skip to main content

Perspectives from Michael Jacobson, president of CSPI 

July 06, 2016

We recently spoke with Michael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. In January 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services jointly released their 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. We spoke with Jacobson about what the Dietary Guidelines means for consumers and for companies like Cargill.

inpage-michael-jacobsonMichael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest How are the guidelines different this year compared with previous updates?

This year was more controversial than usual. This year, for the first time, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee — which makes recommendations that factor into the final guidelines — made several recommendations with a strong emphasis on sustainability. They were recommendations that some parts of the food industry hated and some environmental groups loved. The most controversial thing was that the Advisory Committee recommended that people eat less meat for both health and environmental reasons. It takes a lot of resources to produce meat, beef in particular.

The committee had said to eat less meat for health reasons also. But for the most part, what happened was that the sustainability aspect was dropped out in the final report. It is true that sustainability was not originally envisioned as part of the guidelines, but then again neither was food safety, and there is a large focus on food safety within those guidelines today.

One thing the guidelines did say was that teen boys and adult men should reduce their protein by cutting back and meat, poultry and eggs. Honestly, saying that teenage males should eat less meat is, in the world of dietary guidelines, a brave move.

Why the specific focus on teens and adult males?

The government looked at who are the big meat eaters, and clearly a man eats more than a woman – more protein foods in general. That was the real thinking there.

I understand there were some changes to the guidelines for sodium as well.

Compared with previous reports, there was less specific guidance for which groups of people are at higher risk from sodium. The guidelines recommend limiting intake to 2,300 milligrams per day, and 1,500 milligrams per day for people with hypertension [and pre-hypertension]. That group, by the way, includes about three-fifths of the adult population. So, that detail of the report is actually stricter than previous recommendations. But that may have little practical effect because we’re so far from achieving it. The average [U.S.] per-person intake is around 3,700 mg right now, so 1,500 is pretty much a pipe dream. To get down to 2,300 right now, especially for men, would be an awesome achievement.

How have the guidelines on sugar changed?

Previous updates had said to limit sugar intake but there was never a number. This time they said that people should limit their sugar intake to less than 10 percent of their dietary intake. That’s 50 grams — or 12 teaspoons — for someone consuming 2,000 calories per day.

Do you think that’s a positive change?

It is, because people can focus on a specific target rather than just a general statement to limit sugar. “Reduce your consumption” is vague. The emphasis should be on added sugars.

That’s what people should be concerned about. Sugar in fruit is fine. Frankly, there was never a problem with sugar until companies, like Cargill, figured out how to process things like sugar beets — and more recently corn — and market more sugar-rich foods and beverages.

For a company like Cargill, what do you think the takeaway from these new guidelines should be?

Cargill makes practically everything, so you can have a big impact. Ideally, Cargill would use its marketing muscle to encourage people in that healthier direction, to encourage consumers to eat more whole grain products instead of refined flour, more fruits and vegetables and less sugar. It could mean breeding leaner cattle, producing leaner beef. Cargill works on lower-calorie sweetener options like stevia, and I think that should be expanded upon. I know Cargill is also working on ways to reduce sodium. There are lots of tricks in reducing sodium and your company has the resources and expertise to make some real headway in that area.

It’s striking that the guidance in these dietary guidelines has only changed in small ways over time. I imagine it can be frustrating to offer the same essential advice over and over.

The advice is pretty similar to what it was 30 years ago. The real challenge is to get people to actually eat that healthier diet. It’s hard to lecture to 300 million people consistently, but governments have an opportunity to adopt policies that would have bigger effects.

One major recent success has been the dramatic reduction in trans fat, first by recommending against it and ultimately the government banned it. Food manufacturers, including Cargill, made the changes necessary to remove them. That’s a major improvement in the healthfulness of the American diet, and people basically didn’t even notice. The same could be done with sodium, changing products in ways people might not notice — and saving tens of thousands of lives every year.