Conflicts of interest for members of the US 2020 dietary guidelines advisory committee

Abstract

Objectives: To measure incidence of conflicts of interest (COI) with food and pharmaceutical industry actors on the advisory committee for the 2020- 2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) and assess the adequacy of current mechanisms to disclose and manage COI among the committee’s members. Design: We compiled longitudinal data from archival sources on connections between members of the DGA’s advisory committee and actors. We hypothesed that these committee members, who oversee the science for the most influential dietary policy in the U.S, might have significant COI that would be relevant to their decision making. Disclosure of COI on this committee was recommended in 2017 by the National Academies of Sciences in order to increase transparency and manage bias, but public disclosure of the committee’s COI does not appear to have taken place. Setting: the committee was comprised of 20 experts. Participants: None. Results: Our analysis found that 95% of the committee members had COI with the food, and/or pharmaceutical industries and that particular actors, including Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, Dannon, and the International Life Sciences had connections with multiple members. Research funding and membership of an advisory/executive board jointly accounted for more than 60% of the total number of COI documented. Conclusions: Trustworthy dietary guidelines result from a transparent, objective, and science-based, process. Our analysis has shown that the significant and widespread COI on the committee prevent the DGA from achieving the recommended standard for transparency without mechanisms in place to make this information publicly available.

Was there a need for high carbohydrate content in Neanderthal diets?

“…In addition, the food industry always had a strong influence on public opinion and dietary guidelines (Herman, 2010) as has been documented, for example, for Coca Cola (Sacks et al, 2017). Of the 20 members of the U.S. 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 19 had conflicts of interest with the food and/or pharmaceutical industry, many of which are involved in the production of carbohydrate‐rich foods (Mialon et al, 2022). Thus, the scientific validity of dietary guidelines must be questioned, because they are not justified by high‐quality evidence, but influenced by the food industry, which makes a translation towards dietary needs of Neanderthals highly questionable.…”

Applying a Commercial Determinants of Health Lens to Understand, Expose and Counter Industry Co-option, Appeasement and Partnership Comment on "‘Part of the Solution’: Food Corporation Strategies for Regulatory Capture and Legitimacy"

“…Overcoming industry relationship building is a complex strategy but with the aid of better science around policy networks analysis, and exposure and potential risk associated to those, can support efforts to better scrutinize actors close to the decision-making venues. 17 For instance, investigation around the connection and revolving doors of politicians and industry, has been effective in further accountability demands of claim-holders. 14,17 Furthermore, analyzing industry global commodity chains can expose how particular parts of the commodity chain have been exploited by corporate elites.…”

“…17 For instance, investigation around the connection and revolving doors of politicians and industry, has been effective in further accountability demands of claim-holders. 14,17 Furthermore, analyzing industry global commodity chains can expose how particular parts of the commodity chain have been exploited by corporate elites. 18 Surveillance and anger from food producer and peasant groups, key members of food production chains and largely ignored in the political economy of food corporations, have risen up against corporate actions and narratives.…”

A short history of saturated fat: the making and unmaking of a scientific consensus

“…An analysis of the 2020 DGAC subcommittee in charge of the saturated fat review found numerous intellectual, financial, and even religious conflicts of interest that may have contributed to a bias against saturated fats [ 51 , 52 ▪▪ ]. For instance, one member was found to have chaired five vegetarian conferences from 1997 to 2018, which might reflect a bias against saturated fats, since a more liberal policy towards these fats would inevitably allow for greater consumption of animal foods.…”