National dietary guidelines have been promulgated by various government agencies since the late 1800’s. The mandate followed and goals addressed in both the development and revision of recommendations have varied as a function of government protocol and the current state of population health. The original intention of the guidelines was to prevent dietary deficiency1,2; however, the focus of the recommendations has shifted towards disease reduction in response to developed westernized societies adopting increasingly sedentary lifestyles and high calorie diets. While nutrition-related disease is a global issue, the substantial increase in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes has become an issue most notably in North America, despite measures
…show more content…
Conclusions in this report were drawn from an incomplete compilation of literature, of which there was an abundance of inconsistent and contradictory evidence that ultimately lead to inaccurate summarizations and biased interpretations in the formulation of the dietary recommendations9. A study by Hite and colleagues highlighted several key weaknesses of the DGAC report, but the overarching message was that “strong recommendations are made with weak evidence”9. This translates into dietary guidelines that are not an accurate representation of the current body of evidence and have the potential for public misconception and harm. To further compound the issues surrounding revision protocol, the timeframe for revision is inadequate and in some cases unregulated. In Canada for instance, projected dates for objectives and goals of future dietary guidelines are made public, however no absolute revision deadlines are reported1. In contrast the US requires revisions to guidelines every 5 years, however the processes that encompass these revisions lag considerably behind current …show more content…
Consequently, the public continues to follow obsolete recommendations for periods longer than is appropriate or necessary. The overarching issue is the inadequate revision protocol mandated by the agencies that create the dietary guidelines. Not unlike the early dietary guidelines, there is too much opinion, too little high quality evidence, lack of clarity in the absence of facts, and unjustified input from external sources. Revisions to guidelines must be frequent and comprehensive; enabling the public can make informed decisions and be confident in their dietary choices. Future Steps to Better Guidance There are multiple measures that can be taken to improve existing revision protocol, all of which would work best when considered as interactive components of a unified approach. • Higher standards of evidence selection must be adopted in the development and revision of dietary guidelines. Guidelines need to be delivered in a clear and concise manner, with full disclosure of evidence utilized in the formation of each
Conclusions in this report were drawn from an incomplete compilation of literature, of which there was an abundance of inconsistent and contradictory evidence that ultimately lead to inaccurate summarizations and biased interpretations in the formulation of the dietary recommendations9. A study by Hite and colleagues highlighted several key weaknesses of the DGAC report, but the overarching message was that “strong recommendations are made with weak evidence”9. This translates into dietary guidelines that are not an accurate representation of the current body of evidence and have the potential for public misconception and harm. To further compound the issues surrounding revision protocol, the timeframe for revision is inadequate and in some cases unregulated. In Canada for instance, projected dates for objectives and goals of future dietary guidelines are made public, however no absolute revision deadlines are reported1. In contrast the US requires revisions to guidelines every 5 years, however the processes that encompass these revisions lag considerably behind current …show more content…
Consequently, the public continues to follow obsolete recommendations for periods longer than is appropriate or necessary. The overarching issue is the inadequate revision protocol mandated by the agencies that create the dietary guidelines. Not unlike the early dietary guidelines, there is too much opinion, too little high quality evidence, lack of clarity in the absence of facts, and unjustified input from external sources. Revisions to guidelines must be frequent and comprehensive; enabling the public can make informed decisions and be confident in their dietary choices. Future Steps to Better Guidance There are multiple measures that can be taken to improve existing revision protocol, all of which would work best when considered as interactive components of a unified approach. • Higher standards of evidence selection must be adopted in the development and revision of dietary guidelines. Guidelines need to be delivered in a clear and concise manner, with full disclosure of evidence utilized in the formation of each