By Michelle Minton
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
It may be impolite to talk politics at the dinner table,
but when it comes to government advice on what we eat, political agendas are
usually baked in. Updated every five years, the official Dietary Guidelines for
Americans have long been the subject of intense lobbying, with special
interests vying for recommendations that favor their respective industry or
point of view. The latest iteration, finalized by the government this week, was
no different.
But, this time around, evidence won out over political
agendas.
Back in July, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory panel, a
group of 20 experts selected by the government to review the evidence,
suggested the guidelines substantially cut recommended levels of sugar and
alcohol intake. That triggered backlash from the food and beverage industry.
But one recommendation in particular provoked an outcry from the scientific
community: to halve the limit on alcohol intake for men.
For five decades or more, the scientific literature on
alcohol consistently showed a strong link between moderate intake and better
health outcomes compared with those who totally abstain from alcohol or those
who binge drink. As such, government alcohol advice since the 1990s has
recommended women have no more than one drink a day and men have no more than
two drinks daily.
Yet the government’s advisory panel recommended the limit
for men be reduced to just one drink a day. Such a change implies that the
evidence about alcohol intake — on which the panel supposedly based such
recommendations — has dramatically shifted in recent years. But that simply
isn’t the case. The suggested changes weren’t based on evidence at all but,
rather, the apparent agenda of certain members of the panel.
For some years, a growing
contingent of activist-academics has set out to convince the world that
there is no level of safe alcohol intake, no matter what the science says. Thus,
even while the expert panel’s report conceded the evidence showing moderate
alcohol consumption is associated with lower mortality than total abstinence
and found just one study comparing the risks of one drink a day versus two
drinks, it still recommended halving the upper limit on alcohol intake for men.
One study is hardly evidence enough to make such drastic
changes to national guidelines, but as several prominent experts pointed out,
evidence had little to do with the decision. Six Harvard researchers,
half of whom previously served as guidelines advisers, wrote in a letter to the
government that the current panel appeared to have cherry-picked evidence to
“support a pre-determined and, in our view, unscientific conclusion.” H.
Westley Clark, former director of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, put
it more bluntly, noting that the guidelines “should not be a sleight of
hand vehicle for Prohibition.”
It is unlikely most of the panel members want outright
prohibition, but as noted by their report, the hope is that it will influence
public policy that will lead to changes in consumption. Indeed, while most
Americans may simply ignore the Dietary Guidelines, they have a significant
impact on how government approaches dietary issues. They inform how government
regulates sales, promotion, and taxation, and how it chooses what type of
research to fund. For activists hoping to convince officials of the importance
of addressing Americans’ alcohol consumption and even funding their research on
the topic, changing the guidelines is a critical first step.
Luckily, those at USDA and HHS who make the final
decision on the Dietary Guidelines saw through the advisory panel’s political
agenda, rejected the recommended changes, and chose to preserve the Obama-era
alcohol-intake guidelines. Some have predictably responded to this by accusing
the Trump administration of bowing to alcohol-industry influence. But, as
Brandon Lipps, deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services
at the USDA, said, the new limits proposed by the advisory panel simply did not
meet a “preponderance of the evidence.” In this one instance, at least, science
trumped politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment