More vegetables, less red meat and more low-fat dairy products: Seems like good, clear-cut dietary advice, right? These aren’t the dietary guidelines the U.S. government released recently. Rather, these are the guidelines released by the Swedish National Food Agency, which address nutrition in a more substantive fashion.
In contrast, the U.S. tells its citizens to “follow a healthier eating pattern,” and “shift to healthier food and beverage choices,” without going into detail about what that actually means. The most specific it gets is in telling Americans to consume less added sugar, saturated fat and sodium. As the official dietary advice offered by the federal government, these guidelines are hotly contested among the food lobby. No industry wants its food to be maligned by the government, as it can lead to decreased sales.
With such ill-defined dietary guidelines, it’s no wonder Americans do not eat healthily. Rather than answering the question of what is or is not healthy, the guidelines give recommendations that are vague at best and hard to understand at worst. Americans do not need their hand held when being told what to eat, but even the smallest degree of specificity would go a long way toward educating citizens as to what is or is not good for them. When the advisory committee for the guidelines tried to get specific, many of its ideas were disregarded by administration officials, according to NPR. Attempts to introduce sustainability or suggest a lower degree of red meat consumption did not make it to the final guidelines, perhaps because they seemed too strongly worded.
These recommendations would be hard for the average American to implement, as they essentially force grocery shoppers to spend more time than necessary thinking about what they eat and purchase. While this is a good idea, when eating healthily becomes such an abstract concept that most Americans abandon the idea of eating better altogether, there is a problem. When guidelines take on a direct form — like mentioning specific foods to avoid and others to consume more of — they become more useful for everybody.
The people who wrote these guidelines seem to have forgotten their audience. From an administration official’s perspective, saying, “Make healthier choices” is a win-win. The official wrote purportedly useful and health-conscious advice, and it didn’t hurt the profits of the already entrenched food titans. The people who are supposed to benefit from this, however, are not the food industry: it’s working-class Americans planning out their grocery lists for the week.
In order to increase the health of all Americans, we don’t just need better guidelines — we need action. According to the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition, Americans have increased their consumption of fats and empty calories. Compounding the matter, there are other factors that have worsened America’s health prospects.
One of the most pronounced is the considerable number of Americans who live in food deserts with no access to a supermarket that sells vegetables. It is also no secret that a lack of physical activity remains a major problem. Even if they wanted to, many Americans lack the resources to eat healthy food.
While the administration officials who wrote the guidelines wanted to avoid pointing to specific foods, that is exactly what needs to happen: The more straightforward the suggestions, the better. By beating around the bush, they have downplayed the impact food has on our health. Lobbying does not have to be a negative force. Lobbying for sustainability or economic and social equality can help better the living standards for countless Americans. But when the financial interests of the food lobby and the health needs of Americans do not overlap, business interests ultimately win out.
Nicole Dan is a UF political science sophomore. Her column appears on Mondays.
