Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘USDA

Science Policy Around the Web – May 31st, 2019

leave a comment »

By: Silvia Preite, Ph.D.

Image by rawpixel from Pixabay 

Common drink and food sweetener – High-Fructose Corn Syrup – accelerates colon cancer growth in mouse models: what about in humans?

Increased consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks has been associated with higher risk of obesity and intestinal cancers. However, whether sugar directly contributes to tumor development, independently from obesity, is less clear. A common sweetner of sodas, fruit-flavored drinks and processed foods is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). A recent study published in Science revealed that consumption of HFCS accelerated colon cancers in predisposed mice bearing a mutation in a tumor-suppressor gene commonly found in human colorectal colon cancers. Strikingly, the human diet equivalent amount of HFCS required to see such effects in mice corresponds to 12 ounces of a sweetened drink – one can of soda per day!

Mice fed with HFCS did not become obese or developed metabolic syndrome, however, developed larger and more advanced tumors, compared to water-treated animals. Mechanistically, HFCS leads to increased levels of fructose and glucose in the intestinal lumen and serum, that can be transported and utilized inside the tumor to generate energy and support its growth. The identification of these events opens new possibilities for the development of therapeutic strategies aimed at controlling tumor growth; in particular, targeting of fructose metabolism may selectively slow tumor progression without affecting survival of normal cells. 

Further studies are needed to assess if similar tumorigenic mechanisms take place in humans. Moreover, whether prolonged and extensive consumption of HFCS has a greater detrimental effect on human health compared to other types of sugar remains to be determined. Regardless, this study could contribute to increase public awareness about the potential deleterious effects on physical health and tumor development due to sweetened drinks and processed food whose comsumption is globally rising. 

(Source: Goncalves et al., Science, 2019)

Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 31, 2019 at 3:08 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 14th, 2019

leave a comment »

By: Mary Weston, Ph.D.

Source: Pixabay

Rural areas drive increases in global obesity

While past studies have found that the increase in global obesity is largely driven by urban regions, a newly published paper argues that this rise is actually being led by those in rural areas. 

Global increases in BMI (body mass index) have been observed for decades, but no one had evaluated differences in urban and rural regions on a large-scale across many countries. The new Nature study evaluated BMI values in 200 countries from 1985-2017, finding that rural areas are responsible for more than 55% of the global rise in the average BMI and more than 80% of the rise in some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 

Previous theories argued that urbanization caused rising BMI largely because of the availability of cheap, ultra-processed foods, a lifestyle that provides more transportation options, and greater access to non-physical leisure activities (smartphones, cable television). In contrast, rural areas were thought more likely to consume more local produce, have less access to ultra-processed and packaged food, and participate in high energy expending activities. However, rural areas, even in LMICs, have now begun to resemble urban areas because of access to ultra-processed foods and cheap mechanized devices that reduce transport and farming energy expenditure.

Obesity results in higher health care costs, lower life expectancy, and reduced quality of life. Thus, prevention strategies are vital but currently, most preventative measures are targeted towards urban areas. Given this new data, funding priorities and strategies need to adjust to address this growing issue. 

(Barry M. Popkin, Nature)

After outcry, USDA will no longer require scientists to label research as ‘preliminary’

After protests, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has stopped requiring their staff scientists to label all published peer-reviewed research as “preliminary.” Released last week, the revised USDA guidelines now require the following language when disclaimers are necessary: “The findings and conclusions in this [publication/presentation/blog/report] are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.” Not all publications will be obliged to contain this statement. 

Previous USDA guidelines, implemented last July, required publications to carry the label: “The findings and conclusions in this preliminary publication have not been formally disseminated by the [USDA] and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.”  This disclaimer caused concern over claims that it was confusing and possibly misleading. Scientific publications are peer-reviewed (evaluated by professionals in the field for quality and accuracy) and considered completed work, not preliminary. Some among the scientific community feared the disclaimer might reduce the impact of the published research conclusions or be used to diminish findings that conflict with views of the current administration. 

While reaction towards the disclaimer change has been generally positive, some non-USDA researchers are still concerned that the latest guidelines have the potential to jeopardize scientific integrity. The new guidelines say that the USDA can request “corrections” or “changes” to research papers if they pertain to a “prominent issue,” a significant scientific advancement, or could influence trade/policy decisions. Rebecca Boehm, an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, stated that “removing ‘preliminary’ from the disclaimer is a step in the right direction, but there still may be unnecessary obstacles preventing agency researchers from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.” 

(Ben Guarino, Washington Post)

Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 14, 2019 at 4:56 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 29, 2018

leave a comment »

By: Cindo O. Nicholson, Ph.D.

20180529_Linkpost

source: pixabay

Biohacking

As D.I.Y. gene editing gains popularity, ‘Someone is going to get hurt’

The tools to delve into gene editing and engineering as a hobby has become more accessible to the public. This can be attributed to the necessary equipment becoming cheaper and the widely-shared expertise in molecular biology techniques like polymerase chain reactions (PCR), DNA restriction mapping, and the new craze CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing. All of this has resulted in the growth of a Biohacking community, i.e. a community of citizen scientists with a shared interest in do-it-yourself genetic engineering projects.

Though members of the Biohacking community share the belief that there should be open-access to genetic engineering technology, there are those that believe that there is the potential for something catastrophic to occur. The biggest fear is that someone will develop and unleash a fast-spreading, rapidly-mutating, and lethal biological agent. The knowledge to make an infectious virus starting with DNA fragments that are pasted together have been published by the open-access journal PLOS One. However, it should be noted that the same knowledge could be used to engineer life-saving vaccines from synthesized DNA fragments instead of extracting and passaging infectious agents from infected tissue. Nevertheless, the question becomes how are U.S. authorities regulating the use of gene-editing technologies by individuals that are not federally funded?

There are currently multiple agencies responsible for regulating various types of research, and would be responsible for mandating the ethical use of gene-editing technologies by labs funded by their grants. However, not all scientific endeavors rely on government funding. In 2013 there was a public crowdfunding campaign through Kickstarter that raised almost half a million dollars for the engineering of a glowing plant. There have been instances of the F.B.I. reaching out to some “whitehat” biohacking labs and many of these biohacking labs have guidelines that must be adhered to by members or risk being kicked out. However, once kicked out an individual is still free to continue their activities on their own and in secret. With no real way to keep track of the unregulated use of synthetic biology, the U.S. and the world is vulnerable to those who would nefariously use these technologies.

(Emily Baumgaertner, The New York Times)

Food Science

As  lab grown meat advances the US calls for regulation

The regulation of lab-grown meat (also known as “clean meat”) is getting serious consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives. A draft spending bill from the House appropriations panel includes a statement instructing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue rules on the manufacturing and labeling of lab-grown meats. Lab-grown meat is made from cells taken from live animals like poultry or cattle that is grown into muscle tissue that can be pressed into burger patties or breaded to make nuggets. Advocates of lab-grown meat state that among its benefits are sparing the lives of animals, and its environmental friendliness since lab-grown meat does not generate greenhouse gases like methane and requires less land.

The impending arrival of these lab-grown meat on the market brings to the fore a few questions such as what actually counts as meat, and is it the responsibility of the USDA or is it the FDAs (Food & Drug Administration’s) for regulating these products. Lab-grown meats are made from the cells of animals and as such are more similar to the cell-based products already regulated by the FDA. In fact, inspecting the cell culture facilities where lab-grown meat is made would lie in the realm of expertise of FDA inspectors. By contrast, USDA inspectors are more familiar with inspecting animal slaughter houses.

Some argue that the proposal for the USDA to regulate cellular agriculture is premature because of insufficient knowledge on the strengths and weaknesses of this method of food production. Others believe that using a spending bill to mandate agencies to come up with new regulations is wrong, especially without input from the small businesses that will be regulated.

This debate about who should, and how to regulate the marketing of lab-grown meats is another example of regulation lagging behind innovation. Why is this frequently the case? The first lab grown beef patty to be taste-tested was in 2013, which means there was at least 5 years to preemptively brainstorm how to regulate, decide which federal agency is best suited to issue rules, and come up with language necessary for a proposal.

(Kelly Servick, Science Magazine News)

Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 29, 2018 at 11:11 am

Posted in Linkposts

Tagged with , , , , ,

Science Policy Around the Web – April 3, 2018

leave a comment »

By: Allison Dennis, B.S.

20180403_Linkpost

source: pixabay

Gene Editing

CRISPR’d Food, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You

The United States Department of Agriculture has given a green light to plant breeders to use gene-editing technology to produce plant varieties that could have been made the old fashioned way. Traditionally, simple changes in genes have been cultivated in crops through selective breeding over generations, which relies on the naturally occurring mutations in the genome to produce new traits. In more recent history, would-be crop innovators rapidly introduced DNA changes to crop genes through mutagens such as radiation, vastly increasing the chances of producing a desirable genetic change in the next generation.

The first product of the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 to officially go unregulated was a variety of white button mushrooms whose genome was edited to resist browning. The mushroom was engineered by making a small deletion in its polyphenol oxidase gene, preventing the organism from making the enzyme that interacts with oxygen in the air to form melanins, think of that green bowl of guacamole on your counter slowly turning brown. Since this process did not introduce any new genetic material, the USDA ruled that it would not be regulated.

The USDA and FDA are currently drafting policy to oversee whether foods derived by this impossibly-sped-up-but-otherwise-natural method of crop development will need to be specifically labeled to inform the consumer. However US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue has made clear that under his direction the “USDA seeks to allow innovation when there is no risk present.”

(Megan Molteni, Wired)

 

Personalized Medicine

Anyone Can Now Take This Breast Cancer Gene Test, But It Probably Won’t Tell You Much

The personalized DNA testing company, 23andMe has had mixed success seeking FDA approval, but may have taken a step closer medical validity this month. The FDA has approved their direct-to-consumer genetic test which can identify three variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes which are associated with an increase in the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. From the comfort of their home, curious patients can spit in a tube that comes at a $199 price tag to learn their result on a panel of FDA approved Genetic Health Risk reports. However, the real value of such diagnostic tests, remains a point of debate.

Because the test will only capture a subset of the known genetic markers for cancer risk, 23andMe stresses that a negative result “cannot rule out your chances of getting cancer.” In fact, most women who are diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer have no known genetic factors. Those who receive a positive test are still advised to validate their results and seek counseling from a medical professional. The company has conceded the value for such direct-to-consumer genetic tests may be the simple act of raising awareness and inspiring them to take a more proactive role in their healthcare.

(Christie Aschwanden, FiveThirtyEight)

Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

April 3, 2018 at 11:47 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – March 27, 2018

leave a comment »

By: Patrick Wright, Ph.D

20180327_Linkpost

source: pxhere

Right to Try Drug Access

Why Can’t Dying Patients Get the Drugs They Want?

The United States House of Representatives passed “Right to Try” legislation last week (HR 5247, the “Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2018”), which allows terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs that are only required to have completed Phase 1 of a clinical trial, bypassing approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These patients are those with life-threatening illnesses who have exhausted approved treatment options and are not eligible to participate in a clinical trial (e.g. due to not meeting inclusion criteria) designed to evaluate the desired drug. However, this access still requires cooperation and permission from the drug companies themselves. Hesitation on the side of these companies can be rooted in the potential risk of jeopardizing ongoing clinical trials and the long process of bringing a drug to market. Furthermore, drug companies often do not have a sufficient extra supply of a product to provide to patients. The logistics of granting access could slow efforts to get the drug approved. Opponents of this legislation cite patient safety concerns and the failure to address the fundamental issue of pharmaceutical company denial of access as the most significant problems that still must be addressed.

Some companies acknowledge the importance of FDA oversight and would continue to seek FDA permission even if a Right-to-Try bill becomes law. Dr. Joanne Waldstreicher, the Chief Medical Officer of Johnson & Johnson, said “In our view, the FDA plays a really important role.” It has “information that we don’t have necessarily; they see safety and efficacy information on products that may be similar.” The legislation includes language that could potentially encourage companies to participate, including preventing the FDA from considering the experiences of patients using the drug when approving drugs. The FDA itself already approves 99 percent of applications to its expanded access program for access to investigational drugs for patients facing serious illnesses.

The Right to Try campaign was initiated by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian, free-market public policy research and litigation organization, and championed by Vice President Mike Pence. Currently, Right to Try legislation has been enacted by 38 states. Victor Riches, president and Chief Executive Officer of the Goldwater Institute said the passing of this bill “is a win for patients. Millions of Americans who have been told they are out of options and it’s time to get their affairs in order, are closer to having the opportunity for one last treatment, without having to get permission from the federal government first.”

In August 2017, the United States Senate unanimously also passed a Right to Try bill (S 204); notably, it was passed under pressure by Ron Johnson (R-WI) who threatened to hold up a five-year reauthorization of FDA user fee programs if he did not get a vote on the bill. However, the narrower House bill has key differences compared to the Senate version, with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), along with FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and other interest groups, having specified additional provisions including limiting the types of patients who can access the pathway and giving the FDA more information regarding the use of the pathway. Because the House bill differs from the earlier Senate bill, the Senate must vote on this revised version. Last week, Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blocked Ron Johnson’s attempt to secure unanimous consent in the Senate to pass the House version of the bill. Senator Schumer stated that the Senate had already passed its version and that he wanted to work on a compromise bill.

(Katie Thomas, The New York Times)

Animal Welfare

Congress Orders USDA to Restore Transparency, Completeness, to Animal Welfare Reports

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) blacked out a public database containing animal welfare inspection reports and records of enforcement actions that the USDA carried out against violations of the Animal Welfare Act in early 2017. The records were often later reposted after varying levels of redaction, eliciting resistance and objection from proponents of animal research and animal welfare activist groups. Last week, Congress released a report that accompanied the USDA’s 2018 spending bill. It stated that these redactions and the obfuscation in accessing USDA information on inspections and their subsequent enforcement violates previous congressional direction and that “the online searchable database should allow analysis and comparison of data and include all inspection reports, annual reports, and other documents related to enforcement of animal welfare laws.”

On the same day that the report was released, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) filed a lawsuit against the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the USDA entity responsible for conducting animal welfare inspections. HSUS had requested documentation (e.g. inspection reports) for three puppy breeding facilities (“puppy mills”) via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and were, in response, provided reports by APHIS with significant contents redacted. The USDA’s FOIA office wrote that because the requested reports were about businesses that operated out of an individual’s private home, they could not be disclosed without that person’s consent. This is not the first lawsuit in response to the blackout that has been filed by animal welfare groups against the USDA. The Animal Legal Defense Fund as part of a coalition with other animal activist organizations (Stop Animal Exploitation Now, Companion Animal Protection Society, and Animal Folks) previously filed a lawsuit in February 2017 against the USDA’s handling of inspection report transparency and availability (Animal Legal Defense Fund v United States Department of Agriculture) that was dismissed by federal Judge William H. Orrick on the grounds that FOIA provides an “adequate, alternate remedy”. The coalition has since appealed the decision.

To explicitly describe the approach and process underlying the blackout and redactions, APHIS states on its website: “APHIS, during the past year, has conducted a comprehensive review of the information it posts on its website for the general public to view. To conduct the review, the entire agency search tool database, along with additional documents, was taken off line. As a result of this review, APHIS has removed certain personal information from APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act and the Animal Welfare Act. APHIS recently reposted certain inspection reports and research facility annual reports that were determined to be appropriate for reposting.” It also states “The agency will continue to review records and determine which information is appropriate for reposting. Those seeking information from APHIS regarding inspection reports not currently posted to the website, regulatory correspondence, and enforcement related matters may submit FOIA requests for that information.”

It appears that the language in the new Congressional report, part of the new omnibus spending bill that was just approved by Congress and President Donald Trump, has support among the animal welfare community. Cathy Liss, president of the Animal Welfare Institute, based out of Washington, D.C., stated “The Animal Welfare Institute applauds Congress for forcing USDA to lift its veil of secrecy.” Similarly, Kathleen Conlee, vice president for animal research at HSUS said she is “very pleased” with the report and that the “HSUS has been working closely with Members of Congress over the past year to address USDA’s outrageous purge and redaction of these vital documents.”

(Meredith Wadman, Science)

Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

March 27, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – July 31, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Kaitlyn Morabito, Ph.D.

GMOs

US House moves to block labeling of GM foods

The debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) labeling has made it to the federal level. On July 23rd, the US House of Representatives approved H.R. 1599, the Safe and Affordable Food Labeling Act. This bill prevents states and localities from being able to require the labeling of GMOs on food products and sets up a voluntary US Department of Agriculture (USDA) program for foods to be certified as non-GMO. Additionally, it expands the ability of the FDA to regulate and prevent the sale of food based on safety data or a lack of safety data. States such as Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine already have laws related to the labeling of GMO foods. If this bill becomes law, the laws in these states will be negated. Proponents of this bill, including the food industry, Republicans and some Democrats, argue that the scientific community has reached the consensus that GMOs are not harmful and that this bill makes a uniform national policy on the labeling of food. Opponents of the bill, argue that consumers have a right to know what is in their food. The fate of this bill in the Senate and White House approval is unknown. (Puneet Kollipara, Science Insider)

2016 Budget

Budget showdown leave US science agencies in limbo

With the fiscal year nearing a close, it is once again time for the annual panic over whether Congress will pass a 2016 budget or if the government will shutdown. Congress will be back in session beginning in early September and will have 3 weeks to hammer out a budget deal for 2016 before the 2016 fiscal year officially begins on October 1st. Experts do not expect a 2016 budget to pass by this deadline, but do anticipate that a temporary deal will prevent a government shutdown. During these negotiations, the budgets of the US science agencies hang in the balance. The Senate and House of Representatives have both passed 2016 budgets, but these bills need to be reconciled between the two chambers and approved by the White House.   While funding for the government’s largest science agency, National Institutes of Health (NIH), is expected to rise by about $1 billion with either budget, other science agencies may not fair as well. The largest discrepancies in funding are among the agencies that fund climate change research and the social sciences including NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Science Foundation (NSF). The Republican-controlled House Budget included many stipulations on how these agencies can use their funds. A final budget may not be passed until months into the 2016 fiscal year. (Chris Cesare, Nature News)

Vaccines and Global Health

First malaria vaccine takes a key step forward

The first efficacious malaria vaccine (RTS,S) has health organizations and the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), puzzled about how best to use it, if at all. An ideal vaccine would achieve 95% efficacy, but this malaria vaccine only showed 30% efficacy in a phase III clinical trial in young children in sub-Saharan Africa. Although experts only expected 50% efficacy at the start of that trial, the vaccine only protected 39% of toddlers and 27% of infants against malaria. Although a huge achievement, the market for RTS,S is not clear and there are many other aspects that need to be considered including “cost-effectiveness, feasibility and the public-health value of the vaccine compared with other interventions” such a mosquito control. Use of vaccines and other interventions are often based on recommendations from organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). So far, the EMA has released a “positive scientific opinion” of the vaccine in Africa for children between 6 weeks and 17 months old based on the fact that vaccine does more good than harm. The WHO has yet to release a recommendation, but is expected to do so by the end of the year. Recommendations from these health organizations do effect funding for vaccinations, but does not directly determine their use, which is decided by the countries themselves. (Leslie Roberts, Science Insider)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 31, 2015 at 9:00 am

You Are What You Eat – The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

with 2 comments

By: Amanda Whiting, Ph.D.

photo credit: MyPlate Logo via photopin (license)

Many Americans, at one point or another, have probably heard about the “food pyramid” and know that it has something to do with what the government says makes up a healthy diet. But have you ever wondered where those federal food and nutrition guidelines actually come from, or what information they’re based on, or just who gets to decide what is “healthy” for everyone?

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy & Promotion (CNPP) is responsible for the general nutritional guidelines for Americans. The most recent nutritional icon, called “MyPlate,” was released on June 2, 2011 by First Lady Michelle Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and replaced the previous “MyPyramid” model. The visual guide features a colourful plate divided into approximate portions for fruits, vegetables, grains, protein and dairy. The dinner table imagery is meant to help children, parents, and other adults prioritize their food choices at meal times to include all of the groups listed, as well as consume them in proportions relative to each other (e.g. half a plate of fruits and veggies) as a model diet to promote good health.

The nutritional recommendations behind the simpler MyPlate came from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), a policy document jointly produced by the USDA’s CNPP and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Since the publication of the first edition in 1980, the Guidelines have been updated every five years to reflect the most current knowledge on health and nutrition. A Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), made up of 13 to 17 nationally recognized experts in the field of health and nutrition, meets in the year prior to each update to discuss what should be included, removed, or revised in the guidelines by conducting a thorough review of scientific and medical literature, as well as soliciting comments from the public. A scientific report is written and delivered to Secretaries of the USDA and HHS containing the DGAC’s recommendations for the next edition. The next revision to the guidelines is currently in process, with the final report due to the USDA and HHS by early 2015.

As with any guide that tries to cater to a population as large and diverse as the American public, MyPlate and the Dietary Guidelines are not without disagreements and multiple opinions. Everyone likes to think that how they eat is “healthy” – be it vegetarian, fruitarian, vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, carnivore, paleo, primal, veggie-free, or what-have-you. In addition, MyPlate has been criticized for removing a reference to physical activity, another important contributor to good health, which was present on the MyPyramid icon as a person climbing stairs.

While some people might be of the opinion that what the federal government says is “good food” and “healthy” isn’t all that important (because they’re going to eat however they want anyway), the Dietary Guidelines for Americans does play an important role in public health. In addition to consisting of guidelines for the general public’s own consumption, the DGA is a policy document that is used to set policy related to nutrition within the government. In the USDA, the dietary guidelines are used to set standards for school lunch and other feeding programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women Infants and Children (WIC) program. Within HHS, the DGA is used by parts of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to produce consumer information materials supporting healthy lifestyles for various diseases (such as hypertension), while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses parts of the DGA as the basis for the Nutrition Facts information guides found on all packaged food. Thus, it is important that the final DGA and the recommendations made by the DGAC are firmly based on rational, scientific facts and arguments and are not unduly influenced by groups with their own interests at heart.

This influential effect on other governmental policies is what makes the content of the DGA itself very political. It seems that every step forward in terms of recommendations based solely on scientific evidence for advancing optimal human health, is met head on by opposition from groups with powerful incentives to make money and/or preserve a status quo. As one example, it is likely that the 2015 DGA will include a recommendation that sugar be limited to no more than 10% of a person’s daily calories. All previous editions of the DGA have not included a recommendation for an upper limit on daily sugar consumption, which is why there is no number for % daily value (%DV) for sugar on any food product nutrition label. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently in the process of updating their guidelines on sugar consumption. This guidance, expected to be published in early 2015, suggests that a reduction in sugar consumption from less than 10% of total energy intake per day (the current 2002 guideline) to below 5% would have additional health benefits on body mass and tooth decay. For an average adult, the 5% mark would be equivalent to approximately 25 g of sugar per day or less. The American public currently consumes an average of 126 g of sugar per day, with much of that coming from added sugars in processed foods, and specifically, from sweetened beverages. Success in this one single area – reducing American’s consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages – could have a significant impact on the overall health and body mass of Americans. Not surprising, the beverage industry has issued some pushback for the inclusion of any specific limits on added dietary sugar (among other concerns) in the newest DGA. The American Beverage Association has submitted public comments for the DGA, suggesting that the WHO-commissioned review lacked scientific evidence and that the setting of Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) is not the responsibility of the DGAC and therefore should be done by other organizations. Similar arguments have been made by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Juice Products Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the Sugar Association among others.

Other groups have tried to take the politics out of what we should eat and focus just on what the science of nutrition says. “Unfortunately, like the earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture pyramids, MyPlate mixes science with the influence of powerful agricultural interests, which is not the recipe for healthy eating,” said Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition and chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)1. HSPH released its own version of MyPlate known as the “Healthy Eating Plate”. This plate featured even more vegetables compared to fruit, an even split between grains and healthy protein, an emphasis on drinking water over dairy, and indicated that healthy oils should also be consumed. It also included a direction to “Stay Active” as a part of a healthy lifestyle. The goal of the Healthy Eating Plate is to give more specific information for a healthy diet in a way that is as clear and intuitive to follow as the MyPlate icon, without influence from the food industry or agricultural policies.

What one eats (and what one does) on a daily basis has a profound impact on one’s overall health and quality of life. “One of the most important fields of medical science over the past 50 years is the research that shows just how powerfully our health is affected by what we eat. Knowing what foods to eat and in what proportions is crucial for health,” said Anthony Komaroff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and editor in chief of Harvard Health Publications1. It will be interesting to see what the recommendations for the 2015 update to the Dietary Guidelines are and what recommendations actually make it into the final document. At the end of the day, what you choose to eat is up to you. However, everyone is entitled to accurate information about the health consequences of their personal food choices. Regardless of how you eat or what diet you follow, we are all human and the basic principles for good health and longevity remain the same for everyone. Like it or not, you are what you eat.

  1. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/harvard-serves-up-its-own-plate/

Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 18, 2015 at 9:00 am

Posted in Essays

Tagged with , ,