Proposing a National Debate Topic on Nutrition and Dietary Guidelines
First three guided questions, responses, and comments
At the National Federation topic selection meeting in Kansas City last August, I offered to submit a proposal for a national high school debate topic on reforming federal dietary guidelines and nutrition policies.
Overview of the problem:
The US Dietary Guidelines for Americans is an enormously influential policy that has guided US nutrition programs since 1980. During these last 40 years, some researchers have expressed concern that the guidelines are based on an insufficiently rigorous assessment of the scientific evidence, a view that was largely substantiated by a Congressionally mandated 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which identified a need for enhanced transparency, greater scientific rigor, and updates to the scientific methodology for the DGA process… (from An analysis of the recent US dietary guidelines process in light of its federal mandate and a National Academies report, PNAS Nexis, July 2022)
As part of the topic selection process, we are given a series of guided questions. The first question is quoted below, followed by a comment and further response. As many Normal Nutrition posts have noted, a great many Americans are overweight and with chronic health problems, and doctors, nutritionists, and public health policy usually advise to “eat less and exercise more.” That usually doesn’t work for long, and soon weight and blood pressure continues to rise. Doctors then prescribe medications for high blood pressure/cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes.
Question: Based on your current level of research on your topic area, how would you describe the problem area? If you look across conceivable case areas, what do you anticipate will be the prominent recurring areas of harm and/or unrealized opportunities/gains that debaters will come to regularly throughout the season? Will these harms be significant?
GR reply:
Rushed legislation[1] [GR2] advocating federal dietary guidelines in the 1970s (the Food Pyramid, now Food Plate or MyPlate) was based on little research. Calling for reduced fat (esp. saturated fat) in American diets led to increased carbohydrates and sugar (for taste). Much of the following epidemics of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease is now thought to be a consequence. But there is still debate among nutrition researcher (over low-carb vs. low-fat) and other dietary recommendations.
[Kevin’s comment on GR reply]
I see the truth in this and it is definitely a problem. The impacts of this problem are significant, as you state. Many die from these diseases, etc. How many possible cases can we get out of this, though? Are students going to debate the merits of different food guideline plans or will the solutions be more complex? Are we talking about a variety of different solutions to the came set of harms, or is the breadth to the different food regulations?
[GR2, my response, with links to past posts embedded]
Students will find a range of food debates to explore, including:
1. Don’t diet: “dieting” is not natural and causes mental and metabolic problem. Children of parent dieters are more likely to suffer from eating disorders. It is natural to eat until full (satiated). It is not natural to leave the table still hungry. But this is what current doctor/nutritionist/public health advises people who are overweight: “eat less; exercise more.” (Based on the theory of weight gain as a energy balance issue rather than a difficulty metabolizing carbohydrates).
2. Debates over BMI (Body Mass Index). BMI measures are arbitrary and outdated. Researchers now look instead at body fat and visceral (belly) fat percentages. Some people have naturally heavier body types (or gain them through weight lifting) but are pushed into one-size-fits-all BMI boxes.
3. Federal guidelines concentrate on reducing consumption of saturated fats. Critics claim saturated fats are healthy while excess carbohydrates and PUFAs are unhealthy (PUFA: polyunsaturated fat in industrial seed (vegetable) oils.
4. Economics: critics say public health agencies and university nutrition departments., and the FDA, have been “captured” (or unduly influenced) by the processed food industry, pharmaceutical industry, major foundations, and NIH grants. See, for example: Federal Nutritional Guidance and the Politics of Science: A Tale of Regulatory Capture (International Journal on Food System Dynamics, November, 2020) Counter-critics say beef, pork, and chicken industries did the capturing to add more meat and dairy into the dietary guidelines. (The Ruminanti! DietDoctor Podcast with Peter Ballerstedt.)
5. People are different biochemically, and their diverse gut microbiomes are even more different (yes, even between identical twins). So one-size nutrition guidelines won’t be suitable for many or most. The dairy industry promotes dairy (and federal funding of dairy in school lunches), but many are lactose intolerant. The grain industry promotes grain, but many are gluten intolerant or have other grain sensitivities.
6. The most compelling approach (in my opinion) is for people to do their own research and reflection on what foods are healthy or not for them.
7. Sugar like salt can be a poison at high doses. Americans consume much more sugar than in most other countries and more than in the past: “Many Americans eat about five times the amount of sugar they should consume,” says one source. Most people’s taste buds soon adapt to reduced sugar and soon lower-sugar foods taste better and still sweet.
8. Other processed food problems: research says emulsifiers can reduce diversity of gut microbiome. And Direct impact of commonly used dietary emulsifiers on human gut microbiota (Microbiome, March 2021).
9. Other research suggests that when we eat matters as much as what we eat. (Time Restricted Eating post) Current public health guidelines encourage many small meals or snacks. But others say this is a problem because it doesn’t allow the digestive system to rest. They advocate intermittent fasting (what most did before federal guidelines; three meals a day, or even two). And against: Scientists Find No Benefit to Time-Restricted Eating (New York Times, April 2020)
10. Debates between advocates for vegan, vegetarian, omnivore, Mediterranean diet, low-carb, keto, Paleo, Carnivore, or ancestral diet (eat what you think your ancestors ate!).
12. Researchers make the case that modern (western) chronic diseases are caused by insulin resistance (metabolic disease) and inflammation and are caused by diet and stress. These “lifestyle” diseases include cardiovascular disease (high blood pressure), obesity, type 2 diabetes, auto-immune digestive disorders, mental disorders, and some cancers too.
13. And though there is widespread agreement on modern chronic diseases having lifestyle origins, there are huge and bitter disagreements on pathways to health.
Question Two: While many debaters may not choose to devote much time to inherency as an issue, it will be important to some debaters and circuits, and may be particularly important to novices. As you look across conceivable case areas, what do you anticipate will be the recurrent causes or barriers to change that debaters will regularly encounter? Similarly, what kinds of actions have been proposed in the past as solutions? Did they work? Why or why not?
GR reply: The current low-fat dietary guidelines are locked in by federal agencies (HHS and USDA) and protected by special interests (the processed food and pharmaceutical industries).
[Kevin comment on GR reply]: Is this the only thing that needs to be changed? If so, I really think you need to think about how much affirmative cases are going to be able to fix. This further reflects the concern I have above. How do you introduce variety into this?
Question Three: While some aspect of the federal government will most likely be the chosen agent of action, what do you anticipate will be the more frequent plan mechanisms employed? Are these legislative, executive, or judicial? What degree of specificity might be required to make a credible case for solvency in most debates?
GR reply: Reforming (or abolishing) the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Guidelines are supposed to be reviewed and updated every five years to reflect new research. However, from Nutrition Coalition: Dietary Guidelines are Unscientific, Outdated and US Dietary Guidelines for Americans—101:
What are the US Dietary Guidelines? For nearly 40 years, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture have jointly issued the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), the principal policy guiding nutrition in the United States. That stated goals are to promote good health, prevent chronic disease, and help Americans reach a healthy weight.