USDA Rejects Sugar & Alcohol Recs
Just as 2020 was ending, the federal government issued new dietary guidelines but two things within this (or more, not with in it) of note, as discussed in the Wall Street Journal, was their rejection to lower sugar and alcohol intake that a scientific advisory committee recommended.
The committee was composed of 20 academics and doctors and they recommended reducing daily calories from added sugars from 10% to 6%, due to the continual rise of diabetes and obesity in the US. They also recommended lowering the amount of alcoholic beverages from two to one drink per day for men, which would match the current limit recommendations for women. While the impact of alcohol and health has been known for quite some time, it is still dangerously uncommunicated to the public.
So what does that mean? One word, lobbyists. The food and beverage (which includes alcohol) lobbies are incredibly powerful and they intensely pushed back against these new recommendations. Even what might seen like a minor decrease, 10% to 6%, one alcoholic drink a day vs. two, has a vast impact on food industries bottom line which ammases a staggering $1.90 - $2.10 trillion (that’s right TRILLION) dollars annually with an average 3% growth annually. Each and every lost gram of sugar or sip of drink consumed matters to these stakeholders no matter the implications it may have on their consumers.
But the USDA is not supposed to be in the pockets of lobbyists right? That, dear reader we all know is a sophomoric idealism. When asked, Brandon Lipps, deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services at the USDA said in response to why these new recommendations weren’t installed that the scientific committee didn’t meet a “preponderance of the evidence” standard required by law.
How many articles proving the direct impact of additive sugars and their links to the health issues does there need to be? How many more drinking related fatalities and diminished physical and mental health wellbeing studies need to happen? There is more than enough evidence but it seems with this recent rejection we should all brace ourselves for the same standards of health that we have been served for the past few decades.
When will the USDA listen to the science behind food and nutrition versus the profits of it? Do Americans need a babysitter when it comes to food? Well the fact that the USDA keep at least their standards of how much sugar intake should be allowed for children under two shows some sense of responsibility but that doesn’t mean that the food industry should be able to edge out science past our weaning years. 4% less sugar, 1 drink less. It doesn’t seem like such a big deal but it matters. Just as much as it matters for the profit line for companies it should also in respects to our collective health as a country.