Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

The Federal Government Have Breached Their Duty to the American Public by Promoting Dietary Recommendations Causing Killer Diseases

Published onJan 08, 2024
The Federal Government Have Breached Their Duty to the American Public by Promoting Dietary Recommendations Causing Killer Diseases
·

The Federal Government Have Breached Their Duty to the American Public by Promoting Dietary Recommendations Causing Killer Diseases

Abstract

The diet, and in turn health, of a person in the United States has been manipulated for decades. People are unaware that their life choices are not as autonomous as one would assume. United States citizens have been eating meat for the entirety of the nation's history. Because consuming animal products is ingrained into the culture and is seemingly innocuous, there is no inclination to limit consumption of these products. Public manipulation by the meat and dairy industry is done through both advertising and working relentlessly to gain support from government officials, nutrition professions and the media in order to promote the health benefits of their products. Their efforts however go unnoticed as Americans do not realize that their health and wellbeing is in the hands of those whose sole concern is yielding profit. There is an overarching sense of public confusion regarding how to eat healthily due to the overwhelming amount of contradictory information available in this modern society. Therefore, most people rely on the reports provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as the media, both of which have been manipulated by the food industry. The relationship between the United States government and the Food Industry is entirely problematic as it has led to disease and deaths among many Americans and perpetuated suffering for millions of animals. This paper will argue that the United States Government has failed in its legal obligation to provide adequate health recommendations to its citizens by catering more towards their own monetary goals and the financial status of the meat and dairy industries and Government agencies than the health and livelihoods of the human beings they were designed to protect. Section one of this paper will lay the foundation of how the USDA functions and how historically they have prioritized profit over health. Section two of this paper will explain the dangerous effects that lobbying inflicts upon the food system of the United States. The third section of this paper explains the effects in which marketing plays on food choices. The final portion of this paper outlines proposed solutions to this apparent food crisis epidemic.

Introduction

Choosing what to eat on a daily basis is a basic task every human undertakes. However, the implications in which dictate these choices go unheeded to the public. The highest rates of death in the United States are caused by heart disease and cancer (CDC, 2020). Heart disease and cancer are caused or worsened through diets high in cholesterol and saturated fats which the American public has been overconsuming for decades. The Federal Government has the duty to protect the American public's safety but by allowing food industry groups to have a say in the Federal Guidelines, they have breached this duty. Additionally, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) functions more for the financial interests of those working under the agency rather than for the health of the people of the United States. A more scientific basis behind the decisions made at the USDA is obligatory. Additionally, the marketing behind the food industry works to influence children into consuming their products. Such marketing should receive no Constitutional protection and must be limited by the government. The damaging effects that advertisements have on public perception must not be overlooked. The purpose of this paper will show the various ways in which the United States Government has failed to protect its citizens against the number one causes of death afflicting the nation.

Laws Governing USDA

The USDA was created in 1862 with the purpose of performing two primary functions. The first being to ensure sufficient and reliable food support and the other was to “diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture, rural development, aquaculture, and human nutrition, in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word” (7 USC § 2201) (Nestle 2013, 33). The latter was interpreted as a mandate to issue dietary advice (7 USC § 2201)(Nestle 2013, 33). The Dietary Guidelines for Americans is a policy document that provides federally developed nutrition based recommendations for Americans. These guidelines are statutorily mandated under the 1990 National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act (7 USC § 5301) which requires the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) to jointly publish the DGA policy document at least once every five years. The 1990 National Nutrition and Monitoring and Related Research Act was put in place to strengthen national nutrition monitoring by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a plan to assess the dietary and nutritional status of the United States population, to support research on, and development of, nutrition monitoring, to foster national nutrition education, to establish dietary guidelines and for other purposes. The purposes of this act are as followed:

  1. Make more effective use of Federal and State expenditures for nutrition monitoring, and enhance the performance and benefits of current Federal nutrition monitoring and related research activities

  2. Provide a scientific basis for the maintenance and improvement of the nutritional status of the people of the United States and the nutritional quality

  3. Establish and implement a comprehensive plan for the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Program to assess on a continuing basis, the dietary and nutritional status of the people of the United States and the trends with respect to such status, the state of the art with respect to nutrition monitoring and related research, future monitoring and related research priorities and the relevant policy implications

  4. Establish and improve the quality of national nutritional and health status data and related databases and networks and stimulate research necessary to develop uniform indicators, standards and methodologies, technologies and procedures for nutrition monitoring

  5. Establish a central Federal focus for the coordination, management,and direction of Federal nutrition monitoring activities;

  6. Establish mechanisms for addressing the nutrition monitoring needs of Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, scientific and engineering communities, health care professionals, and the public in support of the foregoing purposes; and

  7. Provide for the conduct of such scientific research and development as may be necessary or appropriate in support of such purposes.

In Section 301 of this Act, the directions governing of the Dietary Guidelines are enumerated. Every five years the Secretaries must publish the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” which includes dietary information for the general public. It is required that this report “shall be based on the preponderance of the scientific and medical knowledge which is current at the time the report is prepared” (7 USC § 5301). This article will prove how the United States government has failed to uphold the purposes of this Act through an unjust system in which government officials prioritize their financial interests with an unscrupulous relationship with various food supply industries.

To be in alignment with the purposes of this act to make effective use of government spending for nutrition monitoring and put a higher emphasis on a scientific basis, the government must:

  1. Discontinue the practice of allowing food lobbyist groups to have such strong influence on legislation that affects public health

  2. Promote plant-based lifestyles for health benefits within the federal Dietary Recommendations to combat the epidemic of heart disease plaguing the United States

  3. Prevent food industries from targeting children in advertisements that are directly linked to the extremely high obesity rates and discontinue the check-off programs that use government speech to advertise for products linked to killer diseases

History of the USDA

The Shift of American Food Culture
The history of the USDA provides a significant narrative as to how this agency became troublesome. The first report of Dietary Recommendations was released in 1917. The original goal of the USDA was to prevent nutrition deficiencies as they were the leading cause of death in the United States (Nestle 2013, 34). Fighting nutrient deficiency is what characterized the reasoning of the “eat more” campaign behind the Dietary Guidelines that lasted through the late 1960’s (Nestle 2013, 34). Financial considerations were considered in the federal reports following the depression-era as well as during WWII (Nestle 2013, 35). A war poster titled “U.S. Needs US Strong” urged Americans to “do your part in the national nutrition program” (Nestle 2013, 35). To do so, one must eat from the 8 recognized food groups everyday including milk, eggs, meat and butter (Nestle 2013, 25). This recommendation is not only unhealthy, as an everyday consumption of these foods can lead to dangerously high cholesterol, but also was only recommended because these foods were plentiful (Nestle 2013, 36).

The information provided to the public during World War II regarding dietary choices reflected the food rations that the United States was experiencing. When Franklin D. Roosevelt came into presidency in 1933, the United States was suffering tremendously with the Great Depression- farmers perhaps being hit the hardest (Giesen 2018, 169). FDR immediately addressed the overproduction problem that farmers were facing by passing the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) (Giesen 2018, 169). The purpose of this act was to reduce the farmers supply, by destroying crops and farm animals, in order to increase prices (Giesen 2018, 169). This was the first time the government began subsidizing the food supply and many Americans did not like this policy claiming it was wasteful to destroy and subsidize food as so many people were going hungry in the United States (Giesen 2018, 169).

Following the depression, into World War II, there were widespread shortages due to the disrupted global supply chains (Giesen 2018, 174). There was a mandatory rationing system in place for scarce items controlled by the Office of Price Administration (OPA) (Giesen 2018, 174). Ration books were issued to people and food was often used for wartime propaganda (Giesen 2018, 174). Americans were urged to do their part to help the war effort by eating what the government dictated. However, as promised, after World War II, the United States experienced economic growth and for the first time, people were able to buy and eat things they wanted rather than only eating for necessity (Giesen 2018, 190). Because of the prosperity Americans were experiencing, by 1955, 75% of people had televisions in their homes and TV dinners were first introduced.

The American food supply shift from experiencing nutrient deficiencies in the 1930’s and food rationing in the 1940’s to the abundance and wealth categorizing the 1950’s highlights the culture behind the food choices at the time. Americans had no inclination to limit any type of food and likewise were not recommended by the USDA to do so. The USDA did however, specify serving sizes of each food group for the first time in the early 1950’s (Nestle 2013, 36). Government officials, research groups and the food industry were invited by the USDA to review drafts of the food guides because the agency “felt that food industry groups would have a vital interest in any food guide sponsored by the government” (Nestle 2013, 36). This assumption seems quite obvious as the financial interests of the food industry groups are directly related to the government's recommendations of their products. Dairy and meat industry groups were eager to share their thoughts regarding the serving size recommendations of their products. Dairy producers were content with the placement of their products while meat industry groups were unhappy with the serving size indicated for meat (Nestle 2013, 36). Regardless of the pushback, the USDA incorporated these serving sizes into a guide for the public known as the Basic Four (Nestle 2013, 36). The four food groups in this model were milk, meat, vegetable/ fruit and bread. Variations of the Basic Four were used for the next 22 years (Nestle 2013, 37). This food guide was the last to continue the “eat more” basis behind the recommendations prevalent throughout the entirety of the USDA’s existence thus far. Besides the complaints regarding portion size, food industry groups supported the USDA’s promotion of more foods (Nestle 2013, 37).

The Implications of the McGovern Committee

In the late 1960’s, there was a switch in the federal dietary advice that shifted away from the “eat more” recommendations into an “eat less” model (Nestle 2013, 38). This shift can be accredited to a CBS television documentary, Hunger in America, which reported on hunger and malnutrition in the United States (Nestle 2013, 38). Although the public outcry on the matter was misplaced, as chronic diseases due to poor diet was a much more prevalent issue, the Senate appointed George McGovern as chair to a Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs (Nestle 2013, 38). Although the public was initially concerned with Americans not getting enough food, the McGovern appointment, the solution for this concern, was ironically what caused the federal recommendations to switch to an “eat less” model for the first time (Nestle 2013, 38). Besides the aforementioned complaints over serving size recommendations, the government's regulations were thus far uncontroversial (Nestle 2013, 38). For over 60 years, heart disease has been the leading cause of death in the United States (Fox 2004). Upon this discovery, the McGovern committee looked to the National Institute of Health (NIH) to support research showing the link between dietary choices and coronary heart and chronic diseases while also working to shift the nationwide concern to these issues (Nestle 2013, 40). The committee held hearings and issued reports linking dietary choices to chronic diseases in the early 1970’s (Nestle 2013, 40). To capture the public's attention on the matter, the McGovern committee chose the striking title “Diet Related to Killer Diseases” for the series of hearings (Nestle 2013, 40). By 1977, the committee released the infamous report stating six new goals titled Dietary Goals for the United States (Nestle 2013, 40). The Dietary Goals for the United States listed six nutrient categories: carbohydrate, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar and salt. Each category, with the exception of carbohydrates, was recommended to be reduced in American diets (Nestle 2013, 40). One would have to reduce their intake of meat, eggs, whole milk, butter, sugar and salt in order to meet these recommendations, which greatly upset the respective industries (Nestle 2013, 40). Subsequent hearings were held wherein the various industries asked for the reports immediate withdrawal or expressed their views regarding the wording within the document (Nestle 2013, 40). Within the transcripts of these hearings, Mr. Wray Finney, the President of the National Cattlemen’s Association, bargained with Senator Robert Dole to change the wording of the report from “decrease consumption of foods high in fat…” to “increase consumption of lean meat” because he was in opposition of the word “decrease” as it is a “bad word” (Ninety Fifth Congress 1977, 42) (Nestle 2013, 40). To combat the decline of milk, eggs and beef sales that occurred following this report, food producer groups worked tirelessly to discredit the science, or lack thereof, supporting the Dietary Goals (Nestle 2013, 40). Under intense pressure, the McGovern committee issued a revised version of Dietary Goals which has three changes: (1) increase the salt allowance by 40%, (2) addition of a statement easing the cholesterol goal for some groups to obtain the “nutrition benefits of eggs” and (3) reworded the report to redact the statement “reduce the consumption of meat” with the more innocuous wording “choose meats, poultry and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake” (Nestle 2013, 42). The drafter of the original report was not pleased with the changes that were made under the pressure of the meat and dairy industries and following his opposition, was asked to resign (Nestle 2013, 42). Additionally, this was the committee's last accomplishment as the Senate soon after voted to merge the committee and McGovern was voted out of office following the election in 1980 (Nestle 2013, 42).

If the McGovern committee was more successful in its attempts to decrease deadly diseases, it is likely that the history of American Dietary Guidelines would have been very different. Although Dietary Goals was seemingly unsuccessful, it was a critical moment for all future nutrition education and dietary recommendations in the United States (Nestle 2013, 42). Despite the pushback that Dietary Goals faced, the American Heart Association and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition concluded that the research provided in the report demonstrated sound advice to limit fat, saturated fat and cholesterol in order to prevent heart disease and cancer, the two leading causes of death in the United States (Nestle 2013, 43). Healthy People, a report issued in 1979 by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) encouraged a second public health revolution for the United States and reported on an emerging consensus among scientists and the health community (Nestle 2013, 43). This was the last federal publication to explicitly advise the public to “eat less red meat” (Nestle 2013, 43). Progress being made to limit meat consumption was halted by the 1980 election. Under the conservative era of the Reagan administration, a new regime at the USDA was appointed, including an Illinois hog farmer as the new Secretary of the USDA (Nestle 2013, 46). This was positive news for the meat, egg and dairy industries who were very displeased with the 1979 Dietary Guidelines Food: The Hassle-Free Guide to a Better Diet (Nestle 2013, 46). For the next 16 years, no other USDA publication suggested any restriction on meat intake (Nestle 2013, 46).

The Health Obstacles Lobbyists Impose

The United States government has breached its duty to the American public by allowing food lobbyist groups to strongly influence legislation. Lobbyist groups communicate with government officials in order to influence their policies and actions to align with their respective financial interests (Nestle 2013, 95). Negative outcomes from lobbyist groups occur in nearly every industry but for the sake of the objective at hand, the paper will only focus on effects of food lobbyists on public health. The public relies on regulatory agencies to keep food safe for consumption but unfortunately are being deceived through the undue influence of the food industry on federal officials (Nestle 2013, 99). The “revolving door” aspect of the lobbying industry refers to the shifting of federal employees into the lobbying industry. “Today’s public servant is tomorrow’s lobbyist, and vice versa” (Nestle 2013, 99). There is a clear conflict of interest when officials of regulatory agencies shift their career to working directly for the industry. The exchange of money between lobbyists and government officials illustrates this duplicity behind the relationship (Nestle 2013, 102). Dinner parties, golf games and other various social settings are often the circumstances where lobbying takes place (Nestle 2013, 102). Political action campaigns (PACs) refers to the federally sanctioned contributions donors make to members of Congress (Nestle 2013, 99). Food and agriculture businesses use PACs to buy the influence of members to Agriculture Committees. Lobbyists giving gifts to members of Congress is also a widespread practice that Congress has begun to restrict (Nestle 2013, 106).

Legislative Lobby Reform

There have been Congressional attempts to limit the deception present between the lobby industry and the Government. Under section 2 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Congress specified that “responsible representative Government requires public awareness of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the public decision making process in both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government” and continues to assert that “existing lobbying disclosure statutes have not been ineffective” (2 USC § 1602). According to the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, “scandals involving lobbying in Washington are not new” (United States Congress, House, Committee on Rules 2006). Passing this Act was in response to Jack Abramoff’s highly publicized lobby scandal in 2006 (United States Congress, House, Committee on Rules 2006). In addition to this, Closing the Revolving Door, Title I to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA) limits the ability of former Congressmen from joining lobbying firms after leaving office (United States Congress, House, Committee on Judiciary; Rules; House Administration 2007). Title II of the HLOGA is entitled Full Public Disclosure of Lobbying, which amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require stricter lobbying disclosure reports and increased penalties for failure to comply (United States Congress, House, Committee on Judiciary; Rules; House Administration 2007).

Regardless of the lobbying reform, there are still egregious amounts of public deceit committed by powerful lobbyist groups. For example, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is the largest trade food producers group representing hundreds of food, beverage and consumer product companies, lobbying on their behalf (Blanchard 2015, 145). By spending millions at the federal level, GMA has successfully lobbied against public interest for years by blocking the legislation to require a label identifying foods containing genetically monitored products (Blanchard 2015, 145). More recently, GMA has violated Washington's lobby laws. In November of 2020, the Supreme Court held that GMA intentionally violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) by failing to register as a political committee and failing to disclose the source of millions of dollars of donations made (Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association, 2020). The purpose of Washington’s FCPA is to disclose all information respecting the financing of political campaigns and lobbying to assure continuing public confidence of fairness of governmental processes and to assure the public interest will be protected (RCW 42.42.17A). The court held that GMA caused substantial harm that undermined the transparency of voter information and was penalized with an $18 million fine (Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association, 2020). This case was finalized at the end of 2020, making this a pressing and current problem.

The Obstacles Incisive Marketing Presents

The Similarities of Big Tobacco to Big Food

Studies have compared the practices of the tobacco industry and the food industry used to influence legislation and public opinion (Brownell, 2009). The tobacco industry implemented an effective strategy through discrediting science, lobbying government action and advertising to manipulate the public's opinions on their products (Brownell, 2009). In 1954 the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” was a historic advertisement published in hundreds of US newspapers in response to the reported information linking smoking to cancer (Brownell, 2009). The tobacco industry strongly emphasized personal responsibility by stressing that it was not proven that smoking causes cancer (Brownell, 2009). Personal responsibility is used by both the tobacco and food industry to protect themselves from unwanted legislation and is effective through shifting the responsibility away from the parties who make and market harmful products onto the consumers who use them (Brownell, 2009) Over 16 million Americans have died from smoking since the “Frank Statement”- a number that would have been reduced by millions if the industry was not blatantly deceptive (Brownell, 2009). The food industry has the same fatal impact on American lives. Heart disease and other chronic diseases in the United States are often exacerbated or caused by obesity which affects 39% of adults and 18% of youth (Chiang, 2020). Health advocates have encouraged an increased tax on sugary beverages but have been unsuccessful due to the counter-argument that consumption is a matter of personal choice (Chiang, 2020). Smoking and obesity are both systemic problems, therefore making them very difficult to address on the individual level (Chiang, 2020). Even though smoking is an individual choice, the narrative that the tobacco industry fed Americans discrediting science was accepted as truthful, creating a systemic problem. The meat and dairy industry have followed the same playbook to infiltrate the beliefs of impressionable Americans.

Children as Targets

The food industry spends over $1.6 billion on advertisements designed for children and teens (Harris, 2012). Food advertisements have proven to have an impact on children's food choices and health (Harris, 2012). “Public health experts conclude that this epidemic of childhood obesity and poor diet cannot be resolved without dramatic changes in the obesogenic food environment that surrounds young people” (Harris, 2012). The government has not been of help to limit the food advertising exposure children are subject to due to commercial speech protections. Some scholars maintain that the commercial speech doctrine is insufficient and that because false or misleading advertisement is not entitled to First Amendment protection, the advertisements of harmful products should similarly receive no Constitutional protection (Harris, 2012). The ideology that there are “no bad foods” is outdated and harmful which is proven in the current rates of obesity and chronic diseases. The majority of food advertisements catered to children promote nutrient-poor, calorie-dense products (Harris, 2012). Because there is such an abundance of advertising that children are subject to everyday, they are being programmed to believe that consuming such products has no negative consequences (Harris, 2012). To combat this, children are beginning to be taught about both the objective of advertising and the importance of healthy eating but such programs do not reduce the effectiveness of food advertising (Harris, 2012). Nutrition education cannot counteract the impact that food marketing imposes (Harris, 2012). Therefore, the government has an obligation to criminalize such advertisements as the health of impressionable American children is being compromised.

Checkoff Programs

Instead of regulating unhealthy food advertisements, the Federal Government actively promotes them. Unbeknownst to most, Congress created “checkoff” programs which contribute to the nationwide consumption of animal products (Simon 2013, 1). The dairy industry sold 7 billion additional pounds of milk due to the checkoff programs which equates to an extra 47 servings of dairy per person in the United States (Simon 2013, 5). It has been argued that because the advertisements produced from checkoff funds involve private firms and not government participation, these marketing methods are synonymous with any private advertiser (Simon 2013, 5). In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, the Supreme Court has rejected this argument, holding that the “the message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government...All proposed promotional messages are reviewed by USDA officials” (Simon 2013, 6). Checkoff programs have generated catchy slogans such as “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner” which as a recommendation, is not in conjunction with the Dietary Guidelines (Simon 2013, 4). The supposed purpose of checkoff programs is to boost sales and create new jobs but the external expenses that animal food production generates is nearly equal to the economic activity generated (Simon 2013, 8). Additionally, urging people to eat more beef and other animal products is extremely dangerous to the health and livelihood of the American public. For decades, the USDA has been recommending a decrease in saturated fat intake while at the same time creating advertisements which promote an increase in saturated fat intake.

Proposed Solutions

Lobbying Has No Business in Public Health

In order for the United States to lower the rates of chronic diseases caused by the current food supply and eating habits of Americans, there must be reform in several areas. The history of the Dietary Guidelines shows how various food industries lobby the Government to change the wording of the recommendations. Lobbying is an intrinsic aspect of the United States political system, but it no longer is necessary in relation to food policies. Following WWII, food industry groups and the USDA initially worked together to create a plan in the best interest of the public (Nestle 2013, 97). Today, the input of farmers and the food industry on dietary advice is no longer necessary and hinders the health of Americans. If it wasn’t for the unsolicited advice from farmers and the food industry, the Federal Government would have listened to the advice of scientists and recommended a mostly plant-based diet decades ago. If the meat and dairy industry did not have influence over Congress, the McGovern committees report Dietary Goals for the United States would have shaped the entirety of the Dietary Guidelines. However, Senator McGovern was quoted saying that “he did not want to disrupt the economic situation of the meat industry and engage in a battle with that industry that we could not win” (Nestle 2013, 40). The “economic situation” of the meat industry should not be the concern of Congressmen working to improve the health of Americans going through an apparent epidemic of heart disease. Following the 1980 election, Illinois hog farmer John Block was the appointed USDA Secretary and stated that he “was not so sure the government should get into telling people what they should or shouldn’t eat” (Nestle 2013, 48). This remark is extremely concerning because creating the Dietary Recommendations, which tells people what they should or shouldn’t eat, is quite literally the job of the USDA. This position should not be held by someone who doesn’t even believe in it, let alone has a financial interest in the recommendations.

The Current USDA Secretary

To function properly, the USDA needs a Secretary who has no personal financial interest in the agriculture business. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2018 titled Betrayal at the USDA which outlines how Sonny Perdue, the current USDA Secretary, appointed by Donald Trump, has made concerning choices (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018). He appointed Kailee Tkacz, a former lobbyist for the Corn Refiners Association and Snack Food Association to advise the USDA and federal dietary guidelines (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018). Because of the lobby laws in place, she needed a White House waiver to sidestep ethic rules (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018). She is among many of the unqualified appointments Perdue has made that have no background in scientific training, public health or nutrition (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018). Sonny Perdue has made several policy decisions that align with the interests of the agribusiness including: attacking science that addresses the overuse of antibiotics in meat, weakened the standards Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 to allow more sodium and sugar-sweetened milk in school meals and worked with lobbyists to reverse pesticide regulations among others (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018).

Restructuring the USDA

The United States no longer needs someone with an agricultural background as the Secretary of the USDA, but rather someone with a scientific background. Because of the vast history of immoral choices that are continued to be made by the USDA, agencies and committees need to more strictly oversee their decisions. Members who prioritize public health managing the decisions the USDA makes, would lead to far less threats to the livelihood of Americans. There is evidence that change is underway as the Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee states “reduced risk of all-cause mortality was observed in several studies that examined dietary patterns without animal-products, such as those described as vegetarian, vegan, or determined by “plant-based” diet indices (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 2020, 34). This is tremendous progress that will hopefully be implemented into the next Dietary Guidelines. However, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine released a report that criticized the failure of the committee to warn against dairy products, the leading source of saturated fat and linked to lactose intolerance, heart disease and certain cancers (Keevican, 2020).

Dairy Consumption

Dairy is so ingrained into American culture as a necessary part of the human diet that advocating for the removal of this product is controversial. Humans are the only species that consume the milk from another species. “Despite the utter preposterousness of a person being suckled by a cow, the dairy industry has duped the public into believing that cow’s milk is a completely natural food for human beings” (Stepakiak 1998, 34). The milk from one species is nutritionally balanced in nutrients for the development of the babies of the respective species until they are developed enough to survive off food (Stepakiak 1998, 34). The clever marketing of the dairy industry has painted the image to Americans that drinking cow's milk is an innocuous practice. Mistreating animals is a profitable industry norm (Stepakiak 1998, 37). Dairy cows spend their entire lives being artificially inseminated, giving birth repeatedly and having their babies removed from them so that humans can exploit their bodies for milk. This horrible image is not what is told to American consumers.

Factory Farm Conditions

Although exposing animal abuse is not the point of this paper, it is useful to reflect on this fact as many consumers are unaware to the extent of this torture due to the control the animal agriculture has on the average consumer. Aysha Akhtar, a double board-certified doctor in both neurology and preventive medicine with a master’s degree in public health was criticized for speaking on the public health dangers of industrial animal farming, while never actually visiting any farms (Akhtar 2019). Jean Sanders, a dean of the Oklahoma State University’s Center for Veterinary Health Sciences spoke up from the audience inviting Akhtar to visit one of her farms asserting that they are “nothing like what you say” (Akhtar 2019). Akhtar took Sanders up on her offer and was horrified by the conditions of the factory. She reported thousands of maggots squirming on the ground, covering the bottoms of her bootie-covered sneakers (Akhtar 2019). Before being invited by Sanders to visit this farm, Akhtar was turned down from farms as there are laws in place to prevent the public from viewing industry practices (Akhtar 2019). “Ag-gag” laws are used to prevent undercover investigations at agricultural operations. In 2017, the Animal Legal Defense Fund brought action against the Governor of Utah alleging that the Utah statute criminalizing undercover investigations at agricultural operations violated First Amendment and equal protection rights (Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert, 2017). Such laws are harmful to the public as they have a right to know the conditions from where their food supply is sourced. The Utah court held that this law was unconstitutional. This case is another compelling example of how the government will go against the benefit of the public to protect the interests of the farm factory industries. While the court held these laws were unconstitutional, they also violate the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act which requires stronger mechanisms for addressing the nutrition monitoring needs of State governments (7 USC § 5301). Because ag-gag laws prevent the public from knowing the conditions in which their food supply is produced, the mechanisms for nutrition monitoring are consequently weak.

Dietary Recommendations in Other Countries

Many countries have already begun implementing Dietary Guidelines promoting plant-based eating. The 2019 Canada Dietary Guideline recommends to eat plant-based protein more often than animal protein foods (Health Canada, 10). The rationale behind this is to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease as it is a public health concern linked to nearly 50% of deaths in Canada (Health Canada, 10). Several other countries have also recommended plant-based diets such as Sweden, Switzerland, Qatar, Norway, Brazil and Germany (Plant Based Initiative). It is imperative for the safety of the American public that the United States promotes the health benefits of a diet mainly consisting of fruits, vegetables and plant-based proteins.

The Federal Government also has the duty to intervene in problematic marketing that targets impressionable children. The point of this paper is to point out the issues with the current federal and state policies that directly impact the future generations of Americans. Throughout the history portion of this paper, the problems of the USDA, Congress and the food industry are apparent, but the media and the government's complacency is also a silent killer. The check-off programs that the government has created for the purpose of boosting the economy. It is illogical and inconsistent to use government speech to promote eating beef and dairy while at the same telling the American public to consume less saturated fat and cholesterol.

Conclusion

The health implications caused by the food industry and the United States government have existed for nearly a century. Dismantling the consequences is not an easy task but to do so, intervention on the Federal level is imperative. The comparison between “big food” and “big tobacco” highlights how there is a playbook being used to manipulate the public. Both industries stress “personal responsibility” to rid themselves of any liability from the lethal effects their products impose.

This “playbook” used by these industries includes their relationship with Congress. Lobbyist groups have played a major role in the health recommendations that the government suggests. As seen in the aftermath of the McGovern committees efforts, federal attempts suggesting the limitation of animal products is met with extreme pushback from the corresponding industries. Advocating for the complete reconstruction of the way which Americans eat seems like a difficult task but with certain modifications, the death rate and health complications that are linked to the current diet will abate.

The Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has already reported the benefits from a vegan diet and these recommendations must be implemented into the next Dietary Guidelines and be promoted in advertisements. Checkoff programs, which use government speech in marketing, should be used to advocate for fruits and vegetables in order to change public perception of what to eat. Within the Dietary Guidelines, the Federal Government must provide ways for individuals to easily eat a more plant-based diet and products should be made readily available. This transition may seem daunting to many, however, switching from products like whole milk to oat milk will have major benefits to the health of the public.

In order to make these recommendations, a strong USDA staff is necessary. Currently Sonny Perdue, the secretary of the USDA is taking actions that are counterproductive to the arguments made in this paper. The 1990 National Nutrition and Monitoring and Related Research Act,the statute which governs the USDA’s ability to control the Dietary Guidelines, requires the USDA to “provide a scientific basis for the maintenance and improvement of the nutritional status of the people of the United States and the nutritional quality.” This requirement is currently not being met. Restructuring the USDA to have a more scientific basis will undoubtedly result in the recommendations of plant-based products.

As important as it is to recognize the problems the Government is making, marketing also has major implications on the health of impressionable children. The government needs to make strides in limiting such advertisements. Although the Commercial Speech Doctrine has prevented the government from being able to intervene in advertisements promoting unhealthy foods but, this paper argues that a different interpretation of the First Amendment will find that marketing harmful products should receive no Constitutional protection in the same way that misleading advertisements do not receive protection. These advertisements are misleading in themselves as they give children the impression that consuming unhealthy foods will not have adverse effects.

This paper highlighted some of the various issues caused by the food industry. The health and wellbeing of the United States public has been neglected by the United States Government. It is critical to implement policy reform in order to save millions of American lives.

References

Akhtar, Aysha. I studied factory farms for years. Visiting one was far worse than I imagined Salon (2019), https://www.salon.com/2019/04/20/i-studied-factory-farms-for-years-visiting-one-was-far-worse-

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Herbert, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (D. Utah 2017) https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I4c1484e0657d11e7b7978f65e9bf93b3/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0

Blanchard, Krystle. Review of THE HAZARDS OF GMOS: SCIENTIFIC REASONS WHY THEY SHOULD BE REGULATED, POLITICAL REASONS WHY THEY ARE NOT, AND LEGAL ANSWERS TO WHAT SHOULD BE DONE, Regent University Law Review, 2015.

Brownell, Kelly. The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?, 87 Milbank Quarterly 259–294 (2009).

CDC. “FastStats - Leading Causes of Death.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30 Oct. 2020, www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm.

Chiang, Jonathan, et al. “Geographic and Longitudinal Trends in Media Framing of Obesity in the United States.” Obesity, vol. 28, no. 7, 2020, pp. 1351–1357., doi:10.1002/oby.22845.

Diet Related to Killer Diseases: Hearings before the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs of the United States Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977.

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2020. Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC.

Fox, Caroline S., et al. “Temporal Trends in Coronary Heart Disease Mortality and Sudden Cardiac Death From 1950 to 1999.” Circulation, vol. 110, no. 5, 2004, pp. 522–527., (2004)

Giesen, James C. Food and Eating in America: a Documentary Reader. Wiley Blackwell, 2018.

Harris, Jennifer L., and Samantha K. Graff. “Protecting Young People From Junk Food Advertising: Implications of Psychological Research for First Amendment Law.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 102, no. 2, 2012, pp. 214–222., doi:10.2105/ajph.2011.300328.

Health Canada. Canada's Dietary Guidelines for Health Professionals and Policy Makers, 2019. https://food-guide.canada.ca/static/assets/pdf/CDG-EN-2018.pdf

Keevican, Michael. “Dietary Guidelines Report Right on Eating Plant-Based Diet, Avoiding Saturated Fat, Meat, Cholesterol.” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/dietary-guidelines-report-right-eating-plant-based-diet-avoiding-saturated-fat.

Nestle, Marion. Food Politics How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. University of California Press, 2013.

Plant-Based Living Initiative. “Which Countries Have Included Sustainability within Their National Dietary Guidelines? .” Which Countries Have Included Sustainability within Their National Dietary Guidelines?, themouthful.org/article-sustainable-dietary-guidelines.

Simon, David. Meatonomics how the rigged economics of meat and dairy make you consume too much - and how to eat better, live longer, and spend smarter (2013).

State v. Grocery Manufacturers Ass'n, 195 Wash. 2d 442, 461 P.3d 334 (2020) https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6203d020801f11ea956acf20a2390be7/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0

Stepaniak, Joanne. The vegan sourcebook: living with conscience, conviction, and compassion (1998).

Union of Concerned Scientists. “Betrayal at the USDA.” Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018, www.ucsusa.org/resources/betrayal-usda.

United States, Congress, House, House Rules Committee. LOBBYING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT, 2006. 109th Congress, 2nd session, House Report 109-439 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/109th-congress/house-report/439/3

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 42.17A.005 https://www.westlaw.com/Document/N185A1E3089B011EA97FEA5AC7809B0EC/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?