Source: Michael Fielding, MEATINGPLACE, 5/8/15


Nutrition guidance recommending nutrient dense foods such as meat and poultry products, including red and processed meats, should be the foundation of government nutrition policy, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) said Friday in comments submitted to the USDA and Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Scientific Report.

The comments emphasize the variety of nutrition benefits of meat and poultry products as sources of all essential amino acids as well as micronutrients. The comments also are critical of the slight mention of lean meat in the DGAC report.

“Lean meat’s inclusion in a healthy dietary pattern is supported by the scientific evidence demonstrating its high nutritional value, and the report’s handling of lean meat represents a sharp, unsubstantiated departure from findings presented in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010,” according to NAMI’s comments. “A review of scientific research reveals that the DGAC’s findings on lean meat conflict with the preponderance of the evidence, which affirms the healthful role lean meat and poultry, including red and processed meats, play in dietary patterns.”

In February the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services released the controversial recommendations, which have since generated both support and opposition.

In its latest comments, NAMI also highlighted the benefits of red and processed meats, noting that 17 of the 25 most popular cuts of beef and seven pork cuts meet the definition of lean by USDA and many processed meats that are lean, lower in saturated fat and lower in sodium may be purchased.

According to a NAMI menu model analysis using the recommendations of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which had previously been shared with the DGAC, a diverse array of processed meats, even when consumed twice daily for one week, allow consumers to stay within daily calorie and nutrient goals, while also helping individuals meet or exceed recommended nutrient intakes.

Scientific “inconsistencies”
NAMI’s comments also highlighted what the organization says are inconsistencies in the way science was evaluated by the DGAC. NAMI charges that more than 70 percent of the recommendations were not based on the reviews of the Nutritional Evidence Library (NEL), which is designed to reduce bias in scientific analysis by serving as a primary resource to inform the committee about the best available scientific research and answer important food and nutrition-related questions. (The 2010 DGAC had used the NEL for approximately 70 percent of its recommendations.)

“The scientific evidence did not fit the bias of the DGAC, which instead recommended against including red and processed meat as components of a healthy diet. The DGAC reinterpreted the Mediterranean diet to be more 'healthy’ and based on the description 'healthy’ does not include the consumption of red and processed meats. Because the recommendation to limit intake of red and processed meat is not based on robust scientific evidence, HHS and USDA should not develop dietary guidance recommending limiting the consumption of red and processed meats,” according to the comments.

Those “inconsistencies” extend to the DGAC’s evaluation of sustainability, NAMI added, saying that the Sustainability and Food Safety Subcommittee deviated from the evidence review approach used by all other subcommittees because its review depended on lower-quality study designs, and that the subcommittee only reviewed a small proportion of the available modeling data.

“Food scientists and behaviorists provide a translation perspective that would have provided biological context resulting in the final DGAC recommendations being more robust and likely achievable,” NAMI stated in the comments. “Instead, many of the recommendations lack the scientific rigor to be utilized in developing the final policy document.”

A copy of the comments is available here.

Pork producers weigh in
Also on Friday the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) pointed out in its comments that there is ample scientific evidence supporting the nutritive value of meat and noted that previous dietary guidelines recognized and supported the role animal proteins play in ensuring a nutritional American diet. The organization said the DGAC recommendations on meat were reached “on tenuous grounds.”

It also was critical of the committee for not reviewing the “full breadth of scientific research that supports the inclusion of meat into healthy dietary profiles” and for relying extensively on information sources from outside USDA’s Nutrition Evidence Library, a repository of nutrition information.

On the issue of sustainability, NPPC wrote that the DGAC had “neither the mandate nor breadth of expertise needed to do this topic justice.” Consideration (and inclusion) of sustainability was a significant overreach, stated NPPC.

The organization echoed NAMI's position that meat includes critical vitamins and minerals, including B12, Heme iron and potassium, which often are lacking in American diets.

NPPC asked USDA and HHS to “ensure that pork retains its rightful place on the American plate.”

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.