U.S. Dietary Guidelines: Why Mainstream Researchers Aren’t Completely Buying It

dietary guidelinesWhen it comes to dietary guidelines, there is much confusion about what Americans should be eating. Reports and articles incessantly tell us what to eat, what not to eat and which “unhealthy” foods are actually considered “healthy” these days.

Last week, the federal government published Dietary Guidelines and confirmed the credentials of the nutritional regulations by stating: “a growing body of research has examined the relationships between overall eating patterns, health and risk of chronic disease, and findings on these relationships are sufficiently well established to support dietary guidance.”

However, a number of nutrition research experts admit that the actual scientific data on this issue can be elusive. This also applies to the health and nutrition of some of the most common foods in the American diet.

There’s also new research that provides some insight into the unsettling nature of the data. This may come across as an attack on the nutrition establishment, but it’s actually not. The paper comes from mainstream researchers and appears in the journal Circulation, published by the American Heart Association. Dariush Mozaffarian, author of the study, is the dean of Tufts University’s nutrition school. The paper was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

In the paper, there are essential nutrition ideas that make the connection between heart disease and diet. For each of the ideas, there is a level of science that explains it. Mozaffarian states that there are four scientific consensus levels, ranging from “broad concordance and less controversy (the highest level) to “substantial controversy and/or uncertainty” and “insufficient evidence for meaningful conclusions” (the lowest level).

For instance, in the new Dietary Guidelines, it is suggested that Americans limit their daily consumption of saturated fats to 10 percent of all calories in their diet. Saturated fats are those found in animal products. The authors of the Dietary Guidelines maintain that the guidelines are based on nutritional science that has been established. Mozaffarian says the assumed harm caused by saturated fats cause is actually uncertain, and that science related to this topic has “substantial controversy and/or uncertainty.”

Another example of this principle is that the Dietary Guidelines encourage Americans to start using vegetable oil in place of butter. Mozaffarian says the science that supports the dietary dangers of butter involves “substantial controversy and/or uncertainty” as well, and claims that the science supporting the benefits of vegetable oils are equally controversial.

As a general rule, it is likely best for Americans to stick to a diet that is free or low in processed foods, as well as one low in sugars and sodium. These guidelines have been known to prevent detrimental diseases that significantly affect the African-American community, including hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top