ΝΕΑ ΔΙΑΤΡΟΦΙΚΗ ΠΥΡΑΜΙΔΑ
|
Ιωάννης Κιούσης, Στέλεχος Διατροφής & Διαιτολογίας
28/2/2026 |
|
Δες και το άρθρο "κόκκινο κρέας και 14 είδη καρκίνου"
Οι νέες διατροφικές οδηγίες των ΗΠΑ νοθεύτηκαν διότι γράφτηκαν από συγγραφείς με σημαντικούς οικονομικούς δεσμούς με την βιομηχανία ζωικών προϊόντων (1-4).
Η πλειοψηφία της επιστημονικής επιτροπής αξιολόγησης - τουλάχιστον 7 από τα 9 μέλη - είχε διασυνδέσεις με :
- την Ένωση Κτηνοτρόφων Βοοειδών,
- το Συμβούλιο Γαλακτοκομικών, και
- το Εθνικό Συμβούλιο Χοιρινού Κρέατος.
Επίσης, υπήρχαν σημαντικά ελαττώματα στον τρόπο συγγραφής τους:
1. Lack of transparency: The selection of the scientific committee, identification of questions for them to review, protocol development, and review process occurred behind closed doors with no public meetings or opportunity for public input.
2. Inconsistent standards of evidence: This report started from a baseline assumption (or “principle”) that all minimally processed, naturally nutrient-dense foods are healthy, with no scientific justification. However, the report simultaneously required strong causal evidence to justify any recommendations that countered that assumption—including those to encourage highly processed foods or discourage red meat, butter, or full-fat dairy.
3. Methodological weaknesses: An inconsistent mix of reviews was used, but most reviews were narrative, which are not systematic and are prone to author bias. Furthermore, these reviews were often authored by a single individual, which makes them even more prone to bias.
4. Conflicts of interest: Most (seven of nine) authors have clear ties to beef, pork, dairy, and high-protein supplement/food companies that stand to benefit financially from these protein-heavy Guidelines.
5. Internal contradictions: The DGAC conducts food pattern modeling analyses to ensure their recommendations make sense as a whole across a full dietary pattern, and will help individuals achieve the correct amount of calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients while meeting food group serving requirements. This new review did not involve comprehensive food pattern modeling, leading to internal contradictions in the final guidelines: One could follow the Guidelines’ food servings recommendations and subsequently consume more than 10% of calories from saturated fat, for example.
5. Use of non-generalizable studies: Weight-loss trials and professional society position statements about the nutrition needs of competitive athletes were used to justify population-wide nutrient and food intake recommendations, resulting in guidance that is inappropriate for the average healthy American (e.g., recommending that highly active individuals may need to increase sodium intake).
6. Errors and missing justifications that call the credibility of the entire report into question. For instance, the scientific foundation appendices do not justify the elimination of a daily quantitative limit for added sugars, or the limiting of added sugars to 10 grams per meal (if they are consumed).
Πηγές:
1. The New Dietary Guidelines Are Here: Why Science Took a Back Seat, Keri Rosen, DO, MSc Dr. Rosen is a board-certified family and lifestyle medicine physician, Loma Linda University
https://ihpl.llu.edu/blog/new-dietary-guidelines-are-here-why-science-took-back-seat
2. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Grace Chamberlin, MPH Updated: January 20, 2026
https://www.cspi.org/cspi-news/what-changed-new-dietary-guidelines-why-it-matters
3. Jan 7, 2026 New Dietary Guidelines Were Written by Authors With Strong Ties to the Food Industry, Doctors Report , PCRM
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-dietary-guidelines-were-written-authors-strong-ties-food-industry-doctors
4. Panel behind new dietary guidelines had financial ties to beef, dairy industries Despite Kennedy’s criticism of corporate influence, some advisers worked with food industry
https://www.statnews.com/2026/01/07/new-dietary-guidelines-review-panel-financial-ties-beef-dairy-industry/
Οι νέες διατροφικές οδηγίες των ΗΠΑ νοθεύτηκαν διότι γράφτηκαν από συγγραφείς με σημαντικούς οικονομικούς δεσμούς με την βιομηχανία ζωικών προϊόντων (1-4).
Η πλειοψηφία της επιστημονικής επιτροπής αξιολόγησης - τουλάχιστον 7 από τα 9 μέλη - είχε διασυνδέσεις με :
- την Ένωση Κτηνοτρόφων Βοοειδών,
- το Συμβούλιο Γαλακτοκομικών, και
- το Εθνικό Συμβούλιο Χοιρινού Κρέατος.
Επίσης, υπήρχαν σημαντικά ελαττώματα στον τρόπο συγγραφής τους:
1. Lack of transparency: The selection of the scientific committee, identification of questions for them to review, protocol development, and review process occurred behind closed doors with no public meetings or opportunity for public input.
2. Inconsistent standards of evidence: This report started from a baseline assumption (or “principle”) that all minimally processed, naturally nutrient-dense foods are healthy, with no scientific justification. However, the report simultaneously required strong causal evidence to justify any recommendations that countered that assumption—including those to encourage highly processed foods or discourage red meat, butter, or full-fat dairy.
3. Methodological weaknesses: An inconsistent mix of reviews was used, but most reviews were narrative, which are not systematic and are prone to author bias. Furthermore, these reviews were often authored by a single individual, which makes them even more prone to bias.
4. Conflicts of interest: Most (seven of nine) authors have clear ties to beef, pork, dairy, and high-protein supplement/food companies that stand to benefit financially from these protein-heavy Guidelines.
5. Internal contradictions: The DGAC conducts food pattern modeling analyses to ensure their recommendations make sense as a whole across a full dietary pattern, and will help individuals achieve the correct amount of calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients while meeting food group serving requirements. This new review did not involve comprehensive food pattern modeling, leading to internal contradictions in the final guidelines: One could follow the Guidelines’ food servings recommendations and subsequently consume more than 10% of calories from saturated fat, for example.
5. Use of non-generalizable studies: Weight-loss trials and professional society position statements about the nutrition needs of competitive athletes were used to justify population-wide nutrient and food intake recommendations, resulting in guidance that is inappropriate for the average healthy American (e.g., recommending that highly active individuals may need to increase sodium intake).
6. Errors and missing justifications that call the credibility of the entire report into question. For instance, the scientific foundation appendices do not justify the elimination of a daily quantitative limit for added sugars, or the limiting of added sugars to 10 grams per meal (if they are consumed).
Πηγές:
1. The New Dietary Guidelines Are Here: Why Science Took a Back Seat, Keri Rosen, DO, MSc Dr. Rosen is a board-certified family and lifestyle medicine physician, Loma Linda University
https://ihpl.llu.edu/blog/new-dietary-guidelines-are-here-why-science-took-back-seat
2. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Grace Chamberlin, MPH Updated: January 20, 2026
https://www.cspi.org/cspi-news/what-changed-new-dietary-guidelines-why-it-matters
3. Jan 7, 2026 New Dietary Guidelines Were Written by Authors With Strong Ties to the Food Industry, Doctors Report , PCRM
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-dietary-guidelines-were-written-authors-strong-ties-food-industry-doctors
4. Panel behind new dietary guidelines had financial ties to beef, dairy industries Despite Kennedy’s criticism of corporate influence, some advisers worked with food industry
https://www.statnews.com/2026/01/07/new-dietary-guidelines-review-panel-financial-ties-beef-dairy-industry/
