The meat industry is sharpening its knives over a small federal committee that issued sweeping nutrition advice that essentially told Americans to drop the burger and grab a handful of kale.
The beef and pork associations spent months sweating as the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee worked on developing a large book of nutrition advice that would not only encourage Americans to eat less red meat but single out the livestock industry for contributing to environmental problems.
If adopted by USDA and HHS as a part of its every-five-year exercise to educate the public about how to eat healthier, the suggestions could not only influence consumer decisions but also be used to guide federal nutrition policy, including the $16 billion school lunch program.
So, now that the committee has spoken, delivering its 571-page report Thursday, the defenders of meat among the most powerful lobbyists are planning to attack the panels suggestions on multiple fronts. They will lobby Congress to help influence the federal agencies and form a coalition to request an extension of the reports comment period from 45 days to 120, said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council.
The industry intends to use the time to investigate the studies relied upon by the 14-member panel to draw its conclusions.
I think they are off-base when it comes to meat, Warner said of the report. Well go through it with a fine-tooth comb. We certainly will then talk to lawmakers about it and express to them our concerns. Well certainly educate them about the role of meat, especially lean meat, in a healthy diet.
...
But chief among the panels suggestions: Families should reduce their consumption of red and processed meats.
Higher intake of red and processed meats was identified as detrimental compared to lower intake, reads the report, which ties their consumption to increased risk of colon cancer and type 2 diabetes. The message is a departure from the 2010 committees report, which encouraged Americans to eat meat in moderation, and that has riled the industry.
The protein foods category, which includes meat, is the only category currently consumed within the current guidelines, and it is misleading to conclude that a healthy dietary pattern should be lower in red meat, said Shalene McNeill, a dietitian with the National Cattlemens Beef Association.
For all the data that links red and processed meats to colon cancer, there also exists evidence to the contrary, said Betsy Booren, vice president of scientific affairs at the North American Meat Institute. Also, until Thursday, outside groups did not have access to the list of studies the committee used when considering their recommendations, she added.
If that library could be made available sooner
to see what they have
it would help our comments throughout the whole process, not just here at the end, Booren said.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 5, 2013, before the House Agricultural Committee hearing to review the state of the rural economy. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
ALSO ON POLITICO
USDA to cut off farm subsidies to city slickers
BILL TOMSON
The panels report also charges that the process by which meat products are sourced contributes to dirtying the environment.
Current evidence shows that the average U.S. diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use and energy use, the report says. This is because the current U.S. population intake of animal-based foods is higher and plant-based foods are lower.
The food industry was so worried the advisory panel might take this approach that it lobbied for a preemptive strike: It convinced lawmakers to include language accompanying the fiscal 2015 spending bill that instructs the HHS secretary to ensure any final dietary guidance be based on sound nutrition science.
The panel also suggests food labeling be retooled with a Nutrition Facts label on packaged foods that emphasizes calories, serving sizes and including overconsumed nutrients such as sodium.
Another food industry headache: The committee suggests that local, state and federal policymakers consider implementing economic and pricing approaches to promote healthier eating.
[T]axation on higher sugar-and sodium-containing foods may encourage consumers to reduce consumption and revenues generated could support health promotion efforts, the report reads.
The committees efforts went far beyond its charge and authority, advancing a predetermined agenda rather than one based on the preponderance of scientific evidence, said Chris Gindlesperger, spokesman for the American Beverage Association. Instead of following its charge of developing nutrition recommendations based on clear scientific evidence, the committee spent significant time posturing its personal perspectives and advocating for public policies such as taxes and restrictions on foods and beverages.
