Government Dietary Guidelines, Unintended Consequences and Public Policy
New study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
New study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
San Diego, January 30, 2008 – In the years following the government promotion of a low-fat diet, obesity in America has reached almost epidemic levels. Were the federal guidelines a direct cause, a catalyst for unintended consequences or merely a well-meaning but unimportant factor? In a study published in the March 2008 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Paul R Marantz, MD, MPH, Elizabeth Bird, AB, and Michael H Alderman, MD, all from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, suggest that the government issued these recommendations based on limited scientific data and assumed that no harm would result, but the evidence now suggests otherwise. They caution that without proper studies, such guidelines may be harmful.
“When dietary guidelines were initially introduced in the late 1970s, their population-based approach was especially attractive since it was presumed to carry little risk,” says Dr. Marantz. “However, the message delivered by these guidelines might actually have had a negative impact on health, including our current obesity epidemic. The possibility that these dietary guidelines might actually be endangering health is at the core of our concern about the way guidelines are currently developed and issued.”
Dr. Marantz and colleagues argue that if guidelines can alter behavior, such alteration could have positive or negative effects. They cite how, in 2000, the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee suggested that the recommendation to lower fat, advised in the 1995 guidelines, had perhaps been ill-advised and might actually have some potential harm. The committee noted concern that “the previous priority given to a ‘low-fat intake’ may lead people to believe that, as long as fat intake is low, the diet will be entirely healthful. This belief could engender an overconsumption of total calories in the form of carbohydrates, resulting in the adverse metabolic consequences of high carbohydrate diets,” the committee wrote, while also noting that “an increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States has corresponded roughly with an absolute increase in carbohydrate consumption.”
Dr. Marantz and colleagues present data that support these trends; however, they are careful to note that this temporal association does not prove causation. Instead, says Dr. Marantz, “it raises the possibility of a net harmful effect of seemingly innocuous dietary advice. These dietary recommendations did not necessarily cause harm, but there is a realistic possibility that they may have.”
In a commentary published in the same issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from Virginia Commonwealth University and Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, of New York University, maintain that the guidelines are supported by decades of research. While they agree with Dr. Marantz that people often compensate for low-fat intake by consuming more calories, they disagree that the guidelines were wrong to encourage low-fat diets. “The guidelines were not the culprit,” said Dr. Woolf, who believes that the government was right to share what was known about the dietary causes of disease.
Woolf and Nestle do not dispute that guidelines can have unintended consequences. However, they write, “When the prevailing message fails to achieve its intended aims or achieves the wrong ends, the solution is not to abandon the enterprise but to reshape the message to achieve desired outcomes.”
Continuing the dialog, Marantz, Bird and Alderman respond in a further commentary, “When trying to mitigate potential harm from past guidelines based on inadequate science, issuing ‘reshaped’ guidelines with similarly inadequate science merely perpetuates past mistakes. It might sometimes be best to avoid translating flaccid arguments into rigid guidelines. Ultimately, this boils down to a difference in world view, much like the distinction between clinicians guided by the therapeutic imperative and those guided by the maxim ‘first do no harm.’ Of course, when the evidence is clear, beneficial interventions are always favored, and harmful interventions always shunned. It is when the data are unclear that challenges arise.”
Marantz concludes, “As doctors, our first call is to do no harm. That’s why we recommend that guidelines be generous in providing information, but more cautious in giving direction. Any directions should be based on the very highest standards of scientific evidence. After all, we expect that much from pharmaceutical companies before they bring a new drug to market.”
The article is “A Call for Higher Standards of Evidence for Dietary Guidelines” by Paul R. Marantz, MD, MPH, Elizabeth D. Bird, AB, and Michael H. Alderman, MD. The commentary is “Do Dietary Guidelines Explain the Obesity Epidemic?” by Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, and Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, followed by the author’s response by Marantz, Bird and Alderman. This exchange appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Issue 3 (March 2008) published by Elsevier.
# # #
Full text of the articles is available upon request; contact eAJPM@ucsd.edu to obtain copies. To request an interview with the authors, please contact Karen Gardner, Media Relations Manager, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1 718 430 3101, email@example.com (Marantz, Bird, Alderman) or Anne Buckley, Associate Director, University News Services, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1 804 828 6052, firstname.lastname@example.org (Woolf).
About the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
The American Journal of Preventive Medicine is the official journal of The American College of Preventive Medicine and the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research. It publishes articles in the areas of prevention research, teaching, practice and policy. Original research is published on interventions aimed at the prevention of chronic and acute disease and the promotion of individual and community health. The journal features papers that address the primary and secondary prevention of important clinical, behavioral and public health issues such as injury and violence, infectious disease, women's health, smoking, sedentary behaviors and physical activity, nutrition, diabetes, obesity, and alcohol and drug abuse. Papers also address educational initiatives aimed at improving the ability of health professionals to provide effective clinical prevention and public health services. The journal also publishes official policy statements from the two co-sponsoring organizations, health services research pertinent to prevention and public health, review articles, media reviews, and editorials.
The American Journal of Preventive Medicine is ranked 11th out of 98 Public, Environmental & Occupational Health titles and 16th out of 103 General and Internal Medicine titles according to the Thomson Scientific Institute for Scientific Information's 2006 Journal Citation Reports.
Elsevier is a global information analytics business that helps scientists and clinicians to find new answers, reshape human knowledge, and tackle the most urgent human crises. For 140 years, we have partnered with the research world to curate and verify scientific knowledge. Today, we’re committed to bringing that rigor to a new generation of platforms. Elsevier provides digital solutions and tools in the areas of strategic research management, R&D performance, clinical decision support, and professional education; including ScienceDirect, Scopus, SciVal, ClinicalKey and Sherpath. Elsevier publishes over 2,500 digitized journals, including The Lancet and Cell, 39,000 e-book titles and many iconic reference works, including Gray's Anatomy. Elsevier is part of RELX, a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. www.elsevier.com
AJPM Editorial Office
+1 858 457 7292