Misguided Government Food Guides

Celiac.com 06/26/2021 - The USDA healthy eating guide and the Canada food guide have let us down.  They tout foods that are literally poisonous to people with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, which amounts to at least 12%(1) and perhaps as much as 42%(2) of the population.  And they push dairy products when 2/3 of the world’s adult population is lactose intolerant(3) and this statistic ignores that many others have allergies to dairy proteins.  If our government agencies can be that far wrong, how useful are the rest of their dietary recommendations?  In brief, they are useless to those who wish to promote longevity and good health through diet.  These political documents are little more than reflections of the powerful maneuvering of competing and complimentary industries and economic forces with enormous vested interests in maintaining the status quo in our food supply.  And these forces have been exercising their influence since the very first USDA food guide was published in 1898, when the first Canada Food Guide was published in 1942, and with every subsequent revision of each of these documents.  

The discerning reader will notice that these food guides look more like promotional literature than objective recommendations.  Yet both governmental bodies that issue and support these healthy eating guides firmly insist that they are valuable, science-based instructions for their respective citizens to follow.  Conversely, a massive, long-term study of diet and chronic disease among more than 67,000 female health care workers, conducted at Harvard University over a period of 12 years, has clearly discredited such claims(4).  We can also challenge such claims on a purely logical level.  

Celiac.com Sponsor (A12):
From a historical perspective, current nutritional claims from the USDA and Health Canada were first published in 1898 and 1942, respectively.  The minor changes since 1933 in the U.S. and 1942 in Canada have brought little meaningful change.  Thus, this information was first published decades before any modern scientific evidence was available to support or refute these faulty claims.  Surely, once a governmental body has issued such strident ‘healthy eating guides’ they have a vested interest in maintaining the general thrust of their recommendations.  And that is exactly what appears to have happened.  Despite the plethora of discrediting research data, revisions to recommendations from the USDA and Health Canada, over the last 65-75 years, are little more than cosmetic, sometimes offering concessions to special interest groups.  

Examination of relevant, up-to-date medical research shows a preponderance of discrediting evidence for two large food groups endorsed by these food guides—dairy and grain-derived foods.  There is also considerable evidence that debunks the anti-fat bias of these guides.  For instance, one report of a study of almost 20,000 post-menopausal women who followed a low fat diet over a period of 12 years showed that a diet low in fats and high in fruits, vegetables and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease(5).  I will not waste the reader’s time citing and quoting from the many congruent studies.  Neither will I claim that there are no reports that support these guides.  Nonetheless, there can be little doubt that North Americans are becoming more and more obese and are dying of cardiovascular disease and cancers at alarming rates despite our finely honed (and very expensive) medical systems that increase longevity through thwarting deadly injuries and infections.

Our sedentary lifestyle is certainly not helpful, but our diets are abysmal.  Each step we take that brings us closer to the dietary recommendations of our government agencies moves us further away from the healthy lifestyle we seek.  In my own desperation, just prior to my celiac diagnosis, I was eating bran muffins every morning on my doctor’s recommendation and getting sicker and sicker.

Many of us with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity have been forced to re-evaluate food guide recommendations and go in search of meaningful, valid data that will help guide us to a healthier diet.  Yet such individual quests are both inefficient and fraught with hazards.  We need our elected representatives to set aside political and economic concerns and bring the economic clout of their elected offices to bear on this question.  Dietary recommendations need to be based on solid science and examination of the data from both sides of conflicting views.  The one-sided myopic views of special interest groups and those with vested interests in the current dietary guides need to be set aside in favor of a search for genuine answers for those of us who count on our elected leaders to exercise prudent judgment in the guidance they offer us.  

References: 

1. Hadjivassiliou M, Gibson A, Davies-Jones GA, Lobo AJ, Stephenson TJ, Milford-Ward A.  Does cryptic gluten sensitivity play a part in neurological illness?  Lancet.  1996 Feb 10;347(8998):369-71.
2. Fine, Kenneth.  Personal communication.
3. Sahi T.  Genetics and epidemiology of adult-type hypolactasia.  Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl.  1994;202:7-20.
4. McCullough ML, Feskanich D, Stampfer MJ, Rosner BA, Hu FB, Hunter DJ, Variyam JN, Colditz GA, Willett WC   Adherence to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and risk of major chronic disease in women.  Am J Clin Nutr.  2000 Nov;72(5):1214-22.
5. Howard BV, Van Horn L, Hsia J, Manson JE, Stefanick ML, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Kuller LH, LaCroix AZ, Langer RD, Lasser NL, Lewis CE, Limacher MC, Margolis KL, Mysiw WJ, Ockene JK, Parker LM, Perri MG, Phillips L, Prentice RL, Robbins J, Rossouw JE, Sarto GE, Schatz IJ, Snetselaar LG, Stevens VJ, Tinker LF, Trevisan M, Vitolins MZ, Anderson GL, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black HR, Brunner RL, Brzyski RG, Caan B, Chlebowski RT, Gass M, Granek I, Greenland P, Hays J, Heber D, Heiss G, Hendrix SL, Hubbell FA, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM.  Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of cardiovascular disease: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial.  JAMA.  2006 Feb 8;295(6):655-66.