The Conflict of Interest: Why I Believe the USDA Shouldn't Shape Our Nutritional Guidelines
The USDA has long been the foremost authority on dietary guidelines in the U.S., but its close ties to food and pharmaceutical companies have raised concerns about conflicts of interest for decades. Many believe that an independent agency composed of unbiased experts should be responsible for developing nutritional guidelines based solely on scientific facts, free from external influences.
Since the early 20th century, the government has provided Americans with nutritional advice during times of economic hardship and war, shaping our dietary guidelines. In the 1970s, changes were proposed to combat the growing rate of heart disease, suggesting reduced fat consumption and increased carbohydrate consumption. The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs supported this recommendation, influenced by physiologist Ancel Keys, who claimed to have found a link between dietary fat and heart disease, which was considered a consequence of arteriosclerosis. To date, there is no conclusive scientific research that validates that saturated fat is the cause of arteriosclerosis. The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is called the diet-heart hypothesis, introduced in the 1950s based on weak, associational evidence where correlation doesn't equal causation. Subsequent studies and clinical trials attempting to support this hypothesis still have not been established. So, why did the government set nutritional guidelines based on an unproven hypothesis?
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has provided dietary guidelines for public health for decades. However, there have been concerns about the USDA's impartiality due to its close associations with food and pharmaceutical companies, which persist today. Many argue that these practices hinder the agency's ability to provide unbiased and scientifically sound guidance. As the primary source of dietary guidelines in the United States, the USDA has long been regarded as the authority on nutrition and has a profound responsibility to the American public. Americans have relied on USDA recommendations to decide their diets and overall health. However, the USDA's position as the leading authority on nutrition continues to come under significant scrutiny year after year. In a recent and highly pertinent article by Sheramy Tsai featured in Principia Scientific, Tsai sheds light on the financial entanglements within the Dietary Guidance Advisory Committee. It revealed that the majority of the members selected have significant direct and indirect ties to food and pharmaceutical companies, raising concerns about the impartiality and independence of the guidelines they produce. According to another study published in the Cambridge University Press's Public Health Nutrition journal, conflicts of interest were identified among members of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, with the vast majority of committee members having several conflicts of interest directly relevant. These entanglements lead to corporate influence on such a massive scale that it allows these companies the ability to create unhealthy foods and medicines that, although they may be cheap to the consumer, are incredibly unhealthy, leading to future illnesses. Have you ever wondered why the state of obesity and diabetes in this country continues to get worse every year despite the USDA's assurance that its guidelines are based on scientific research and free of any financial influence? It's not only about people's unwillingness to exercise as they suggest, but perhaps the long-term health effects of bioengineered foods, GMOs, and additives may be a more likely side effect.
The current system of relying on the USDA for nutritional guidelines is exceptionally flawed, leaving Americans with misleading information on which to make health decisions for themselves and their families. The agency's close connections to industry giants create a conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of the guidelines. As noted in an article on the Nutrition Coalition website, the composition of the advisory committees responsible for developing dietary guidelines often includes individuals with direct ties to the food industry, raising questions about objectivity and independence. In 2015, a bipartisan Congressional hearing highlighted issues such as procedural flaws in the scientific reviews used to create the guidelines and the blatant conflicts of interest where Congress members themselves expressed skepticism about the USDA's credibility. In the Congressional hearing, questions were raised about the standards of evidence that may not be rigorous enough for national policy recommendations. After decades of demonizing eggs as a source of high cholesterol, the USDA ultimately announced that there was never evidence that eggs contribute to heart disease. This reversal, originally based on inconclusive and inaccurate information, ultimately erodes the public's trust in the USDA. Despite the skepticism and the glaring issues with the USDA and its procedures, more needs to be done to address the problems. Who's job is it to fix this broken system? Who pays the ultimate price for the misinformation?
The USDA stands by its role as the primary authority on nutrition, emphasizing its commitment to evidence-based decision-making and public health. They argue that its dietary guidelines are informed by the latest scientific research and undergo rigorous review by experts in the field. Furthermore, the USDA maintains that its guidelines are intended to provide practical food-based recommendations for Americans, based on a comprehensive understanding of nutrition and health, to help prevent diet-related chronic diseases and meet nutrient needs. How is that working for most Americans? Should the agency that provides substantial subsidies to corn growers also be responsible for encouraging Americans to consume more carbohydrates? How does that make any sense?
The agency's close ties to food and pharmaceutical companies erode public trust in its recommendations and raise questions about whose interests are really being served. There should be an independent agency, consisting of unbiased experts, free from the shadows of corporate interests. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that dietary guidelines are based solely on scientific evidence and serve the best interests of the American public. By creating an independent agency of scientists, dietitians, and medical professionals with no compromising ties to food or pharmaceutical companies, the government can address concerns about the integrity and impartiality of dietary guidelines. This would help restore public trust in nutritional recommendations and promote healthier eating habits among Americans.The influence exerted by food companies only serves their bottom line. They create cheap foods with questionable ingredients and chemicals, and pharmaceutical companies continue to develop medications to treat diet-related diseases, perpetuating the current obesity and diabetes epidemic. These diseases are considered dietary diseases that will continue to grow and harm people if the root cause of the problem isn't addressed. Companies with vested interests in promoting specific foods or supplements can lobby for guidelines that favor their products, often at the expense of public health. Consequently, nutritional recommendations will prioritize profit over scientific evidence, leading to the unprecedented rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes in the United States as we are already seeing.
This intertwining creates a systemic problem where corporate interests overshadow public health priorities, and it doesn't seem to have an end in sight. In the current system, pharmaceutical companies often step in to medicate the dietary problems that arise from the consumption of unhealthy foods promoted by companies with the financial backing to influence. For instance, they may develop and market medications to treat conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease—conditions that are often directly linked to poor dietary habits. While these medications can provide relief for individuals suffering from diet-related health issues, they do not address the root cause of the problem: the prevalence of unhealthy foods in the food supply. This highlights the need for a comprehensive solution that not only addresses the symptoms but also tackles the underlying problem.
This cycle perpetuates a dependency on both processed foods and pharmaceutical interventions, ultimately resulting in a public health crisis characterized by high rates of chronic diseases and escalating healthcare costs. Moreover, it underscores the urgent need for transparent and evidence-based dietary guidelines, free from influence, to promote the health and well-being of the population.
Congress Is Concerned." The Nutrition Coalition, 2015,
Mialon, Mélissa, et al. "Conflicts of Interest for Members of the US 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Public Health Nutrition." Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 21 Mar. 2022
Teicholz, Nina. "How Dietary Guidelines Are out of Step with Science." The BMJ, 2015
Tsai, Sheramy. "Dietary Guidelines Committee Linked to Food and Pharmaceutical Companies: Principia Scientific Intl.." Principia Scientific Intl. | A Science-Based Community, 2023
In crafting this blog post, I aimed to encapsulate the essence of several articles and scholarly articles while presenting the information in a reader-friendly format that promotes critical thinking and informed decision-making.
