A Message for the Melting Pot: Nutrition Education and Promotion in the US


October 6, 2012 by Sarah S.

As dietitians in training, we’ve discovered how difficult it is to formulate a nutrition prescription for just one person. Now, put 300 million people together from different ages, ethnicities, socioeconomic classes, and education levels and try to write AND communicate a nutrition plan for them. Now, try to do that in a room with a hundred different voices, all wielding varying amounts of power, money, and scientific credibility, whispering (not very softly) in your ear. I certainly don’t envy the USDA, who gets tasked with this job every 5 years as they create and communicate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs).

Let’s explore some of the reasons that formulating dietary guidelines is so difficult. First, nutritional needs vary greatly over the lifespan, but attempts to stratify recommendations for specific age groups result in unwieldy, confusing messages. Second, the US population is made up of people from a variety of cultures with a myriad of food habits and beliefs. Part of the beauty of this “melting pot” is that we all bring our food traditions to the collective table. But, when a blanket prescription tells one group that they must drink milk to build strong bones when they’ve lost the ability to digest it because it hasn’t been part of their culture’s diet for thousands of years, confusion (and unhappy stomachs) ensue.  Third, consider how difficult it is to reach a consensus on what a “healthy diet” looks like within our cohort of 20 students who are all aiming for the same goal of helping people be healthy. Then, consider all of the voices who have historically had a seat at the table when the DGAs are being reformulated – politicians, lobbyists from various food producing and selling groups, doctors, scientists, and citizens. For more on this issue, Marion Nestle’s blog Food Politics provides interesting insight. Of particular interest is this entry that highlights the food industry’s various reactions to the 2010 DGAs.


So, once we’ve decided on some recommendations that might help Americans be healthier, we must consider how to communicate them throughout the population. This is difficult for several reasons. First, many Americans have a very low level of literacy and numeracy. We could have the best dietary guidelines in the world, but if citizens can’t understand them, we won’t do much good. Second, we must consider how to communicate these messages to reach the broadest audience possible in a way that makes them seem “do-able” for the average person.

While the current DGAs may not be perfect, I believe that the USDA has made great strides in combating the communication barriers it faces. The recent switch to MyPlate provided a simple graphic to guide people in making food choices without asking them to figure out what 6-11 servings of this or 2-3 servings of that might look like. Although open to interpretation, it seems less overwhelming for people who don’t have a high literacy level or nutrition background. Furthermore, their on-line Supertracker website is a great tool for people who are motivated to apply the more specific aspects of the DGAs, provided that they have access to the internet. Finally, the government’s recent support of SNAP-Ed increases communication and application of the DGAs to populations that are less likely to be able to interpret and apply the DGAs on their own, due to financial and literacy restraints.

How do we combat these issues as we try to improve the health of Americans in a financially responsible way? First, I would argue (optimistically, I know) that the decision makers should focus more on supporting good science and less on pleasing industry. If billions of dollars are being spent on programs like SNAP, WIC, and school meals, don’t we want to ensure that their basis, the DGAs, are actually going to promote optimal health? (See this promising new initiative to produce higher quality nutrition and obesity research). Second, the communication of the DGAs should be kept simple, focusing on the broad messages of eating nutrient-dense foods and maintaining a calorie balance by being physically active. As the complexity of the messages increases, people get confused and frustrated while lobbyists pitch a fit, decreasing the effectiveness of the resources used to communicate them.

Any change that occurs will inevitably be slow and incremental, but it will be interesting to see what changes are made to the DGAs over time.

And for the globally-minded among us, check out the FAO’s database of various countries’ food guidelines. It’s fascinating!


2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans Executive Summary

SNAPed Fact Sheet


3 thoughts on “A Message for the Melting Pot: Nutrition Education and Promotion in the US

  1. brooksy says:

    Your blog is awesome! You did such a fantastic job of articulating the reality of nutrition education. You could sell me sand in the desert when you present facts and information like that. You also provided some really amazing links. I especially love the FAO’s 🙂
    I look forward to reading your next entry, amiga.

  2. waboyd says:

    Sarah, I really enjoyed reading your blog and was amused that we chose the same cartoon strip, and even some of the same content for our blog (although I think yours was better organized than mine!). I agree that the current DGAs are improved over previous iterations. I haven’t had the time to play around with SuperTracker much, but on the surface it seems like a valuable, user-friendly tool. According to a recent USDA blog post, over 1 million people had registered with SuperTracker in less than a year. As we both pointed out in our blogs though, I think lobbyists from the food industry should have less (in my opinion zero) input into future versions of the DGAs. I disagree with the Grocery Manufacturers Association that the DAGs are “an opportunity for industry to find better ways to innovate, as part of a collective responsibility to improve American diets”. The food industry is simply trying to sell their products, which is appropriate for their agenda. In my opinion, we don’t need new processed food products that will allow people to eat their ways to health. But I do think we might benefit from a lesson in preparing and enjoying more whole, unprocessed foods in our own kitchens – a message that the food industry has little interest in communicating.

  3. Sarah, I really appreciated the thought you put into taking into consider all of the different forces at work when the USDA puts together dietary guidelines. I agree completely, but seeing it so coherently laid out like this made me wonder: if the USDA can’t do this effectively, should they be doing it at all?

    It seems like most other government health recommendations come from the relevant national societies (cancer screening recommendations from the ACS, for example) or from the IOM. Why are those recommendations left to scientists and practitioners to decide, but nutrition is so heavily politicized? This is a rhetorical question, I know, because the DGAs are under USDA and there will likely be no stripping them away. I think we can agree that any political party would be slow to admit that a bipartisan program that has spanned generations has not accomplished its goal.

    Certainly no organization is going to be above all political influence and every expert panelist would bring their own opinions and biases to the table, but I feel like there’s a better way to do this than to consider industry profits as even a small piece of the puzzle when the health of a large nation is at stake.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: