Ep 208 Dietary Guidelines Part 1: Who’s behind these guidelines?

Over the decades, dietary guidelines have taken a diverse array of shapes, from pamphlets to wheels, from plates to pyramids. In many cases, the shapes have changed more than the recommendations they contain. This week and next, we explore those recommendations - who’s making them, how they have changed over time, and how closely they align with what we should be eating. First, we delve into the long history of dietary guidelines and how their intentions have evolved as the food landscape drastically changed over the 20th century. Then we interrogate the conflicts of interests at the heart of their formation, questioning how much these recommendations are backed by science vs industry interests. Ultimately, we come back to the question of “if few people actually use these guidelines, why should we care about them at all?” Turns out, we have lots of feelings on the matter. Support this podcast by shopping our latest sponsor deals and promotions at this link: https://bit.ly/3WwtIAu See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

• 0:01Speaker 00

  This is Exactly Right.

• 0:06Speaker 01

  Dry hands can be uncomfortable and frustrating, especially when frequent hand washing, changing weather, and everyday wear and tear take their toll. O'Keefe's Working Hands is here to help keep dry hands feeling hydrated and comfortable. O'Keefe's Working Hands creates a soothing barrier on the skin that locks in moisture and prevents further dryness. It's concentrated and non-gracey, and you start to feel relief in one use. Go to O'Keefe'sCompany.com to get yours today. That's O-K-E-E-F-F-E-S company dot com for guaranteed relief. O'Keefe's Working Hands. Yeah, it works.

• 0:38Speaker 02

  Hey, I'm Niall Rogers. This fall, I'll be driving across the country, meeting some of today's coolest and most fascinating artists. We'll explore the stories before the moments that changed everything. Because every musician remembers the moment where it all began. Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln Original Series on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:09Speaker 03

  How can the housekeeper tell whether or not she is providing the food which her family needs and is getting the best possible returns for the money she spends? Unfortunately, the price she pays for food is no test of the nourishment it yields to the body. Tomatoes at five or 10 cents a piece in winter do not build body tissues nor furnish fuel for the body engine any better than those at five cents a quart in the summer. Appetite is not always a safe guide. A child's appetite might be satisfied with a diet of nothing but sugar, but this certainly would not be good for him. Neither can hunger and its satisfaction always be relied on. A bulky diet of potatoes or bananas alone would soon make a person feel that he had eaten enough,

• 1:53Speaker 03

  but would not furnish all that the body needs. Evidently, what a person who plans meals ought to know is what things the body needs in its food and how these needs can be fulfilled by the ordinary food materials. This paper is intended to give such information in a It should make plain that different kinds or classes of foods serve different uses in the body and should help the housekeeper to choose those which will serve all these uses without waste. It is very hard for a housekeeper to know exactly how much of each of the food substances or nutrients her body needs, or exactly how much of each she is giving them. In order to calculate exactly how much starch, sugar, fat, protein, etc. the family needs,

• 2:37Speaker 03

  one would have to know exactly how much muscular work each member was performing and also exactly how much of the different nutrients each food contained, and exactly how much each person would eat. This, of course, would mean a great deal of figuring. Fortunately, such exactness is not necessary in ordinary life. If a little too much or too little of one nutrient is provided at a single meal or on a single day, a healthy body does not suffer, because it has ways of storing such a surplus and of using its stored material in an emergency. The danger would come if the diet taken week in and week out always provided too much or too little of some one nutrient. Against this danger, the housekeeper can more easily protect her family.

• 3:18Speaker 03

  Good food habits, it must be remembered, include more than cleanliness and order in everything that has to do with food and meals and leisurely ways of eating. Equally important are a liking for all kinds of wholesome foods, even if they have not always been used in one's home or neighborhood, and eating reasonable amounts. Every effort should be made to train children in such good food habits. If older people have not learned them, they too should try to do so, for such things are very important not only to health, but also to economy.

• 4:34Speaker 04

  I love it, Erin.

• 4:36Speaker 03

  Isn't that great?

• 4:37Speaker 04

  Have that replace all of our guidelines? Except the housekeeper bit and the

• 4:42Speaker 03

  Housekeeper her.

• 4:43Speaker 04

  You know.

• 4:43Speaker 03

  Yeah. I mean, I think like what I love about these guidelines is that there and there's so much more to them, right? Like this comes from a 14 page or so pamphlet about how to feed your family. It has sample meals that I I kind of called out. So it like, what is one? Here's here's an example for a man. So they have it broken down by like, here's one for a family with two adults and three children. Here's one for a man who does a lot of muscular work outside. He would need each day, one and a quarter pounds of bread, a quarter cup of butter oil, meat drippings or other fat, quarter cup of sugar, or a third of a cup of honey, and then like a little bit of fruits and veggies, and 12 ounces of, you know, meat.

• 5:25Speaker 04

  Meat, 12 ounces.

• 5:27Speaker 03

  Or also fish, or cheese, or eggs, or legumes. So there are other, there are non-animal protein sources acknowledged and recommended.

• 5:37Speaker 04

  Fascinating.

• 5:38Speaker 03

  Isn't that wild? So that is from really the United States first nutritional guidelines from 1917. It was from a pamphlet written by Caroline Hunt and Helen Atwater. And yeah.

• 5:54Speaker 04

  I love it.

• 5:55Speaker 03

  There you go. Hi, I'm Erin Welsh.

• 5:58Speaker 04

  And I'm Erin Allman Updike.

• 5:59Speaker 03

  And this is This Podcast Will Kill You.

• 6:02Speaker 04

  Welcome to, what are we calling this? The food pyramid?

• 6:06Speaker 03

  Okay, that's what I initially called it. And then I was like, nutritional guidelines might be more accurate.

• 6:10Speaker 04

  Dietary guidelines.

• 6:12Speaker 03

  Dietary guidelines.

• 6:13Speaker 04

  Part one.

• 6:14Speaker 03

  There you go. Part one. Yeah, so we're breaking this up into two episodes because there is so much to cover. And it's really exciting, too. Like, I feel like I'm really glad that we chose to do this in two episodes because it's given, it's given us an opportunity to dig deep into some of these questions of like, how these guidelines are put together and the history of them, like, what actually goes into making these guidelines and some of the ethical considerations that we should consider, I guess. So that's all, that's all this episode. And then next week, you're going to be taking us through the most recent guidelines and what the science actually does have to say when it comes to diet and health and foods that we should eat and foods that we should avoid and blah, blah, blah, all that stuff.

• 6:58Speaker 04

  Yeah. No small task.

• 7:00Speaker 03

  It's, yeah. I have a wide variety of sources for this.

• 7:04Speaker 04

  I can't, I cannot wait to learn, especially just about the history of the dietary guidelines in the US because it's, I know there's a lot there.

• 7:14Speaker 03

  I, I am really hoping that I get the answer from you next week as to what the heck is going on with protein and why. Yesterday, I went to the store and I was like, there's protein popcorn.

• 7:26Speaker 04

  Yes, I know.

• 7:26Speaker 03

  Protein popcorn.

• 7:27Speaker 04

  Protein water.

• 7:29Speaker 03

  Protein sparkling water. I about fell over when I saw that.

• 7:32Speaker 04

  I will, I don't know if I'll answer that question, but we will talk quite a lot about protein because you can't not. You can't.

• 7:38Speaker 03

  I'm, I, yeah.

• 7:40Speaker 04

  I don't have an answer as to why there's protein popcorn.

• 7:44Speaker 03

  I was like, what?

• 7:46Speaker 04

  Before we can do any of this.

• 7:48Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 7:48Speaker 04

  It's quarantine time.

• 7:49Speaker 03

  It's quarantine time. Yeah. We are drinking this week, your daily apple.

• 7:55Speaker 04

  Your daily apple.

• 7:56Speaker 03

  An apple a day keeps the doctor away. This is in no way an endorsement of apples specifically, or?

• 8:01Speaker 04

  We're not being paid by the apple lobby over here.

• 8:03Speaker 03

  No, we're not. But you know, there is one.

• 8:07Speaker 04

  I'm sure.

• 8:09Speaker 03

  So in your daily apple, how you make it is you mix together some apple juice, various juices, essentially. You know, try to find ones that are juice and not just pure sugar. But, uh, apple juice, lemon juice, pomegranate juice, and a dash of sparkling water. Uh, it's, it's great.

• 8:27Speaker 04

  Yeah, very refreshing.

• 8:29Speaker 03

  Sure.

• 8:30Speaker 04

  We'll post the full recipe for your daily apple on our social medias, for sure.

• 8:36Speaker 03

  Probably on our website. I think we're getting rid of the video situation.

• 8:40Speaker 04

  Right. So you can find them there, thispodcastwithkelly.com.

• 8:43Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 8:44Speaker 04

  Where you can also find so much other amazing information there, you know? We've got transcripts from all of our episodes. We've got sources that we use for every single episode. We've got merch. We've got a Goodreads list. We've got a bookshop.org affiliate account. We've got Leaks the Bloodmobile, who does our music. We've got Patreon. We've got, I mean, wow, the list goes on.

• 9:06Speaker 03

  Absolutely goes on and on. Thanks for that, Erin.

• 9:10Speaker 04

  No problem.

• 9:12Speaker 03

  I think we have no other business that I can remember. And so let's take a break.

• 9:17Speaker 04

  Tell me everything?

• 9:18Speaker 03

  Great.

• 9:19Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 9:21Speaker 04

  What is one thing many of us deal with every single day, but rarely talk about? Dry hands. Whether you frequently wash your hands or deal with harsh weather, your hands can be left feeling dry, rough, cracked, and even uncomfortable. That's where O'Keefe's Working Hands Hand Cream comes in to help. The fast-absorbing formula goes on smoothly, and it won't leave behind a greasy residue. So you can get back to your busy day without ever missing a beat. And because a little will go a long way, O'Keefe's Working Hands Hand Cream is effective, dependable, and economical, too. Whether you're dealing with harsh weather outside, demanding work, or everyday wear and tear, O'Keefe's Working Hands works just as hard as you do. So keep your hands hydrated, smooth, and feeling comfortable all season long.

• 10:06Speaker 04

  Visit okeefescOMPANY.COM today. That's O-K-E-E-F-F-E-S-COMPANY.COM for guaranteed relief. O'Keefe's Working Hands, yeah, it works.

• 10:19Speaker 02

  Hey, I'm Niall Rogers, producer, songwriter, guitarist, and co-founder of the group Sheik. A great song has a way of defining a moment, a moment of joy, heartbreak, or anything in between. This fall, I'll be driving across the country, dropping in on some of the coolest, most fascinating artists working today. We'll go deep into their lives and careers and hear what it was like before the moment that made them. From hitmakers like Miguel...

• 10:53Speaker 05

  That last year, finishing that record was the hardest experience of my life. Regardless of how everyone else buys into this, I believe in this and I'm gonna push.

• 11:04Speaker 02

  To rising stars like Alex Warren.

• 11:07Speaker 06

  You know, a song is a story and the verse is setting the scene. And for me at least, it's allowing me to be personal and vulnerable with the audience, whether it's about my wife and I'm being vulnerable about her, or it's about, you know, my parents and I'm being vulnerable to them. And it's almost like a cinematic piece in a way where each song tells that beautiful story.

• 11:25Speaker 02

  It's gonna be one hell of a trip. Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln original series on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 11:49Speaker 03

  How do we decide what to eat? Our days are filled with endless micro decisions about what to make for breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack time. These decisions are shaped by so many factors, right? From what we have on hand to how long something takes to make. From what we grew up eating to what we can afford. From whether we have dietary restrictions to, you know, just what we're in the mood for. How exactly we make these decisions has greatly shifted over history as agriculture, global trade, industrialization, and advertising have altered the ways that we interact with food. In most high-income countries, what we've seen over the past century

• 12:31Speaker 03

  is an explosion in food variety and an overall expansion in access. That means that the question has morphed from what can we eat to what should we eat? But who is behind that should? And where did they get their information?

• 12:47Speaker 04

  You gonna tell me, Erin?

• 12:49Speaker 03

  On January 7, 2026, the US Department of Health and Human Services, along with the USDA, unveiled the new dietary guidelines for Americans. And while some of the recommendations have not changed in decades, like an emphasis on fresh vegetables and whole grains, others represent a pretty stark departure from previous guidance, like the inclusion of butter and beef tallow as good or, you know-

• 13:15Speaker 04

  Healthy fats.

• 13:16Speaker 03

  Healthy sources of fats. Changes to the guidelines are not unprecedented. They are actually expected. Since 1980, when the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or DGA, was passed, every five years, those guidelines are revisited by an appointed committee, who publishes a new report. The logic behind this decision is very sound, like why we keep revisiting these guidelines. Our knowledge is always evolving, and so we should evaluate policies in light of new scientific research and be open to change. That's how science works. At least, that's how it should work. Where things get tricky is when other interests, such as financial,

• 13:58Speaker 03

  are present that weaken or refute the science. National dietary guidelines are presented as a scientific consensus. But are they? Or are some guidelines influenced more by industry than by science? And maybe you're listening to this and thinking, like, well, those guidelines don't mean anything to me. I never use them. I don't even know what's in the newest ones. Fair enough. Like, that's, I get that. But these guidelines do have a huge impact, not just on overall perception of what a healthy diet is, but also in a very tangible way. They will affect what the 30 million US children in the National School Lunch Program eat on an average school day. They will affect other people who are on food assistance programs

• 14:42Speaker 03

  and what foods they can get assistance for. Tracing the history of these guidelines can reveal so much about our understanding of nutritional science, about globalization and the food supply, and about the insidious influence of industry on our perception of, quote unquote, "healthy."

• 15:01Speaker 03

  Today, I'm going to take us through the story of a question. How should we eat? Not by answering that question, but by examining who has answered it and what underlies their advice.

• 15:14Speaker 04

  Oh, my gosh, I'm thrilled.

• 15:17Speaker 03

  Dietary advice is far from a 20th century invention. Long before the words vitamin or carbohydrate had entered our vocabulary, there were strong culturally distinct recommendations on what to eat and what not to eat. Certain animals and plants carried powerful symbolism and were reserved for ceremonial purposes, consumed for their purported medicinal qualities, or just forbidden entirely. But beyond these food taboos or medicinal ingredients, there were also general recommendations for a quote-unquote "healthy diet." So like, for instance, the ancient Greeks and Romans advised moderation in food and beverage, for example, and in keeping with the humoral theory of disease, a balanced diet was recommended.

• 16:00Speaker 03

  For someone who was ill, that balance might be tilted to restoring the humors. Overall, though, I'm not sure what a balanced diet meant.

• 16:09Speaker 04

  What it meant, yeah.

• 16:10Speaker 03

  And whether that was consistent, and how achievable it would have been for like your average citizen of the ancient world. I have no idea. Did they even know about balanced diets? I don't know.

• 16:21Speaker 04

  Like, what were their food groups that they were balancing?

• 16:25Speaker 03

  You know, I don't... That is a separate question.

• 16:27Speaker 04

  Wine was a big one.

• 16:30Speaker 03

  Wine was absolutely a food group.

• 16:33Speaker 03

  Then you had, I don't know, like, there must have been bile. Like, you know what I mean? Like, yellow bile. This is going to increase your yellow bile and whatnot.

• 16:40Speaker 04

  Right, right, right.

• 16:41Speaker 03

  But I think that what's-

• 16:42Speaker 04

  Cold foods, hot foods. Wasn't that a whole thing?

• 16:44Speaker 03

  That was a thing. That is still a thing, yeah. But where the link between diet and health was clearer in ancient times was actually in raising livestock. So farmers noticed that if they fed their livestock different diets, like grass versus straw, for example, there might be a pretty major difference in how many young they had, how early they matured, how big they grew, the milk they produced, stuff like that.

• 17:06Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 17:08Speaker 03

  How much of this was carried over to dietary guidelines for humans? I don't know, not sure. But it seems that overall, thousands of years would pass before there was anything resembling like a general consensus on what constituted a healthy diet. Partly because global trade and food preservation practices like refrigeration and canning, that limited how much food or the variety of food that someone had access to. Like, how many people could reliably eat a few cups of leafy greens a week, year round?

• 17:38Speaker 04

  Right.

• 17:39Speaker 03

  No one.

• 17:40Speaker 04

  Not a thing.

• 17:41Speaker 03

  Not really a thing.

• 17:42Speaker 04

  In the ancient world.

• 17:43Speaker 03

  In the ancient world, yeah.

• 17:44Speaker 04

  Right.

• 17:45Speaker 03

  Right, and so, but the answer, I mean, sure, there were some people that achieved more of like a diet in line with what we eat today, but it would depend a lot on the person themselves, right? Like where they lived, their socioeconomic status, all of these different factors.

• 18:03Speaker 04

  Right.

• 18:04Speaker 03

  But even if someone had a variety of foods available to them, how would they know to choose fruits and vegetables over other options? Especially when like fats and sugars taste good for a reason.

• 18:16Speaker 04

  So good.

• 18:17Speaker 03

  Like it's good, it's like evolutionarily, we are ingrained to think that that is the most delicious thing.

• 18:22Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 18:23Speaker 03

  On earth. And, yeah. But the 1800s is really when nutritional science got its start. And it was initially mostly focused on identifying and treating nutritional deficiencies, rather than the much trickier puzzle of determining, you know, which elements constitute not just a sufficient, but a healthy diet.

• 18:43Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 18:44Speaker 03

  The goal of nutritional science in these early years was preventing disease, not maximizing health.

• 18:51Speaker 04

  That's, that's a really interesting distinction.

• 18:55Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 18:56Speaker 04

  Because it's also preventing, like you said, deficiency diseases.

• 19:00Speaker 03

  Mm-hmm.

• 19:01Speaker 04

  Very different than what the goals of nutrition guidelines are today.

• 19:04Speaker 03

  Preventing chronic diseases, yes.

• 19:06Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 19:07Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah. And so this question of how do we use food to prevent disease, it was interesting in its own just like scientific, right? But more than that, it was a logistical question. How do you feed an army? How much food? Or what kinds of food does a soldier or a sailor need to stay in fighting shape? So that is really what drove a lot of these questions in nutritional science. So for instance, scurvy, which we know today is caused by vitamin C deficiency, had plagued humans for millennia. But it grew to new levels of concern in the 17th and 18th centuries, prompting military doctors like James Lind to investigate what foods might stave off this horrific illness.

• 19:50Speaker 03

  See our scurvy episode for more on that. But these observational studies then led to people realizing that citrus was a good scurvy prevention or preventative. And so in 1835, British Parliament passed the Merchant Seamen's Act, which required lemon juice to be included in all rations. This is really, some people consider this to be the first governmental dietary guidelines.

• 20:13Speaker 04

  Oh, that's so interesting.

• 20:16Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 20:16Speaker 04

  Because it's like, you've got to have lemon juice. That's the first, that's the...

• 20:20Speaker 03

  It is required on all of these ships. And it's like, even though it's a subset of the population, even though the rationale was not figured out for another century because of guinea pigs, again, see our scurvy episode. But I find that, I do find that really interesting is that like this, we know that you need to have this and we don't know why, but this is important.

• 20:40Speaker 04

  Yeah, that's so interesting.

• 20:42Speaker 03

  So while Lind and other pioneers in this field mostly relied initially on observational studies, you know, what food seems to help prevent this disease? But then the chemical revolution of the late 18th century, that is what really paved the way for the quantification of what we ate. Like what is in the food that we're eating? These chemists were figuring out essentially what life is made of and how we turn matter into energy. And it led some to ask what we needed to sustain life, not just what life is made of, but what does it need to keep going? The Industrial Revolution provided the perfect metaphor for these explanations of nutrition. The body as a machine.

• 21:24Speaker 03

  That was one important difference that they realized. Unlike machines, which ran on one type of fuel, experiments revealed that the body needed a mixture. Otherwise, disease or death might result. You needed the right kinds of fuel.

• 21:40Speaker 04

  Yeah, the combination.

• 21:41Speaker 03

  Combination. And so this kind of reasoning, though, seeing diet as a way to avoid deficiencies, this persisted throughout the rest of the 1800s, and it guided scientific research into what was considered a "complete diet." Not in the way that we think of a complete diet today, as in the different balanced components that we should aim for for healthy eating and not having too much of this or too much of that. But a complete diet as in the bare minimum to avoid deficiencies. Not only in terms of specific nutrients, but just enough food, period. This research served multiple purposes. On the one hand, it was helpful for figuring out how to feed people, especially people who are, for instance,

• 22:26Speaker 03

  unemployed British cotton factory workers was a big part of this early on. Like, how do we give them enough food so that we're not killing them, but not spending too much money? You know, like, how do we do this as cheaply as possible?

• 22:40Speaker 04

  What's the minimum that we need to just keep people alive?

• 22:42Speaker 03

  How can we preserve life? Yeah. And on the other hand, though, it served as helpful advice for the general public, much of which was navigating a totally new food landscape compared to past generations. The Industrial Revolution and growth of cities overall meant that food had to travel farther to get to the mouths of consumers, leading to all sorts of issues with food safety and consumer protection alongside greater technology into how to make food more shelf-stable. And so this innovation in food preservation and packaging, it meant that consumers had more options to choose from, like more ways to spend their money. The cheapest options were rarely nutritious,

• 23:24Speaker 03

  which meant, of course, that you could spend your entire meager paycheck to feed your family and they would still not get what they needed to avoid deficiencies, let alone achieve, you know, optimal health.

• 23:36Speaker 04

  Right.

• 23:36Speaker 03

  So by the late 1800s, many countries who were seeing a looming nutritional disaster stepped in to regulate food safety, which gradually encompassed coming up with dietary guidelines for their citizens. So in the US, this process was spearheaded by W. O. Atwater, who was appointed by the USDA in the 1890s to be the first director of research activities. His goal essentially was to break down foods into their main components: protein, or nitrogen, he also called it, carbohydrates, fats, et cetera. And then to make recommendations, especially geared towards poorer families, on how to have a healthy diet on a limited income.

• 24:18Speaker 03

  So he suggested a balance of 15% protein, 33% fat, and 52% carbs. And that men doing moderate work should consume about 3,500 calories, which is about 1,000 more than today's recommendations, but overall proportions are, I think, pretty similar.

• 24:36Speaker 04

  It's so interesting that back then, they, especially in the context of how things went this year in the US, that they were specifically targeting their guidance for poorer families, like recognizing this socioeconomic disparity that early on in that... Yeah, that's very interesting, in the context of today.

• 24:55Speaker 03

  I mean, it's like, the more things change, the more they stay the same, for sure. Because so many things, you're like, "We've been saying the same thing for so long."

• 25:03Speaker 04

  We really have.

• 25:04Speaker 03

  And then also, it's like, "Oh, my god, protein, again? What are we doing here?" So like, Atwater was a little bit, kind of like, mega-focused on protein as this really important thing, and it was among the most expensive of food items. And so, under his guidance, you would have these families that were spending about 50% of their entire household income on protein. And that, of course, then made fruits and green vegetables a disposable luxury. It was like, protein first, everything else. Later.

• 25:36Speaker 04

  Second, later, yeah.

• 25:37Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 25:37Speaker 04

  Interesting.

• 25:38Speaker 03

  It's like, oh, not that dissimilar to today in terms of this overwhelming focus on protein. And so his recommendations, I just wanted to dig in. I was definitely like reading this in the context of, you know, protein popcorn, whatnot. But he was, his recommendations were that an average working man outside should get about 125 grams of protein a day.

• 26:00Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 26:01Speaker 03

  As like the absolute minimum.

• 26:03Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 26:04Speaker 03

  But another researcher, and also I will say that like the protein could have come from any source, not just, not just animal protein. But another researcher was like, I don't, I, I'm worried that you're overestimating how much protein you need. And so he ran this experiment where he fed, you know, these army men on 60 grams of protein a day and like studied their body composition throughout a period of months. Totally fine.

• 26:29Speaker 04

  Yeah. The same.

• 26:31Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah. Anyway, but, but there was this interesting, so like not only was Atwater focused on protein, and it's possible that like historically back then, people weren't getting enough protein, but like was 125 too much? Yeah, probably for most people. Absolutely. 125 grams. But he also recognized that people in general primarily eat foods that were high in fat, starch, and sugar. Like that was what most of their diets were comprised of. And he didn't live to see the heyday of vitamin discovery, which was like within the first few decades of the 20th century. Nor did he live to see the USDA's first general dietary guidelines, which were heavily influenced

• 27:12Speaker 03

  by his work and written by his daughter Helen Atwater and Caroline Hunt, which is from our firsthand account. Isn't that cute?

• 27:20Speaker 04

  She's like, I'm doing what my dad did.

• 27:22Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 27:24Speaker 03

  These guidelines, this 14-page pamphlet in 1917 titled How to Select Foods, these guidelines marked the first phase for dietary advice in the US. Diet as Cure slash Eat More Food. It was like how I think it's characterized. And so they include some familiar things like food groups, fruits and veggies, meats and other protein-rich foods, cereals and other starch, sweets, fatty foods, stuff like that, and information about micronutrients, so like vitamins and minerals. But other aspects feel distinctly absent or different from today, like any upper limits on consumption.

• 28:01Speaker 04

  Hmm, that's interesting.

• 28:04Speaker 03

  And so this, combined with the emphasis on micronutrients, was seized by food producers who saw an opportunity to market themselves, right? With consumers having so many more options at the store, food companies needed to stand out. And they used these guidelines to do so. Vitamins and minerals became a selling point.

• 28:23Speaker 04

  Hmm.

• 28:24Speaker 03

  Like, our bread has vitamins in it. And like, every bread, or like, our, you know, our bread is not deficient in vitamins, unlike... dot, dot, dot.

• 28:32Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 28:33Speaker 03

  The early 20th century saw two world wars, where feeding an army transformed from an art into a science. Rations had to be large enough to feed the average soldier, prevent any nutritional deficiencies, and not spoil. At home, however, guidance remained vague and, at times, contradictory. So there was five food groups initially, that grew to 12, then shrank to seven, and then to eight, and then grew to eight. It was all over the place. There were different pamphlets that contained different advice, influenced by things like the Great Depression and the rationing of meat, sugar, butter, and canned goods during the wars. So, for instance, in 1942, just to give you a little bit of an insight

• 29:15Speaker 03

  into the confusingness of this. In 1942, federal programs advised US citizens to eat foods from eight different groups a day.

• 29:25Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 29:26Speaker 03

  Half of these groups were milk, meat, eggs, and butter.

• 29:32Speaker 04

  Those are all different groups?

• 29:34Speaker 03

  Those are all different groups.

• 29:35Speaker 04

  What?

• 29:42Speaker 04

  Milk, eggs, butter, meat, those are all separate things?

• 29:46Speaker 03

  Indeed.

• 29:47Speaker 04

  Oh, goodness.

• 29:50Speaker 04

  Butter gets its own group? I mean, we're back there today.

• 29:54Speaker 03

  We're, I was gonna say, like, the more things change, the...

• 29:59Speaker 04

  Oh, goodness.

• 30:01Speaker 03

  And then the next year, another change, right? The USDA's National Wartime Nutrition Guide said, quote, "US Needs Us Strong. Eat the Basic Seven every day." Again, milk, eggs, and butter each took up their own category.

• 30:15Speaker 04

  Out of seven?

• 30:16Speaker 03

  Yeah. Yeah.

• 30:18Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 30:20Speaker 03

  The Basic Seven was the first guidance to include actual serving suggestions, which provided a minimum, but no maximum.

• 30:27Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 30:28Speaker 03

  So for instance, three or three to four or more glasses of milk daily for children, plus ice cream. Not kidding.

• 30:38Speaker 04

  Three to four glasses of milk for children?

• 30:42Speaker 03

  For children.

• 30:42Speaker 04

  Can be iron deficient.

• 30:43Speaker 03

  And less for adults. Yeah. Uh, two or more tablespoons of butter daily. Uh, there's more, yeah. It's, but it always was or more, right?

• 30:54Speaker 04

  Or more.

• 30:54Speaker 03

  Like there was no, it was always or more.

• 30:56Speaker 04

  Right, right, right.

• 30:56Speaker 03

  Every single one.

• 30:56Speaker 04

  This is the minimum that you need.

• 30:58Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 30:59Speaker 04

  Regardless of calories needed, regardless of just at least this.

• 31:04Speaker 03

  At least this.

• 31:05Speaker 04

  Yeah, yeah.

• 31:05Speaker 03

  And I think it still reveals a lot about this preoccupation with like deficiencies and, and reasonably so. Um, and food producers, I mean, they were thrilled by this guidance.

• 31:15Speaker 04

  I'm sure.

• 31:16Speaker 03

  Except for the meat poultry fish industry. That's right. This is the only one that didn't have or more. It was just like one daily serving recommended.

• 31:22Speaker 04

  Oh, that's so interesting.

• 31:24Speaker 03

  Mm-hmm.

• 31:25Speaker 04

  Really, that, that's the war on protein right there.

• 31:27Speaker 03

  There we go.

• 31:28Speaker 04

  Sorry.

• 31:28Speaker 03

  It was started in World War II. Yep.

• 31:32Speaker 03

  But yeah, this, this concern or this preoccupation with deficiencies, nutritional deficiencies, was, was valid, right? It was based on surveys that revealed many Americans were not getting enough food at all. Millions simply could not afford to, especially during the Great Depression and wartime. And others were not eating foods that would have met those nutritional needs. This finding motivated the USDA to again rearrange the food groups, simplifying them into the basic four.

• 32:04Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 32:05Speaker 03

  Meat, vegetable and fruit, bread and cereal, and milk. Still, we've got milk as an entirely separate category.

• 32:12Speaker 04

  And vegetable and fruit is one thing.

• 32:14Speaker 03

  One thing.

• 32:14Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 32:15Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah.

• 32:17Speaker 01

  Dry hands can be uncomfortable and frustrating, especially when frequent hand washing, changing weather, and everyday wear and tear take their toll. O'Keefe's Working Hands is here to help keep dry hands feeling hydrated and comfortable. O'Keefe's Working Hands creates a soothing barrier on the skin that locks in moisture and prevents further dryness. It's concentrated and non-grassy, and you start to feel relief in one use. Go to O'Keefe'sCompany.com to get yours today. That's O-K-E-E-F-F-E-S company.com for guaranteed relief. O'Keefe's Working Hands. Yeah, it works.

• 32:49Speaker 02

  Hey, I'm Niall Rogers, producer, songwriter, guitarist, and co-founder of the group Chic. A great song has a way of defining a moment, a moment of joy, heartbreak, or anything in between. This fall, I'll be driving across the country, dropping in on some of the coolest, most fascinating artists working today. We'll go deep into their lives and careers and hear what it was like before the moment that made them. From hitmakers like Miguel...

• 33:23Speaker 05

  That last year, finishing that record was the hardest experience of my life, regardless of how everyone else buys into this. I believe in this, and I'm gonna push.

• 33:34Speaker 02

  To rising stars like Alex Warren.

• 33:37Speaker 06

  You know, a song is a story, and the verse is setting the scene. And for me, at least, it's allowing me to be personal and vulnerable with the audience, whether it's about my wife, and I'm being vulnerable about her, or it's about, you know, my parents, and I'm being vulnerable to them. And it's almost like a cinematic piece in a way where each song tells that beautiful story.

• 33:55Speaker 02

  It's gonna be one hell of a trip. Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln Original Series on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 34:22Speaker 03

  There were some ambiguous warnings about portion sizes, but it was more just like, be careful not to overdo it, kind of a thing.

• 34:29Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 34:29Speaker 03

  Overall, the focus remained on getting enough. That message would remain consistent until the 1970s, when a Senate committee found that while many people were still food insecure, leading to the creation of several food assistance programs in this time, many more were at risk of overnutrition. So cardiologists in particular had raised the alarm bell in, after World War II, after they saw a really startling, striking rise in coronary heart disease. And they attributed that to high-calorie diets that increasingly included high amounts of fat, cholesterol, salt, sugar, and alcohol. So this is like, in the 1950s is when this starts to become more and more apparent.

• 35:13Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 35:14Speaker 03

  And you have researchers such as Ansel Keys, who we talked about in our starvation episode. He also did so much work to design the rations for World War II. He did a lot of this nutritional science in the mid-20th century. So he examined this pattern across the globe and noted certain trends linked to a lower incidence of chronic disease, which included heart disease, but also diabetes and cancer. These trends that he noticed made their way into new dietary recommendations, which, for the first time, for the first time in the history of US dietary guidelines, advised citizens to eat less of certain foods and more of others. Limit your salt, sugar, cholesterol, and saturated fats.

• 35:58Speaker 03

  Stick to nonfat dairy and vegetable oils. Eat more greens and carbs and less red meat and eggs. With this, the second phase in US nutritional guidelines had begun.

• 36:10Speaker 04

  Wow.

• 36:10Speaker 03

  Diet as a disease slash eat less food.

• 36:13Speaker 04

  So interesting. This was 1970s?

• 36:16Speaker 03

  1977.

• 36:17Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 36:19Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, Kies' guidelines came out earlier, like in 1959, I think. But like, this was slowly building momentum. And by 1977, there were these, this push to investigate why people were so still struggling to have sufficient diets, like food insecurity. And then what this committee actually revealed was this other problem that was lurking in the background, where diet was the problem.

• 36:44Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 36:45Speaker 03

  In a different kind of way.

• 36:46Speaker 04

  Right.

• 36:47Speaker 03

  And so this committee made this, this report, this 1977 report, called Dietary Goals for the United States. And when it was released, I mean, there was a huge uproar.

• 37:00Speaker 04

  Really?

• 37:01Speaker 03

  The cattle industry demanded that the report be withdrawn. The egg industry wanted additional hearings. And sugar producers were like, why are we suddenly in the crosshairs? What have we done?

• 37:12Speaker 04

  We didn't even do anything.

• 37:14Speaker 03

  We didn't do anything.

• 37:17Speaker 03

  But the report didn't just upset those who would be impacted financially. It wasn't widely popular, even among scientists who questioned, who questioned the science behind these recommendations, or said that, you know what? One-size-fits-all guidance, that's going to be of limited use. And we don't want this to discourage people from seeking individualized diet recommendations from their healthcare provider. I think to that effect.

• 37:40Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 37:41Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah. But in the scheme of things, economic objections far outweighed the scientific ones. Declining whole milk and egg sales after release of this guidance demonstrated that these guidelines had the power to weaken a few pillars of the American economy.

• 37:57Speaker 04

  Fascinating.

• 37:59Speaker 03

  And it was, and it was alarming, too, right? Like, these, these different pillars of industry were like, uh, excuse me? Like, you're gonna suddenly hurt me? These, these guidelines are bad for the American economy. And so industry was like, I want a seat at the table. And they got it.

• 38:17Speaker 04

  And they got it.

• 38:18Speaker 03

  They got it. And this set a dangerous precedent for accepting, like, being okay with industry's influence in these decisions. At the end of 1977, a revised set of goals was released. And this included three important changes from the initial report.

• 38:35Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 38:36Speaker 03

  It increased your daily salt allowance from three to five grams a day, almost a doubling. It also changed, it said that, okay, the added cholesterol from eggs is fine for pre-menopausal women, young children, and the elderly.

• 38:51Speaker 04

  Okay. Very specific.

• 38:53Speaker 03

  Uh huh, uh huh. And it replaced reduce consumption of meat with choose meats, poultry, and fish, which will reduce saturated fat intake. Don't you just love these little language changes?

• 39:07Speaker 04

  Subtle, subtle.

• 39:08Speaker 03

  So subtle.

• 39:09Speaker 04

  We're not telling you to do anything different.

• 39:12Speaker 03

  Right. Just like choose these.

• 39:14Speaker 04

  Just offering you suggestions.

• 39:15Speaker 03

  Let's not be negative about this. We don't want that negativity up in here. But these, even still with these revisions, they were controversial and attracted substantial debate. The eat less fat message that dominated the guidelines was called imprecise, both in that it didn't distinguish among different fat types, you know, saturated versus unsaturated, animal versus plant origin, and it singled out one type of food in a way kind of implying that as long as you cut back on fatty foods, you're fine. Like, that's totally fine.

• 39:51Speaker 04

  Everything else doesn't matter.

• 39:52Speaker 03

  Everything else doesn't matter. And this low-fat guidance is also where we see, again, how guidelines influence marketing strategies. Like the vitamin-rich foods of the 1920s, products like Twizzlers, you know.

• 40:06Speaker 04

  I just will.

• 40:07Speaker 03

  Capitalize on this.

• 40:08Speaker 04

  I will never forget walking down the aisles in like the 90s, and every single cookie was like, low-fat cookie, low-fat this. And I'm like, whoa, it's a cookie. It's still a cookie.

• 40:20Speaker 03

  Low-fat Twizzlers. I remember being like, I remember thinking, oh, this must be healthy because it's low fat.

• 40:26Speaker 04

  Red vines are non-fat.

• 40:27Speaker 03

  Non-fat. There you go. I feel, yeah. But fats weren't the only target of criticism.

• 40:34Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 40:35Speaker 03

  In this, you'd be hard-pressed to find a recommendation that everyone agreed on. There was like a lot of like, well, what about this? And what about that? And language here and language there. And so in response, there was an explosion in recommendations from other committees and professional organizations, whose guidance differed slightly in the particulars, but it all came down to the same basic conclusion: a balanced diet with reduced fat intake. This message had a lasting impact on the diet of Americans. From 1965 to 1995, the proportion of calories that an average American got from fat fell from 45% to 34%.

• 41:11Speaker 04

  Wow.

• 41:12Speaker 03

  It's quite a drop.

• 41:13Speaker 04

  Yeah, 10%.

• 41:15Speaker 03

  But consumption was not necessarily lower. Increasing portion sizes, particularly at restaurants, meant that fat intake might have fallen proportionally or in terms of percentages.

• 41:27Speaker 04

  Right.

• 41:28Speaker 03

  But not in terms of absolute amounts.

• 41:29Speaker 04

  Oh, that's so interesting.

• 41:30Speaker 03

  Yeah. So without going into any of the nitty gritty on fat or like saturated versus unsaturated, animal versus plant, this just shows how overgeneralized guidelines or a focus on one thing can be really misleading. Since the 1977 guidelines, advice has become more specific, but overall, the message has remained consistent. High fiber, low salt, low sugar, low saturated fat, a variety in diet, exercise, et cetera. Echoing the guidelines of the early 20th century. Like, this is what's been recommended for over 100 years at this point.

• 42:04Speaker 04

  No major overhauls, really.

• 42:06Speaker 03

  No major, yeah. And I'm not going to go into the specifics of the food pyramid of the 90s versus my plate, or how wording changed from year to year and stuff like that. Rather, I want to take this last bit of time to peel back the curtain on the process of creating these guidelines.

• 42:25Speaker 04

  Please, Erin.

• 42:26Speaker 03

  And highlighting its weaknesses in doing so. With all this controversy in the late 1970s around dietary guidelines, the federal government realized that maybe they should have like a formal process for going about this. Maybe that would be a good idea. Scientists at the USDA and the HHS, along with external experts, worked together to produce the 1980 DGA, Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And this ended up being very similar to the 1977 recommendations, with a few minor changes, again, in wording or recommended amounts. Since 1980, the guidelines have been revisited every five years in a process that is intended

• 43:06Speaker 03

  to consider existing and new scientific evidence in light of the current guidelines and make any changes if they're necessary. The way this works is that with every iteration of the DGA and independent committee of subject matter experts, the DGAC, the committee, C for committee, is appointed. So there's this committee appointed to review the existing guidelines and make recommendations to the USDA and the HHS.

• 43:32Speaker 04

  Yep.

• 43:33Speaker 03

  The USDA and HHS then consider those committee recommendations and they produce a new set of DGAs guidelines for the general public.

• 43:44Speaker 04

  Right.

• 43:45Speaker 03

  Right? So that's, so it goes DGAC comes up with these recommendations, advises USDA and HHS. Those two departments then decide what advice makes it into the final guidelines.

• 43:55Speaker 04

  Correct.

• 43:56Speaker 03

  That's it. The final version is totally up to the USDA and the HHS.

• 44:00Speaker 04

  Correct.

• 44:01Speaker 03

  The DGAC works in an advisory capacity only.

• 44:05Speaker 04

  Mm-hmm.

• 44:06Speaker 03

  Already, some weak spots emerge.

• 44:07Speaker 04

  [laughing]

• 44:08Speaker 03

  The committee, who picks it?

• 44:10Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 44:11Speaker 03

  It's totally up to the discretion of the secretaries of the USDA and the HHS. The process of appointment has been described as opaque and there is no explanation as to who is nominated, who is picked, or who is rejected.

• 44:26Speaker 04

  Right. Or like screening process of who, how, all that?

• 44:30Speaker 03

  Right. How they're picked, anything like that, yeah. Maybe someone is on the committee because they are an expert in nutritional science. Maybe it's because they have industry ties. Maybe it's both.

• 44:40Speaker 04

  Mm-hmm.

• 44:41Speaker 03

  The USDA has a dual and sometimes conflicting goal. Promote healthy eating and promote American agriculture.

• 44:51Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 44:52Speaker 03

  This conflict of interest often manifests in the makeup of this committee.

• 44:57Speaker 04

  Mm-hmm.

• 44:58Speaker 03

  So for instance, a paper investigating the conflict of interest of the 2020 DGAC, this Dietary Guidelines Committee, found that 95% of committee members, 19 of the 20 on the committee, had ties to industry.

• 45:11Speaker 04

  Mm-hmm.

• 45:12Speaker 03

  This conflict of interest falls into different categories, with most members having multiple. For example, things like being a board member, consultant, employee, receiving research funding, receiving honoraria as a speaker, and so on. In many cases, these networks of conflicts spiderwebbed across multiple members, with the American Egg Board and General Mills, for example, each listed as a conflict of interest for at least five members. And in fact, most industry actors had multiple ties to the committee. The total number of conflicts of interest varied. So the lowest, of course, had zero, one person. A couple of people only had one tie each, whereas the top three had 152, 92, and 84 ties.

• 45:58Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 46:00Speaker 03

  Industry, I've already listed a couple, but industry ranged from Danone to Novo Nordisk, Nestle, National Pork Board, PepsiCo, Merck, and many, many, many more.

• 46:11Speaker 04

  This is how I learned that there was a National Pork Board, was looking into these ties. I was like, okay, cool.

• 46:18Speaker 03

  Oh, there's so many boards for that kind of thing.

• 46:20Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 46:22Speaker 03

  Is this okay? No, of course not. It is not okay. I think instinctively, no. But is it allowed? Yes.

• 46:32Speaker 04

  Clearly.

• 46:33Speaker 03

  It's not supposed to happen, but it does. So for instance, as temporary government employees, members should not participate in a matter where they have a financial interest, like that is in the guidelines. And they are required to disclose financial interests before final approval. And so then those disclosures, again, in this opaque process, are reviewed and signed off by the USDA, who is supposed to follow the recommendation that many other governmental committees follow, which is that those, quote, "who have a conflict of interest" should not represent more than a minority of the group, end quote. I don't think that 95% is a minority.

• 47:13Speaker 04

  I don't think by any metric it's a minority.

• 47:15Speaker 03

  No, no, ah, no. Further, these disclosures are supposed to be publicly available, but they are often missing with no apparent consequence.

• 47:27Speaker 04

  Hard to find, yeah.

• 47:28Speaker 03

  Really hard to find. They're either like really difficult to find, or just like in this, this one paper, it was like, yeah, we couldn't find the, the supposed public release of these disclosures.

• 47:37Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 47:38Speaker 03

  And I just, I want to acknowledge that having industry ties does not automatically discredit someone's scientific integrity.

• 47:45Speaker 04

  Right.

• 47:46Speaker 03

  But the main issue is the lack of transparency surrounding those ties.

• 47:51Speaker 04

  And just the, the, even just the appearance of a conflict of interest, right, is problematic, because then it makes you second guess, it makes the public second guess, and it discredits even if the science is all legitimate. 100%.

• 48:05Speaker 03

  Right. But then, the science all legitimate, that's a loaded, that's a very loaded thing to say.

• 48:11Speaker 04

  100%, especially in nutrition.

• 48:13Speaker 03

  Exactly. And that's all part of this too, right? So, okay, so we've just put the committee together, and we're already running into problems, we trust.

• 48:22Speaker 04

  Uh huh.

• 48:23Speaker 03

  So then, there's the DGAC report. So this is when they make their recommendations to the USDA and the HHS. What goes into making these recommendations? The committee itself decides the questions to ask. Should we eat more eggs or less, for example? And then sifts through heaps of scientific studies on diet and health, sometimes that have been assembled into systematic reviews produced by the USDA itself. What gets included into a review? What's considered a good study? How these things are all weighted? Again, not transparent. And the process itself is vulnerable to subjectivity, right? If somebody is producing a review on, let's say, eggs,

• 49:07Speaker 03

  what are the studies they're going to choose from to include in that review?

• 49:10Speaker 04

  Right.

• 49:10Speaker 03

  Are they going to include ones that are funded by the Egg Board? Or not? Are they going to include ones that are, look at correlations? Or are they going to look at ones that are more scientifically robust? You know, what are the things that are included? And if the USDA is assembling these, and again, we have this conflict of interest between American agriculture and American health, how is that playing a role in just making up these committees? And in making up these reviews, and in choosing what gets included?

• 49:38Speaker 03

  A DGAC member from 2010 wrote, quote, "Despite our evidence-based review lens, where we say that food policies are science-based, in reality, we often let our personal biases override the scientific evidence," end quote. And so, maybe somebody ranks a paper higher than it should be because it aligns with their industry ties, or maybe they're skeptical of a study that contradicts consensus science, so they don't read it closely, or maybe they're just like, "I've always been taught that this is the case, and so I don't think it can be that."

• 50:09Speaker 04

  Right. This doesn't make sense to me.

• 50:11Speaker 03

  To me?

• 50:12Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 50:13Speaker 03

  Right. And so, and again, this might be robust, but this is another opportunity, this is another place of weakness.

• 50:18Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 50:19Speaker 03

  Okay, so, the process of appointing a committee is not transparent. The scientific evidence on which the committee bases their recommendations is not as transparent as it might seem. And now, we've got the DGA being adapted from the DGAC recommendations. So now, we've got the USDA and HHS producing these public-facing guidelines. This transformation, total black box.

• 50:42Speaker 04

  Total black box, and never has it been one-to-one, ever.

• 50:46Speaker 03

  Never, never.

• 50:47Speaker 04

  Never, ever, ever.

• 50:48Speaker 03

  It has never been one-to-one.

• 50:49Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 50:50Speaker 03

  So for nearly 20 years, DGAC members have raised concerns that this process weakens or contradicts the scientific consensus that they tried to include in the DGAC report, but without any clear rationale behind the alterations.

• 51:03Speaker 04

  Yep.

• 51:04Speaker 03

  So you could have a conflict-of-interest-free committee, you could have conflict-of-interest-free papers, and they're choosing all ones, you know, the ideal scenario.

• 51:11Speaker 04

  Right.

• 51:12Speaker 03

  Right? And still...

• 51:14Speaker 04

  Still, you don't know who...

• 51:15Speaker 03

  The DGA...

• 51:16Speaker 04

  What they're gonna take from it.

• 51:17Speaker 03

  Could not represent that. Yes, exactly.

• 51:19Speaker 04

  I mean, you can see it, even just like, if you actually read through the DGAC scientific reports from previous years, not even getting into the issues with this year's, but in previous years, like, there would be more strong recommendations, like, "One drink per adult, period. No one should be drinking alcohol." And then what makes it into the actual report?

• 51:36Speaker 03

  Limit.

• 51:37Speaker 04

  "No, we shouldn't drink, but maybe one or two if you're a male," and that's still what it says, right?

• 51:42Speaker 03

  Drink moderately.

• 51:43Speaker 04

  Right. "We should be reducing sugar to less than 6%. Well, we're gonna keep it at 10%. Why?" Right? Like, it's, it is, it's, it's never followed one-to-one. And like you said, even if those committees were free of bias, even if the science was as robust as we would like it to be, it's still not being translated directly into the dietary guidelines.

• 52:02Speaker 03

  Yep, yep. So just imagining this process, if we start with solid scientific evidence, just good, robust studies, then we add in the DGAC committee, and then we add in the DGAC report, and then we add in the DGA, what we end up with is a kind of a murky sludge, where industry interests and personal biases have watered down the evidence that we do have. But does any of this matter?

• 52:35Speaker 03

  Is anyone actively using these guidelines to make food choices? I struggled a lot with this question while working on this. Like, the number of times where I was like, oh, it doesn't even matter at all. Like, it doesn't matter. No one, like, I didn't even know that MyPlate existed.

• 52:50Speaker 04

  No one did?

• 52:51Speaker 03

  Before doing this. Yeah.

• 52:52Speaker 04

  If you've not heard of MyPlate.

• 52:53Speaker 03

  I was just like, oh, yeah, the 90s Pyramid. I can still picture it perfectly in my head.

• 52:56Speaker 04

  The 90s Pyramid was discontinued in, like, the early 2000s, and they did this other, like, dough-deca-heed-drawn-with-stairs thing that no one knew about, and then they got rid of that.

• 53:06Speaker 03

  Oh, I remember that one. Yeah.

• 53:06Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 53:06Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 53:07Speaker 04

  And then they, and then they got rid of that, and they did MyPlate, and literally no one has heard of MyPlate.

• 53:11Speaker 03

  No one has heard of MyPlate.

• 53:12Speaker 04

  There was a survey in 2022 that three-quarters of Americans had never heard of MyPlate.

• 53:17Speaker 03

  I'm in the majority, for sure.

• 53:19Speaker 04

  So is my husband, yeah.

• 53:21Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah. But this, this sentiment of, like, does it actually matter?

• 53:27Speaker 04

  Right.

• 53:27Speaker 03

  This is echoed and reflected in the conclusion of, like, every paper that discusses these guidelines. At the end of the day, very few people actively use these guidelines to make food decisions. The continually rising rates of chronic disease in the US would suggest that these guidelines, or any minor changes to them, are, they're not really having any significant effect. There are many barriers hindering effective communication of the guidelines. They're either oversimplified, which further weakens the advice that's included, or they're too specific and complicated, leading to confusion. For the 40 million people in this country who are at risk of food insecurity,

• 54:08Speaker 03

  these guidelines are out of reach entirely, even if perfectly communicated. And that's unlikely to change as this administration continues to punish states based on political affiliation and withhold funding for food assistance and other federal assistance programs. Oh, yes. Given all of this, it's worth asking whether we should spend time over conflicts of interest on the committee or fact checking claims in the DGA that reject consensus science. But I still think it absolutely is. Let me tell you why. Tell me. So as I mentioned at the very beginning, these guidelines determine the diets for the tens of millions of Americans who are on certain federal assistance programs.

• 54:48Speaker 03

  And so the recent de-emphasis on plant-based protein and an embrace of saturated fats could certainly have health impacts, as just one example. But then there's also the matter of education. Most kids in public schools will learn about the food guidelines based on the latest version and carry that with them throughout their lives. Like we just talked about, the 90s food pyramid is- Right, that's what's in my brain. Stamped into my brain. 100%. But beyond policy and beyond education, these guidelines and their construction are a powerful example of two things. Number one, the insidious presence of industry in what is supposed to be and what is claimed to be independent, evidence-based health advice. Yeah.

• 55:31Speaker 03

  And number two, that these guidelines for a "healthy diet" will be manipulated for advertising purposes- Yes. -without repercussions. Like the low-fat Twizzlers or healthy soda, whole-grain cinnamon toast crunch, or zero-gram trans-fat Kentucky Fried Chicken. Like, there are so many more examples of this. The argument over corn syrup versus sugar. Oh, like, this ketchup has sugar in it, not made with corn syrup. And it's like, could you tell me the difference between the two? Still ketchup. Sports drinks versus sodas, as though that removing the carbonation from a drink makes it somehow healthier. Yeah.

• 56:13Speaker 03

  But through this messaging, the food industry wants you to believe that it's looking out for you, that it cares about public health, and would never do anything like deliberately target young children with ads or engineer products that are knowingly deliberately addictive. Does that sound familiar?

• 56:33Speaker 03

  Let's replace food industry with big tobacco.

• 56:37Speaker 04

  Yep.

• 56:38Speaker 03

  It's kind of uncanny, right? When suspicions began to swirl around cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1950s, the cigarette industry had a lot to lose, and they scrambled to reframe the issue. Buy our healthier cigarettes now with a filter.

• 56:53Speaker 04

  With a filter.

• 56:54Speaker 03

  With a filter. Like the low-fat craze of the 1980s and 1990s, people flocked to buy filtered cigarettes. But no cigarette is safe. Big Tobacco was selling a false sense of security, and it turned out to be even more misplaced when it was revealed that the first popular filtered brand had asbestos in the filter. Yeah.

• 57:14Speaker 04

  Classic.

• 57:17Speaker 03

  Kind of similar to e-cigs today, also selling this false sense of security.

• 57:21Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 57:21Speaker 03

  And I'm not trying to make like a one-to-one comparison between Big Tobacco and the food industry. You know, for one, the food industry is made up of many players, all with different types of products that fall along the healthy-unhealthy spectrum. And these companies aren't all promoting inherently "bad," quote-unquote, "bad" products.

• 57:40Speaker 03

  For two, the links between certain food products and chronic diseases are way less mapped out than cigarettes and cancer. But there are startling similarities, like the shirking of any corporate responsibility by claiming it's all down to personal choice, the demand for a seat at the policy table, which has never been denied, the endorsement of certain products by celebrities or hired doctors, quote-unquote, "doctors," or the funding of studies to support their product. This is the Big Tobacco playbook. And as far as I can tell, it's not going anywhere.

• 58:16Speaker 03

  At the very beginning, I asked, who is behind the "should" in what we should eat? When it comes to national dietary guidelines, there are several players involved with competing interests and biases. And I know, as you'll discuss more next week, Erin, much of this advice is not just sound, it's based on strong scientific evidence. In other cases, however, industry has had a hand in watering down or reframing guidance, which itself is nothing new. The issue is that it's becoming harder to disentangle where guidance might be manipulated or where doubt has been manufactured. Transparency is promised, yet it's not delivered.

• 58:58Speaker 04

  No.

• 58:59Speaker 03

  No.

• 58:59Speaker 04

  No.

• 59:00Speaker 03

  And with this ever-present enmeshment of industry interests and governmental policy, it's tempting to resort to nihilism, like, well, let's just ignore the guidelines and let them do their thing. But instead, I argue that we should be interrogating them. We should be asking, who is at the table that produces this "should" and what happens during the translation of science into guidance? Whether we realize it or not, every food decision, what we buy at the store, what we get as a school snack, has been shaped not only by personal preference, but also by decades of scientific research competing with industry interests. The next time you go to the store, take a closer look at the labels on your favorite food products. Why does everything have to have protein in it?

• 59:45Speaker 03

  For the love of God. What makes the cereal heart-healthy, right?

• 59:50Speaker 04

  There's already been so much of this, like, health-washing, the same way that there's this, like, greenwashing of things.

• 59:57Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 59:57Speaker 04

  And I, we'll talk more about it, you know, next week, but it is, it is just going to get worse. Like, these guidelines just set us up for more of that, especially without any federal regulation about what should actually be on the labels, or like, what really constitutes, quote-unquote, "healthy," nutrient-dense, like, what do those things actually mean on a label? They don't have any meaning right now.

• 1:00:19Speaker 03

  And the fact that you can advertise to kids is just like, it's so, it's so gross.

• 1:00:24Speaker 04

  Yep.

• 1:00:24Speaker 03

  And completely unsurprising. But, yeah, these companies sell their products using healthy language, inspired by nutritional guidelines. But these guidelines are also shaped by these companies, which just worsens the erosion of trust in science. If these guidelines are going to achieve their purported goal of improving American health through diet, that trust has to be non-negotiable. So, that's where I leave you this week.

• 1:00:56Speaker 04

  I love it and I can't wait to pick up next week to go deep dive into

• 1:01:01Speaker 03

  Oh my gosh.

• 1:01:01Speaker 04

  what these new guidelines are, how they're really different from, like, why are we even talking about them?

• 1:01:08Speaker 03

  I, I, yeah, why are we talking about that?

• 1:01:10Speaker 04

  Why are we even talking about them?

• 1:01:11Speaker 03

  I am so excited for next week.

• 1:01:12Speaker 04

  And then what does it all actually mean? We'll get there, but tell me, Erin, where you got all of your information first?

• 1:01:20Speaker 03

  I have a bunch of sources for this. I'm going to shout out three here that I highlighted. One is a book that was published, I think, in the 90s, but it's undergone a few different revisions and new introductions by Marion Nestle called Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, very famous nutritional scientist. Then there was a four-part series called A Short History of Nutritional Science by Kenneth Carpenter, published in 2003. And then I really enjoyed this paper by Brownell and Warner from 2009 called The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

• 1:02:00Speaker 04

  Ooh, that sounds good.

• 1:02:02Speaker 03

  I like that one. So, but you can find a list of all of our sources on our website, thispodcastwillkillyou.com. Check it out. And a big thank you to Blood Mobile for providing the music for this episode and all of our episodes. I was like, what are we doing here? You're not doing your sources yet.

• 1:02:18Speaker 04

  I don't have to. Thank you also to Leanna and Tom and Pete and Mark and everyone at Exactly Right for everything that you do to make this podcast possible.

• 1:02:29Speaker 03

  Yes, thank you. And thank you to you, listeners. Tell us the most egregious food label you've seen lately. I'd love to hear it.

• 1:02:36Speaker 04

  I love that.

• 1:02:39Speaker 04

  And thank you also to our patrons for your support over on Patreon. It really does mean the world to us.

• 1:02:43Speaker 03

  It does. Until next time, wash your hands.

• 1:02:47Speaker 04

  You filthy animals.

• 1:03:15Speaker 04

  What is one thing many of us deal with every single day but rarely talk about? Dry hands. Whether you frequently wash your hands or deal with harsh weather, your hands can be left feeling dry, rough, cracked, and even uncomfortable. That's where O'Keefe's Working Hands Hand Cream comes in to help. The fast-absorbing formula goes on smoothly and it won't leave behind a greasy residue, so you can get back to your busy day without ever missing a beat. And because a little will go a long way, O'Keefe's Working Hands Hand Cream is effective, dependable, and economical, too. Whether you're dealing with harsh weather outside, demanding work, or everyday wear and tear, O'Keefe's Working Hands works just as hard as you do. So keep your hands hydrated, smooth, and feeling comfortable all season long.

• 1:04:00Speaker 04

  Visit O'Keefe'sCompany.com today. That's O-K-E-E-F-F-E-S Company dot com for guaranteed relief. O'Keefe's Working Hands. Yeah, it works.

• 1:04:12Speaker 07

  With ChatGPT, you can do more than get answers. You can get things done. Whether you're leading a big project, planning an elaborate trip, or trying to balance work and life, ChatGPT can help. Give it a goal, plus things like files, notes, or project plans. Develop a trip itinerary with daily updates, or create a prioritized schedule. So you can spend less energy sorting out the details and more on bringing your biggest ideas to life. Get started at ChatGPT.com.

• 1:04:40Speaker 02

  This is Colin Cowherd from the Colin Cowherd Podcast. Buy smart, drive for less, and trade for more. That's Toyota affordability. All starts with a great deal on an off-road ready Tacoma or a half-ton Tundra to a Toyota's most capable and longest-lasting trucks. Built on a reputation for quality and reliability, Toyota trucks are known for holding their value, which could mean big savings when it's time for your next Toyota. For a great deal today to a great value tomorrow, shop Toyota.com. Toyota, let's go places.