Building a New Pyramid

By David Feder, R.D., Editor

The rebuilding of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines is generating nearly as much contentiousness as the upcoming presidential election. The framework for the guidelines has been under construction for the past year, with plenty of sweat equity already invested by the individual experts and groups attached to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Now, in the several months since the public comment period began (and just closed), interest groups from all sides are weighing in with what they believe to be the best way for Americans to eat healthier.

More Pyramids Than Egypt

When the USDA, along with the National Institutes of Health, sat down to create a basic platform for educating people on the best way to eat more healthfully, they sought to build something simple, easily understood and, most importantly, effective. Hence the introduction of the Dietary Guidelines and their companion pyramid. But it’s not just about rebuilding the iconic pyramid. The undercurrent of political intrigue and influence in creating the guidelines gets more overwhelming each time they are revamped.

The shifting foundations of what experts believe to be the picture of a healthful diet first showed in the mid to late 1990s when a crowd of customized and individualized pyramids popped up. In the, “Oh yeah? Well two can play at that game” model, vegetarian, Mediterranean, soul food, Asian, Mexican and every other food type had its own eating edifice erected and presented it to the public with panaceaic fanfare. All were designed to complement at least, and compete at most, with the USDA version.

Driving Trends

The USDA guidelines and their offspring drive health trends, directly or indirectly, with far-reaching effects. Mediterranean cuisine is just one case in point: Although its explosion on the restaurant scene predated the first guidelines by more than a decade, it wasn’t until the creation of the Mediterranean Diet Pyramid in 1996 as a counter to the USDA’s version that the positive association of an ethnic cuisine with heart health gave food manufacturers a boost. The cuisine was a vehicle to create and purvey billions of dollars worth of Mediterranean-influenced prepared foods. One would be hard put today to find a pantry without olive oil and balsamic vinegar in it.

There are numerous other examples of health trends driving industry profits. In the 1970s and 1980s, oat bran was such a prominent health food it ended up in hundreds of products. This was just one massively profitable segment of the low cholesterol obsession, which began in the early 1970s and plays with relevance even today. (Fortunately, more rational use of “low cholesterol” now prevails versus 20 years ago, when the term was slapped on nearly every manufactured product short of building materials.)

The process works in reverse, too. When millions of people were seized by the high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet craze, industry stepped up to the dinner plate and within months thousands of low-carbohydrate products were on the shelves. That fad is finally starting to abate, but it had enough impact to influence the discussions for this current set of guidelines in production.

After extensive debate and a vociferous public lobbying campaign by Atkins Nutritionals Inc., the committee felt it necessary to address the low-carb diet trend by not recommending a restriction of carbohydrates. Hardly the answer desired by the late Dr. Atkins’ disciples but a reaction nonetheless.

How to Make a Guideline

Ostensibly, the guidelines are a review and reapplication of current nutrition science. But the fact is much of nutrition research is generated and funded by groups with some sort of vested interest. Case in point: Producers of such big-money commodities as beef, dairy and sugar have been subjected to, or threatened with, legal actions for exerting a perceived undue influence on the guidelines. This created a set of hurdles for the new committee from the get-go.

ADVERTISEMENT Nine "major messages" from the Dietary Guidelines Committee: Consume a variety of foods within and among the basic food groups while staying within energy needs. Control calorie intake to manage body weight. Be physically active every day. Increase daily intake of fruits and vegetables (from the current five to nine servings to five to 13), whole grains and nonfat or low-fat milk and milk products. Choose fats wisely for good health. Choose carbohydrates wisely for good health. If you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation. Keep food safe to eat

The USDA and the Dept. of Health and Human Services asked that we take a different approach from that of previous Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committees,” says Connie M. Weaver, Ph.D., chair of the nutrient adequacy subcommittee for the 2005 guidelines. “Rather than just considering how the 2000 Dietary Guidelines should be changed, we were asked to conduct an evidence-based review of diet and health. Thus, we initially posed over 40 specific questions related to dietary guidance. We then thoroughly reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to those questions, analyzed national data sets, sought additional information from invited experts and deliberated on the results.”

After dropping some questions because
of incomplete or inconclusive data, the committee drafted a set of conclusive statements with comprehensive rationales. Then, using evidence-based analysis of the science, they established nine “major messages” the committee believes should be conveyed in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines of Americans.