This morning, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a press conference to release the 2010 “Dietary Guidelines for Americans.” The document represents the official federal advice on nutrition—which foods to eat, in what quantity, and which to avoid—and it is updated by law every 5 years. It’s a pretty big deal, because its recommendations influence all government food programs, such as school meals, Meals on Wheels, regulatory decisions, and consumer tools, such as the ubiquitous food pyramid.

Overall, the biggest change in the new guidelines is the tone, which has become much more urgent and direct. For example, the 2005 guidelines were content to note that consumers should “follow a diet that does not provide excess calories,” while today’s version is straightforward about the fact that to be healthy most Americans just need to eat less and move more. The change in focus can even be seen in the “appropriate intake” chapter title: In 2005, the government organized its overall consumption advice under the heading “Adequate Nutrients Within Calorie Needs,” while in 2010, the section is titled “Balancing Calories to Manage Weight.”


Changes of this sort might seem minor, but in fact making any sort of official recommendation to reduce or avoid a particular food is fraught with political difficulty—as is immediately clear if you look at the language on meat consumption. Hidden within the document are all sorts of statements that recommend replacing animal proteins with more pulses and nuts—to give a handful of examples: “Vegetarians generally have a lower body mass index;” “Shift food intake patterns to a more plant-based diet that emphasizes vegetables, cooked dry beans and peas, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds;” and “Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils.”

However, in the question and answer session following the briefing, officials waffled in response to this question: Why not cut to the chase and simply say “Eat less meat”? The unspoken answer, it is hard not to assume, is that direct federal advice to consume less animal protein would make the livestock industry very unhappy.

In general, New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle makes the interesting point that the guidelines are perfectly straightforward when talking about what foods to increase (“dark-green and red and orange vegetables”), but “they switch to nutrient euphemisms (sodium, solid fats and added sugars) when they mean ‘eat less.’”

In that context, given the difficulty of making radical recommendations in a government structure that grants industrial agriculture and food companies such a big seat at the table, the new guidelines are quite impressive. They call for Americans to switch from full-fat to low-fat or fat-free milk and drink water over “sugar-sweetened drinks” (meaning soda). They also make a big deal out of salt consumption, suggesting that anyone 51 or older, all African-Americans, children, and adults with hypertension, diabetes and chronic kidney disease should cut their salt intake to 1,500 milligrams a day (which is roughly equivalent to the sodium content of a single fast-food breakfast sandwich; the average American currently consumes 3,400 milligrams per day).

Even more importantly, in my opinion, they devote a whole chapter of the report to the healthy eating challenges posed by America’s obesogenic environment. While nutrition advice naturally puts the emphasis on individual responsibility, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, for the first time, are explicit about the fact that Americans have to make dietary choices “within the context of an environment that promotes over-consumption of calories and discourages physical activity.” Their recommendations in this section involve systemic change, which means that they will be the hardest to implement, and also, I would predict, the most effective:

To reverse these trends, a coordinated system-wide approach is needed—an approach that engages all sectors of society, including individuals and families, educators, communities and organizations, health professionals, small and large businesses, and policymakers.

Among the strategies included are retail partnerships to increase food access, new transportation policies to encourage physical activity, and restrictions on food and beverage marketing to children. In the coming months, as the government rolls out a new pyramid and new policies based on the report, I’ll be watching for progress on these system-wide changes with particular interest. Meanwhile, you can download the entire report as a PDF—if you do (and I’d recommend it—it has some interesting-looking tables and charts), I’d love to hear what else you find.

All images taken from “Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010,” USDA and US Department of Health and Human Services.

  • Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away
    Dogs have impressive observational powers.Photo credit: Canva

    Reddit user Girlfriendhatesmefor’s three-year-old pitbull, Otis, had recently become overprotective of his wife. So he asked the online community if they knew what might be wrong with the dog.

    “A week or two ago, my wife got some sort of stomach bug,” the Reddit user wrote under the subreddit /r/dogs. “She was really nauseous and ill for about a week. Otis is very in tune with her emotions (we once got in a fight and she was upset, I swear he was staring daggers at me lol) and during this time didn’t even want to leave her to go on walks. We thought it was adorable!”

    His wife soon felt better, butthe dog’s behavior didn’t change.

    pregnancy signs, dogs and pregnancy, pitbull behavior, pet intuition, dog overprotection, Reddit stories, viral Reddit, dog instincts, canine emotions, dog owner tips
    Otis knew before they did. Canva

    Girlfriendhatesmefor began to fear that Otis’ behavior may be an early sign of an aggression issue or an indication that the dog was hurt or sick.

    So he threw a question out to fellow Reddit users: “Has anyone else’s dog suddenly developed attachment/aggression issues? Any and all advice appreciated, even if it’s that we’re being paranoid!”

    The most popular response to his thread was by ZZBC.

    Any chance your wife is pregnant?

    ZZBC | Reddit

    The potential news hit Girlfriendhatesmefor like a ton of bricks. A few days later, Girlfriendhatesmefor posted an update and ZZBC was right!

    “The wifey is pregnant!” the father-to-be wrote. “Otis is still being overprotective but it all makes sense now! Thanks for all the advice and kind words! Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn’t check back until just now!”

    Redditors responded with similar experiences.

    Anecdotal I know but I swear my dog knew I was pregnant before I was. He was super clingy (more than normal) and was always resting his head on my belly.

    realityisworse | Reddit

    So why do dogs get overprotective when someone is pregnant?

    Jeff Werber, PhD, president and chief veterinarian of the Century Veterinary Group in Los Angeles, told Health.com that “dogs can also smell the hormonal changes going on in a woman’s body at that time.” He added the dog may “not understand that this new scent of your skin and breath is caused by a developing baby, but they will know that something is different with you—which might cause them to be more curious or attentive.”

    The big lesson here is to listen to your pets and to ask questions when their behavior abruptly changes. They may be trying to tell you something, and the news may be life-changing.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.

  • ,

    Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

    Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.

    While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.

    When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.

    Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.


Explore More Articles Stories

Articles

Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away

Articles

14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations

Articles

Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

Articles

11 hilarious posts describe the everyday struggles of being a woman