Ag Policy Blog

Dietary Guidelines and Defining Lean Meat

Chris Clayton
By  Chris Clayton , DTN Ag Policy Editor
Connect with Chris:

In the news business these days the difference between old news and a scoop can be minutes. The longer you sit on an item, the staler it gets. Under such conditions, waiting to finish an article while dealing with a stomach ailment can hinder the ability to report on a relevant topic.

That's my excuse today and I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with it after spending a couple of days admiring the porcelain in my home bathroom.

But I want to come back around to an issue reported late last week by Associated Press on a controversy regarding the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. This is a committee that examines current nutrition research nationally and then recommends possible changes in national dietary guidelines to USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The committee apparently had been meeting for two years to work on its dietary recommendations before the group held its final meeting Dec. 15 before submitting a final report to USDA and HHS sometime within the next month. A blow up occurred over that December meeting because a subcommittee opted to remove the term "lean meat" from the dietary guidelines. From people who attended the meeting, "lean meat" was in a PowerPoint slide before a lunch subcommittee meeting, then the term was deleted from the PowerPoint slide after the meeting.

I called USDA about this earlier in the week and was told by a spokeswoman that the discussion about lean meat during the Dec. 15 meeting was largely about terminology and did not focus on consumption recommendations. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is not removing meat from its dietary recommendations, but the committee members suggested the term "lean" was a term the committee was considering dropping to replace with something more descriptive. The scientists noted people have different interpretations about what is classified as "lean." So the committee wants that term better specified.

The committee had discussed recommendations for meat consumption at the November meeting. The committee put forward the same recommendations for meat consumption that the committee recommended in 2010.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

However, staff from the North American Meat Institute -- formed from a merger of the North American Meat Association and the American Meat Institute -- became concerned at the November meeting when members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee began to question what exactly the term "lean meat" meant. At the time, staff from the meat institute followed up with questions about why such a common definition for meat was being debated so late in the committee's process.

Given the way the debate about lean meat unfolded, the North American Meat Institute wrote a letter last week to USDA and HHS staff challenging the scientific rigor of the committee's decision on lean meat after nearly 24 months of work. As the letter stated, NAMI staff "were shocked by the confusion and lack of consensus about several critical issues: what is 'lean;' what does 'meat' mean; does 'lean meat' include red meat; does 'lean meat' include poultry; can 'lean meat' include processed meat; and what does the (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) mean by 'lower' or 'higher?'"

As NAMI noted, there is a definition for lean meat. The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service defines "lean" as any individual food item of 100 grams (3.5 ounces) with less than 10 grams of fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol. NAMI cites that the definition would be used to classify meat and poultry products, including red and processed meats.

The USDA spokesperson pointed out the dietary advisory committee has discussed ways to promote consuming less red and processed meats than Americans typically consume. This is consistent with the 2010 recommendations from the committee as well. "They aren't talking about reducing the amount of meat recommended."

The committee talked about consuming less red and processed meats than are typically consumed. This is consistent with the DGA 2010 recommendations. They aren't talking about reducing the amount of meat recommended.

Effectively, our intake of red and processed meats is roughly twice the level recommended by USDA now. However, a PowerPoint presentation from the November meeting suggests that higher levels of red or processed meat can still be OK even for those "populations with positive health outcomes." One slide shows healthy populations are eating a median level of 56 grams of red or processed meat per 1,000 calories even though USDA recommendations are 25-28 grams of red or processed meats.

You can examine that PowerPoint presentation, which reflects some of the studies going into the various recommendations for all foods. http://dld.bz/…

In yet another issue with the dietary guidelines, the NAMI also raised questions about the dietary committee's interest in sustainability issues. Apparently the committee wants to look at a "sustainability dietary pattern" that would highlight how food is produced rather than simply the nutritional level of the food. The meat institute effectively says this is beyond the technical expertise of the people on the dietary committee.

"To recommend a 'sustainable dietary pattern' when the very definition of sustainable is still at issue does a disservice to the importance of affordability, nutrient adequacy, safety and cultural relevance to the foods consumed by U.S. population," NAMI wrote in its letter.

This environmental point regarding food production is going to be a growing issue throughout the food industry and the way the federal government examines recommendations for food. This clash will spill over into Congress as well as industries starting to feel they are being judged by their environmental standards by groups such as the dietary advisory committee.

I did request last week to speak with the chair or vice chairperson of the dietary committee. A USDA spokeswoman said committee members are not allowed to do media interviews while they are creating their report to USDA and HHS. The report will be posted on the Federal Register when it comes out and there will be a 45-day comment period on it, which NAMI said may be too narrow a window given the volumes of information released. USDA and HHS then would be expected to revise their national dietary guidelines by the end of the year.

Stay tuned. I suspect the issues raised over meat recommendations will come up again once the committee releases its full report.

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN.

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

CRAIG MOORE
1/9/2015 | 8:49 AM CST
Typical government concern. Meanwhile you can go out with your SNAP dollars, that our government gives out with no return required (kinda like grants for driers), and your can spend every dime on potato chips, pop and cookies. And then they wonder why kids, who learn their eating habits at home, don't want to eat their wonderful meals at school.
Curt Zingula
1/9/2015 | 7:19 AM CST
A little research on Google reveals that "sustainable" labeling is already underway; Within eighteen months, this group (Food and Society) proposes to lay the groundwork for statewide (Iowa) sustainable labeling. To this end, they will invite partners from across the state to: 1) establish criteria for sustainable food labels 2) create a process to authorize labeling 3) initiate a program to educate the public about the labels 4) identify an organization to administer the labeling program once the grant period has been completed
Curt Zingula
1/8/2015 | 7:40 AM CST
This dietary guideline stuff is a load of b.s. - a big load! The very idea that a one size fits all guideline will work is insane. Michelle is learning that the hard way with her school lunch recommendations and the idea that a kid who goes to school early and stays late for activities needs the same calories as a couch potato kid. Veggies are good, but not as entrees for active people because they digest too quickly. I wonder if these guideline people have ever done physical work on an empty stomach! As far as "sustainable", when are the enviros going to figure out that livestock manure is the organic definition of "sustainable"?! I'm expecting "sustainable" food labeling to be the enviros next goal.
Bonnie Dukowitz
1/7/2015 | 6:05 PM CST
So then Chris, is red meat nourished from a solar powered well pump more healthy than meat from an A.C. powered pump? I am assuming livestock do not need water on cloudy days.