A recent report from the nonprofit organization U.S. Right to Know has raised concerns about the potential influence of industries on the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a federal panel responsible for shaping U.S. dietary guidance.
The report reveals that a significant majority of the experts on the 2025 DGAC, tasked with providing dietary recommendations, have ties to industries with a vested interest in those very recommendations. Out of the 20 committee members, nine have had financial or other connections to food, pharmaceutical, grocery, and related industries within the past five years. Additionally, four members had possible conflicts of interest with industry actors known for corporate sponsorship and lobbying related to guideline development.
The committee, consisting of nutrition and public health experts affiliated with various universities, plays a pivotal role in updating and releasing dietary guidelines every five years, as directed by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS). The next report is slated for release in 2025.
Gary Ruskin, executive director and co-founder of U.S. Right to Know, emphasized the significance of this report, stating that millions of American lives could be impacted by its recommendations. He underscored the importance of ensuring the report offers honest and unbiased advice rather than serving as a platform for the interests of big food and pharmaceutical companies.
The report outlines the extensive influence that industries involved in food policy and regulation exert through federal lobbying and the hiring of lobbyists, including former employees of regulatory agencies. In 2022, the agribusiness industry spent $169.5 million on federal lobbying, while the food and beverage industry spent $28.1 million. A significant percentage of lobbyists from these industries were found to have participated in the “revolving door” phenomenon, where they transitioned between working for regulatory agencies and lobbying for industry interests.
The report also highlighted recommendations for improving transparency and minimizing conflicts of interest within the committee. These recommendations include avoiding the appointment of members with high-risk conflicts of interest, extending the disclosure coverage period to five years, implementing a more transparent disclosure form, publishing provisional appointees before their formal appointment, and disclosing roles at conflicted nutrition organizations. Additionally, U.S. Right to Know suggested expanding the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in healthcare, to cover nutrition-related matters.
This report raises crucial questions about the integrity and transparency of the dietary guidance process in the United States, as it underscores the potential for industry influence on recommendations that directly impact public health.
