Home of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
All ODPHP sites
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.
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 groupsPerhaps 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.
You all really did not read the book Fat or Fit closely. Other wise, you would beusing the BMI measure correctly. You can't use weight and height without usingcaliper 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 exactlythe same incorrect results.
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
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.
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.
Request 5-1Please see attachments.
Dietary Guidelines Committee The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services200 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20201Toll Free: 1-877-696-6775E: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2015/comments/writeComments.aspx 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. Rutkowskicc: House Minority Leadership2527 Faxon CourtTopeka, Kansas 66605-2086P/F: 1 785 379-9671E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.orgRe: CSPI comments: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/11-17-caffeine-comments.pdf
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 PatternsRecommendation 2: Strengthen and expand advice on reducing portion sizesRecommendation 3: Add a quantitative recommendation for added sugarsRecommendation 4: Emphasize the important role of the food environment & public policyRecommendation 5: Review the impact of food marketing environmentASPHN thanks you for taking these comments into consideration.
I respectfully request that your agency refer to and utilize Brazil's most recent set of dietary guidelines when formulating/updating the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These guidelines utilize commonsense language and practices that consider people's real needs, concerns and interests with the potential to make a significant impact on dietary and food intake patterns and behaviors.http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazils-Dietary-Guidelines_2014.pdf
Richard D. Olson, MD, MPHPrevention Science Lead and Designated Federal Officer, 2015 DGACOffice of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, OASHU.S. Department of Health and Human Services1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100 Tower BuildingRockville, MD 20852Colette I. Rihane, MS, RD Director, Nutrition Guidance and Analysis Division Center for Nutrition Policy and PromotionU.S. Department of Agriculture3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1034Alexandria, VA 22302RE: Maintaining the Current Definition of ‘Standard Drink’; Rebuttal of the Wine Institute SubmissionDear Dr. Olson and Ms. Rihane:Last June, I submitted comments to the Committee in support of maintaining sensible, evidence-based recommendations for moderate alcohol consumption by adults. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines defined moderate consumption as no more than one drink/day for women, and no more than two drinks/day for men. This concept is very important for providing guidance to the American people and should be maintained in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). The 2010 DGA defined a drink as a 12-fluid ounce portion of 5%-alcohol beer, a 5-fluid ounce glass of 12%-alcohol wine, or a 1.5-fluid ounce glass of 80-proof distilled spirits. The standard drink reflects the fact that typical servings of beer, wine, and distilled spirits contain the same amount of pure alcohol: 0.6 fluid ounces. These recommendations are based on the best-available science and form the foundation for nutrition policy in America. This letter is to respond to the Wine Institute’s submission dated October 30, 2014 to reject the definition of a standard drink. As Professor of Medicine, Pharmacology & Toxicology, Distinguished University Scholar Associate Vice President for Translational Research and Associate Vice President for Health Affairs/Research at the University of Louisville, who has been continually federally funded for >35 years for my research from the VA and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), and from my perspective as Director of Research Affairs for the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, and as a current member of the National External Advisory Council for NIAAA and a member of the Council of Councils for NIH, I would like to point out that scientifically, the definition of a standard drink is on solid ground. While the volume of an alcoholic beverage and alcohol content vary, the standard drink does give an indication to the consumer of their consumption. For example, a person consuming a 20-oz beer (5% alcohol), a 12-oz beer (8 -10% alcohol, which is common in micro-breweries), or a 5-oz wine (15% alcohol) knows that the amount of alcohol consumed is actually higher than a standard drink. Not only the knowledge of a standard drink is important for a lay person to monitor their alcohol intake, it is also crucial for scientific research. All epidemiological studies quantify alcohol intake based on this principle. Deleting this definition from DGA 2015, as the Wine Institute recommends, will basically remove one of the criteria that have been adopted by NIAAA for research purposes, and by many states, departments of motor vehicles, and other organizations.Thus, by maintaining the definition of a standard drink, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans would provide an excellent framework for educating adults who choose to drink in moderation and responsibly. The Dietary Guidelines are essential to serve as the basis for nutrition information for federal and state agencies across the country. In addition, the concept of a standard drink provides consumers with an important reference point similar to serving size information on packaged food labels. I appreciate your consideration of maintaining the definition of a standard drink, not only because it is scientifically correct, but also because it is the cornerstone of alcohol research, as evidenced by its inclusion on the NIAAA website. Abandoning this concept will have deleterious consequences to research and other federal agencies’ efforts. The current, unequivocal definition of a standard drink is used nationwide and is necessary to help educate the American public about responsible alcohol consumption.Sincerely,Craig J. McClain, M.D.Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology & ToxicologyDistinguished University ScholarChief of Research Affairs, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and NutritionAssociate Vice President for Translational ResearchAssociate Vice President for Health Affairs/ResearchUniversity of Louisville School of Medicine
Get email updates from ODPHP
This site is coordinated by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Last updated: 11/26/2014