{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://harris.house.gov/media/in-the-news/mandate-clear-flawed-dietary-guidelines-process-must-be-reformed", "Mandate is Clear: Flawed Dietary Guidelines Process Must Be Reformed", "2017-10-02", "2017", "2017-10", "Republican", "House", "MD", "Andy Harris", "H001052", "harris.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The nation\u2019s senior scientific body recently released a new report raising serious questions about the \u201cscientific rigor\u201d of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This report confirms what many in government have suspected for years and is the reason why Congress mandated this report in the first place: our nation's top nutrition policy is not based on sound science.\nIn order to \u201cdevelop a trustworthy DGA [guidelines],\u201d states the\u00a0report\u00a0by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), \u201cthe process needs to be redesigned.\u201d\nAmong other things, the report finds that the guidelines process for reviewing the scientific evidence falls short of meeting the \"best practices for conducting systematic reviews,\" and advises that \"methodological approaches and scientific rigor for evaluating the scientific evidence\" need to \"be strengthened.\u201d\nIn other words, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are far from the \u201cgold standard\u201d of science and dietary advice they need to be. In fact, they may be doing little to improve our health at all.\nA crucial point, according to the report, is the need to upgrade the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL), which conducts the scientific literature reviews. The NEL needs more \u201cup-to-date\u201d methods, outside technical expertise and external peer review of its work.\u00a0A review of the NEL process in 2015\u00a0published in\u00a0The BMJ (British Medical Journal), for instance, found that several of the evidence reviews had not been conducted systematically, allowing for cherry picking or outside industry influence, and that some 33 percent of the scientific questions requiring systematic reviews did not receive a review.\nOther recommendations by the National Academies report include improving transparency of the guidelines process and the need for the Guidelines to address not just healthy Americans but also those\u2014now a majority\u2014who are suffering from nutrition-related diseases.\nFor instance,\u00a0rates of type 2 diabetes have quadrupled\u00a0and obesity has nearly doubled since 1980, the very year that the guidelines were launched.\u00a0For all of us in government, this is a matter of urgent concern.\nIt seems clear that the lack of sound science has led to a number of dietary tenets that are not just mistaken, but even harmful - as a number of recent studies suggest.\nFor instance, the guidelines\u2019 recommendation to eat \u201chealthy whole grains\u201d turns out not to be supported by any strong science, according to\u00a0a recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration, a group specializing in scientific literature reviews. Looking at all the data from clinical trials, which is the most rigorous data available, the study concluded that there is \u201cinsufficient evidence\u201d to show that whole grains reduced blood pressure or had any cardiovascular benefit. \u00a0\nAnother recent study, called the\u00a0Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology\u00a0(PURE), followed 135,335 people worldwide, and found that there was no effect on cardiovascular mortality with higher saturated fat consumption. This same finding has been echoed over the past decade in thirteen other review papers on saturated fats,\u00a0on all the clinical trials\u00a0and\u00a0all the observational data\u00a0to date.\nEven more worrying, PURE found a link between the low levels of saturated fat currently recommended by the Dietary Guidelines and an\u00a0increased\u00a0risk of stroke.\nThe paper, which was published in\u00a0The Lancet,\u00a0concluded that \u201cglobal dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.\u201d The study leader, Yusuf Salim, chair of cardiovascular medicine at McMaster\u2019s University and immediate past president of the World Heart Federation, added that \u201csaturated fat in moderation actually appears good for you.\u201d\nPURE additionally found that the lowest risk for cardiovascular or total mortality was for those consuming the\u00a0most\u00a0fat, up to the 45 percent of calories as measured in the study. Mortality was disturbingly\u00a0higheramong those consuming only 32-34 percent fat,\u00a0as the Dietary Guidelines are currently modeled. This PURE data is also supported by a large amount of more rigorous trial evidence,\u00a0including long-term data, showing that\u00a0higher fat diets lead to more weight loss\u00a0and\u00a0better outcomes for blood glucose control, an important factor in type 2 diabetes.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://harris.house.gov/media/in-the-news/mandate-clear-flawed-dietary-guidelines-process-must-be-reformed"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.0373878758400679, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}