played a role? We think so.

Bad news from the new WHO study presented at a European obesity conference in Vienna. The report projects that without a change in course, one in four people globally will be clinically obese in 30 years. Some 22 percent of the people on earth will be obese by 2045, compared to just 14 percent last year. In addition, 12% percent will have type 2 diabetes, compared to nine percent in 2017, the report estimates. That is unsustainable. We need new thinking on the obesity crisis.

Salt Wars: What should our guidelines say about salt? The epidemiological evidence is conflicting (i.e., the current advice that "lower is better" is not supported by a at least six large analyses). Only a clinical trial can properly establish cause-and-effect, but how can a large, well-controlled trial be done? One group of researchers proposed conducting the trial in prisons, an idea that spurred some debate. Meanwhile, we believe that since the evidence is so conflicting, the government ought to walk back its current salt guideline, or at least couch it with less certainty.

BEYOND #ALTFACTS IN NUTRITION

"Nutritional epidemiology is a scandal" Stanford University Professor of Medicine John Ioannidis told CBC News. "It should just go to the waste bin." But instead, policies and guidelines are largely based on this type of evidence, which Ioannidis characterized as "complete chaos." (Ioannidis also gave an hour-long critique of nutritional epidemiology for the Zurich conference, available to watch here.) Tuft's Mozaffarian presented a rebuttal in his closing remarks the next day.

Other outlets are picking up on this problem. "Almost 40% of peer-reviewed dietary research turns out to be wrong,” reports one story, with the subhead: “Food science has a huge statistics problem. The solution, for now? Stop treating new nutrition studies like they contain the truth.”

PARADIGM CHANGE -- IT'S HAPPENING

An organic egg producer has petitioned the FDA to be allowed to use the word "healthy" on its product. Currently, the FDA does not permit eggs to use this term but does allow sugar-laced cereals and bars to be labeled "healthy." Eggs used to be considered unhealthy due to their cholesterol content, but both the American Heart Association, in 2013, and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, in 2015, quietly dropped their long-standing limits on dietary cholesterol due to the fact that these caps were not evidence-based. It turns out that there’s no reason to fear eggs. What’s more, eggs are full of essential nutrients, including choline and lutein-- essential for brain and eye health. Yet it will take a long time to re-educate consumers after 50 years of mistaken warnings about dietary cholesterol. And that’s precisely the problem with guidelines based on weak evidence. It takes people far longer to unlearn than to learn. One must ask: what harm is done in the meantime?

TO GET INVOLVED IN THE NUTRITION COALITION

Sign our petition for Dietary Guidelines that are evidence based.

SIGN HERE

We need your support for our work toward evidence-based Dietary Guidelines -- to make America healthy again.

DONATE

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for the newsletter at www.nutritioncoalition.us

*Source for Chart “Rise in U.S. Overweight/Obesity Coincides With Beginning of Dietary Guidelines”: US-CDC

Dietary Guidelines Needs a Warning Label: "For Healthy Americans Only"

BMJ: US nutritionists call for dietary guideline limits on saturated fat intake to be lifted

Analysis Shows Science Behind Guidelines Does Not Take into Consideration Race, Ethnicity, and/or Socio/Economic Status. Most Studies on White, Middle-Class Populations

Exclusive Film Preview: Sacred Cow, a pivotal food and environment film will be available for a limited time

Biden USDA Transition Team Announced

YOUR VOICE MATTERS. ONE LAST CHANCE TO TAKE ACTION!

There are only a few short weeks before we expect the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) to be released. It is therefore our last opportunity to act--and the LAST TIME we will be asking you to take action.

Please Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

In This Issue:

Update on the Dietary Guidelines—What Should We Expect?

Video Campaign

Wisconsin Lawmakers Letter to USDA/HHS

TNC Public Comments

Guidelines are Failing People of Color

YOUR VOICE STILL MATTERS

Please Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

In This Issue:

TweetStorm

More Evidence that Lowering Saturated Fats Does Not Fight Heart Disease

New Book Challenges Conventional Wisdom on Red Meat

The Dietary Guidelines’ final report is due out in 2 days. You can still take action!

YOUR VOICE MATTERS.

Please Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

In This Issue:

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Draft Report Announced

YOUR VOICE MATTERS.

Major New Paper on Saturated Fats

More than 300 PhDs, Doctors and other Health Care Professionals Call for Reform

TAKE ACTION

Please Donate

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

In This Issue:

2020 Dietary Guidelines Update

Launch of Food For Health

Fat Fiction documentary

COVID-19 shows--All the More--Why Metabolic Health is So Important

Donate to support our work!

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

In This Issue:

NEW FOOD INDUSTRY GROUP REVIVES ENERGY BALANCE FOCUS; USDA SIGNS UP, DESPITE SIGNIFICANT DISPUTE ON THIS TOPIC

THE EPIDEMIC WITHOUT END? HALF OF AMERICANS WILL HAVE OBESITY BY 2030

NEW "SUNSHINE" DATABASE ON NUTRITION SCIENTISTS' CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

NEW GROUP LAUNCHES TO ENSURE THAT A "TRUE" LOW-CARB DIET IS INCLUDED IN THE 2020 DIETARY GUIDELINES

END-OF-YEAR APPEAL: PLEASE GIVE TO THE NUTRITION COALITION!

Get our newsletter delivered to your inbox.

The Nutrition Coalition Update | November 25, 2019

RECAP OF guidelines' advisory committee latest meeting: 2020 PROCESS repeating past mistakes, still lacks scientific rigor

Saturated fats' review by guidelines committee flawed, say leading scientists

congress is also concerned that the guidelines has not led to better health in america

low-carb action network

nutrition news

The Nutrition Coalition Update | July 29, 2019

Guidelines ARE Using Non-Systematic METHODS--Won’t Be “Trustworthy,” Experts Warn

OTHER Serious Questions About USDA’s Science Reviews

TNC’s Nina Teicholz Tells Guidelines’ Committee of History of Excluded Evidence.

Dietary Guidelines Committee Meeting Dominated by Industry, Vegetarian Advocates.

The Wild World of Nutrition Science

The Nutrition Coalition Update | June 26, 2019

Dietary Guidelines’ New B-24 Guidelines: A Possible Industry Giveaway?

Scientific Rigor and Scope Still Major Questions for the Guidelines

Former USDA Chief of Staff Wonders If Guidelines are Doing Their Job

Corruption in Nutrition

Nutrition Study Highlight:

Rates of Type 2 Diabetes are Down…!

The Nutrition Coalition Update | May 24, 2019

Dietary Guidelines are only for Healthy Americans?

Dietary Guidelines’ Process Lacks Rigor from the Start

American Diabetes Association (ADA) Publishes Scientific Consensus Paper with New Focus on Carb Restriction

New Academies’ Salt Guidelines Return to “Lower is Better”

Can a Low-Fat Diet Reduce Deaths from Breast Cancer?

SPOTLIGHT ON WAYWARD SCIENCE

The Nutrition Coalition Update | March 25, 2019

2020 Dietary Guidelines: Committee Appointed, and First Meeting Set for March 28-29

Weak Science Undermines Guidelines by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC)

Current Guidelines on Salt Still Controversial

Diet Wars

#FakeFacts on Keto

**Dietary Guidelines Needs a Warning Label: "For Healthy Americans Only"**

**YOUR VOICE MATTERS. ONE LAST CHANCE TO TAKE ACTION!**

There are only a few short weeks before we expect the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) to be released. It is therefore  our last opportunity to act--and  the LAST TIME  we  will  be asking  you to take action.

**YOUR VOICE STILL MATTERS**

**THE EPIDEMIC WITHOUT END? HALF OF AMERICANS WILL HAVE OBESITY BY 2030**