Skip to content Skip to navigation

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2015

Read Comments

Instructions: You can browse comments by topic, or search by comment text, organization, affiliation, or comment ID. The search phrase must match in its entirety for a result to be returned. Searches are not case-sensitive.

  1 2 3 4 5  ...   

Anonymous Comment ID #843


We in the public are seeing on, that dairy is not considered a protein. This falsity is widely purveyed and has dire consequences for all. Please correct this myth everywhere, and get back on target, with the truthful and correct party line about milk: it is a critical protein for all, especially children. We hear that if you do not stop this falsity, that the US government will be sued, for this, as it is leading to a lack of protein, for our school children in America, as well as a skewed non-dairy low protein uptake for children at risk in the 3rd world, and everywhere over seas, and even here in the Americas. Please stop this atrocity. Thank you, your loyal citizen.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization:
  • Food Groups (Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, Dairy, Protein Foods)

Anonymous Comment ID #842


It is my hope and sincere desirer that in the recent rise and prevalence of persons with Chronic Kidney disease that every effort would be made by the Food industry to include or report phosphorus in ingredients, and nutrion labeling.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization:
  • Other

Anonymous Comment ID #841


During the 6th meeting of the 2015 DGAC, the Soyfoods Association of North America (SANA) staff noticed that the Committee continues to use similar language to describe the foods that were used in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Unlike 2010, the Subcommittee and Working Group chairs mentioned many themes to suggest different wording:
1. Consider foods and nutrients in context of dietary patterns.
2. Multiple dietary patterns can be used to achieve weight loss and chronic disease prevention – “there is no single ideal diet”
3. Dietary patterns must be tailored to individual needs and cultural preferences.
4. Vast majorities of the studies did not include wide variety of ethnic groups/minorities.
5. More specificity is needed when identifying foods to eat more of and foods/beverages to have less of.
6. The slide showing the composition of 3 USDA patterns included protein foods, legumes, nuts/seeds and processed soy as separate groups

Perhaps DGAC can make clear to the public the unique features of cultural patterns to make the Dietary Guidelines more "tailored" to them. Here are some observations along this line.
1. The three dietary patterns that were selected appear to have a very Caucasian orientation and may fail to reflect dietary patterns of a growing US population from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Asia, or Latin countries. For example, it might be likely that individuals from these countries combine seafood and soy-based foods and beverages, instead of combinations of dairy and egg based foods.
2. The Subcommittee research noted that "Diets low in animal products reduce risks." Previous discussions of the DGAC have also focused on plant versus animal proteins, so more clarity in what constitutes these food groups is essential. One might wonder why a lacto-ovo vegetarian dietary pattern that simply shifts from red meat to other animal proteins was included, instead of recommending some plant-based alternatives that can be incorporated into the US Healthy Diet pattern.
3. When the list of foods to "eat more of" was presented, only low fat dairy, legume, nuts and lean meats/seafood were identified. Yet, when the three USDA healthy patterns were presented, number of servings of legumes, seafood, processed soy and nuts/seeds were increased in the vegetarian and healthy Mediterranean. Individuals following more culturally based diets would probably not recognize the words "processed food" or "legumes", instead "dried beans and peas" and "soy-based foods and beverages" might be more recognizable.
4. When consume less "processed" meat is used, it suggests a very negative context for processed products. It seems unusual that you would single out soy to be labeled "processed" soy, since it is a healthy, low saturated fat, high quality protein food. The guidance does not use the term "processed" nuts for peanut butter, "processed" fruits for juice, frozen blueberries or canned applesauce, or "processed" milk for yogurt or cheese.
5. The MyPlate materials have done an excellent job making extensive lists of foods that fill the protein group or the dairy group for various cultural patterns. It would be great to add more specificity to the general recommendations for foods to increase in the diet, even though, the text would be longer. As you well know, more specific examples makes the guidance more credible and accessible to a wider audience.
6. The guidance continues to say consume more low fat dairy. More specific examples for dairy or more alternatives foods, such as tofu and soymilk, should be included, as they are in the child nutrition programs. Some DGAC members asked to have more plant based alternatives identified.

SANA has submitted similar comments previously in several written and oral comments to the DGAC and would like the committee to recommend a broader list of foods, using common names, that represent the cultural diversity in dietary patterns.

Affiliation: Industry/Industry Association Organization: Soyfoods Association of North America
  • Eating Patterns-Diets (USDA Food Patterns, DASH, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Hi-Protein, etc.)
  • Food Groups (Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, Dairy, Protein Foods)
  • Protein (Plant, Animal)

David Blair citizen Comment ID #840


You all really did not read the book Fat or Fit closely. Other wise, you would be
using the BMI measure correctly. You can't use weight and height without using
caliper measurements in the correct areas and determining the amount of
exercise the individual does per week.

otherwise you might as well use the Classic Ideal Weight Chart- You get exactly
the same incorrect results.

Affiliation: Other Organization: GenPop
  • Energy Balance (Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, Calorie Intake, Physical Activity)

Deborah Gerstein teacher Comment ID #839


The attachment below represents the following:
- Food and Nutrient Intakes, and Health-Food Groups
- Food and Physical Activity Behavior Environment-Energy Balance
- Food and Nutrient Intakes, and Health-Lifespan Needs

Affiliation: Educational Institution: Secondary or School System Organization: Methuen High School
  • Energy Balance (Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, Calorie Intake, Physical Activity)
  • Food Groups (Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, Dairy, Protein Foods)
  • Lifespan Needs (Infants, Children, Pregnant Women, Older Adults, etc.)

Anonymous Comment ID #838


Please model from Brazil's dietary guidelines that were just released. Also, focus on food not sole nutrients, the importance of eating with others, don't focus on just calories, take into account eating patterns of various cultures, emphasize whole foods and moderation and limit all or none dialogue. Give example meals. Focus on an 80/20 approach and emphasize that food is something to be enjoyed, and show easy to make healthy food tasty. Talk about getting food from sustainable sources and learning to grow some of your own.

Affiliation: Educational Institution: Higher Education Organization: Indiana University School of Public Health
  • Behavior
  • Eating Patterns-Diets (USDA Food Patterns, DASH, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Hi-Protein, etc.)
  • Sustainability

Jose Sotolongo MD Comment ID #837


Dietary guidelines that insist on lowering all fat intake are misguided and are largely responsible for the obesity epidemic in this country. The food industry, following the guidelines released in early 2011, promotes and manufactures fat-free or low-fat foods, particularly milk and other dairy products. It is unclear whether the marketing and selling of this category of foods represents increased revenue for the food industry over less- manipulated products.

Anyone on your panel of advisory members with a strong background in human metabolism would well to educate the panel at large on the importance of fats (primarily, but not exclusively, from vegetable sources, such as nuts, avocadoes, etc.) in a healthy diet. When the consumer avoids fats, inevitably calories ingested will come from carbohydrates, perhaps protein, both of which have a lower caloric/energy value, and will be metabolized much faster than fats. This results in a real metabolic need for further ingestion of foods earlier than if a moderately fatty meal had been ingested.

I urge the panel to look towards its members with extensive background in human metabolism and apply that knowledge to the development of guidelines that will benefit, not cause further damage, to the American citizenry.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization: Physician
  • Fats (Total Fat, Solid Fats, Oils, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol)

Laura MacCleery JD Comment ID #836


Request 5-1

Please see attachments.

Affiliation: Other Organization: Center for Science in the Public Interest
  • Food Safety

Robert Rutkowski Comment ID #835


Dietary Guidelines Committee
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Toll Free: 1-877-696-6775

Re: Dietary Guidelines Committee should Recommend Pregnant Women Avoid Caffeine, Coffee/ Increased Risk of Miscarriage, Childhood Leukemia

Dear Committee:

The federal government may be poised to give women who are or might become pregnant bad advice on how much caffeine is safe to consume during pregnancy. Draft advice from the government's Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee indicates that pregnant women should be sure to limit their caffeine consumption to 200 milligrams per day. But that advice could increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm delivery, and childhood leukemia.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee should instead advise pregnant women to avoid caffeine-containing foods and beverages. In comments filed today CSPI pointed to a recent meta-analysis published in the European Journal of Epidemiology which found that a dose as low as 100 mg per day of caffeine was associated with a 14 percent increase in risk of miscarriage, and a 19 percent increase in the risk of stillbirth. Consumption of 100 mg of caffeine per day was also associated with increased risks of small-for-gestational-age fetuses and low birth weight. Risks increase as caffeine dosages increase, according to the study.

To put 100 mg of caffeine into context, a 16-ounce Grande Starbucks coffee has 330 mg of caffeine. Coffee you brew at home has between 60-150 mg per 5-ounce cup, depending on how it is brewed. A 20-ounce bottle of Diet Coke has 78 mg.

Pregnant women deserve accurate advice about the risks caffeine poses to their healthy pregnancy and have been badly misinformed. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans should n?ot compound this problem by conveying an impression that 200 milligrams per day is some kind of red line below which caffeine is safe and above which caffeine is dangerous. Instead, the science indicates that even lower levels of caffeine can increase the risk of serious problems, including for only a cup or two of regular coffee per day.

CSPI's comments indicate flaws in the advice given to pregnant women by the respected American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee cites in its draft recommendation. ACOG's analysis of the risk of miscarriage posed by caffeine is thin and outdated. While the recent meta-analysis considers 25 separate studies, ACOG considered only two of those, including the lone study that found no link to an increased risk of miscarriage.

The Food and Drug Administration used to recommend that pregnant women avoid caffeinated drinks altogether, or consume them only sparingly. "As a general rule, pregnant women should avoid substances that have drug-like effects and can cross the placenta," the agency wrote in a 1981 brochure.

Also DGAC should consider the risk of childhood leukemia related to drinking coffee during pregnancy. A 2014 meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found a dose-related increased risk of childhood acute leukemia associated with maternal coffee consumption. The evidence linking maternal coffee consumption during pregnancy and childhood acute leukemia "strong." In the U.S., lifetime probability of childhood acute leukemia in children aged 0 to 14 is approximately 73 per 100,000. According to a risk analysis by biostatistician Steven Bayard, 19 of those cases might be attributable to coffee consumption of one to two cups per day during pregnancy.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring these remarks to your attention.

Yours sincerely,
Robert E. Rutkowski

cc: House Minority Leadership

2527 Faxon Court
Topeka, Kansas 66605-2086
P/F: 1 785 379-9671

Re: CSPI comments:

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization: n/a
  • Food Safety

Sandy Perkins MS, RD/LD Comment ID #834


The Association of State Public Health Nutritionists (ASPHN) appreciates the opportunity to provide the attached recommendations on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Recommendation 1: Emphasize Dietary Patterns
Recommendation 2: Strengthen and expand advice on reducing portion sizes
Recommendation 3: Add a quantitative recommendation for added sugars
Recommendation 4: Emphasize the important role of the food environment & public policy
Recommendation 5: Review the impact of food marketing environment

ASPHN thanks you for taking these comments into consideration.

Affiliation: Professional Association Organization: ASPHN
  • Behavior
  • Carbohydrates (Added Sugars, Fiber, Glycemic Index, Whole Grains)
  • Eating Patterns-Diets (USDA Food Patterns, DASH, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Hi-Protein, etc.)
  • Energy Balance (Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, Calorie Intake, Physical Activity)
  • Food Environment
  1 2 3 4 5  ...