The USDA is revising its nutrition guidelines. Critics of past federal guidelines, which favored high carbohydrate diets and were compromised by industrial food producers, are closely scrutinizing the new regulations because they advocate “reducing focus on chronic disease risk reduction” and more on “improving the lifespan.” This oxymoronic shift from prevention to cure pervades many modern medical areas. Are conflicts of interest at play?

Americans are now some of the fattest people in the world, and the health consequences are well documented. Sedentary lifestyles and diets of ultra-processed food, unhealthy fats, and the dubious chemical additives that accompany them were reducing Americans’ life expectancies before COVID-19 and the fentanyl pandemic. Indeed, preexisting obesity increases vulnerability to COVID-19, and food additives that cause depression and anxiety may well fuel more than just compulsive eating addictions (also aggravated by food additives that stimulate taste receptors and appetite or suppress natural biological appetite shut-offs).

Food (or Big Pharma?) Pyramid

It has often been argued that past “food pyramids” were unethically influenced by industrial interests that touted high-carb (grain) diets as “healthy.” Americans were told butter was bad; margarine was “better” than Mother Nature; eggs and meats were unhealthy; and women and children were better served by the “convenience” of baby formulas and pre-packaged baby foods. In its recent nutritional iterations, is the USDA focused on the health of humans or corporate profits?

Health-conscious eyebrows are being raised at who is getting a seat at the USDA guidelines drafting table. The list includes many who have benefitted from consulting fees or other remuneration from companies including Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and the dubious World Health Organization, which advocates for a plant-based diet without cautions against the chemical residues commonly present in many modern plant crops. These include cancer-causing pesticides, endocrine disruptors that mimic estrogen, and processed fats that increase obesity. Could it be that such organizations (and the people they employ) suffer from conflicts of interest?

The new guidelines do not appear to distinguish between processed and unprocessed foods. Perhaps there should be one simple food-binary USDA chart for all, split in half: fresh = good; ultra-processed = bad. Instead, the USDA appears to be shifting away from such old-fashioned simplicity and “listen to grandma” advice in favor of the not-so-sweetly singing sirens of Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Junk food.

USDA Mission Shift

The mission shift away from prevention and toward more drug and surgical “interventions” to combat obesity is reflected in recommendations that nutrition information goals should “reduc[e] focus of the Dietary Guidelines on chronic disease risk reduction and more on promoting growth and development and improving the lifespan,” and “leverage technologies to provide more interactive guidance.” People need to leverage their behinds out of their La-Z-Boys and eat healthily if they want to live long lives – whatever their bathroom scale or “body image” tells them.

This horrible USDA dining prescription ensures future profits for both manufacturers of highly processed foods and the pharmaceutical “remedies” to cure them – the “stakeholders” who are re-writing the rules. What of prevention and education rather than cure? How healthy is it to label obesity as a “disease” that excuses people from individual responsibility – as well as hope and control over their illness?

A similar pathological pathway is demonstrated in the addiction treatment world. Pfizer paid the largest fine in US history for lying about Oxycontin while millions of Americans became opioid dependent. The term “addict” was replaced with “substance abuse disorder” to reduce stigma, yet changing the nomenclature does nothing to change the nature of addiction and its harms. As with food, all studies agree that education and prevention are much better modalities to counter drug addiction than treatment. Now Big Pharma sells synthetic opioids (Medically Assisted Treatment, or MAT) to “victims of substance abuse” at taxpayer expense – for life, if necessary. Narcan is available in all Vermont public schools.

Consider the “scientific” involvement in guideline draftsmanship of the Obesity Society (TOS). This global entity is ideologically awakened with victimological prescriptions to rescue obese people not from poor dietary and exercise choices, but from the “disease” of obesity. Its website states:

“Obesity Society is committed to creating a diverse and inclusive organization. … We strive to be a leading force in furthering the scientific understanding of obesity and to highlight and promote equitable access to the best evidenced-based practice for its prevention and treatment while working with partner organizations to eliminate the stigma and discrimination associated with this chronic disease.”

Chicken and egg, or Sicken and beg?

An October 30, 2024, TOS paper titled “The impact of weight self-stigma on weight-loss treatment engagement and outcome” counsels:

“Media often endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes surrounding overweight and obesity, portraying individuals of higher weight as lazy, less competent, and unattractive.

“Weight-based stigma has been linked to many adverse psychosocial outcomes, including increased stress, binge eating, depression, avoidance of healthcare settings, and increased weight gain. Evidence suggests that weight stigma’s adverse effects are exacerbated by its internalization (also referred to as ‘weight self-stigma’), a widespread phenomenon that occurs when an individual identifies with negative attributes ascribed to people with larger bodies and has self-devaluing thoughts because of their weight.

“Indeed, systemic anti-fat bias contributes to a culture where weight loss is desirable, and concerns have been raised that behavioral weight loss treatments may perpetuate weight stigma by reinforcing weight loss as a path to improved health.”

The article attributes “a culture where weight-loss is desirable” to “systemic anti-fat bias.” But isn’t it culturally desirable that people be healthy, and isn’t it medically certain that obesity is unhealthy and a bad outcome? So, are societal stigma and “self-stigma” good or bad? Like obesity itself, readers of TOS documents are drawn into a chicken-and-egg tailspin of blame and obfuscation. Is that the plan?

The sirens of toxic food and toxic cures are singing away at the USDA. Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the dangers of tasty, cheap, chemically laden foods. The ear-tickling, expensive technological drugs and surgical procedures offered by the government and its industry-stakeholder policymakers appear to be more deceptive selections on an increasingly rotten menu of choices.

Perhaps healthier foods and more prevention would make America healthy again.