ArticlePNAS nexus2022
An analysis of the recent US dietary guidelines process in light of its federal mandate and a National Academies report.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Changes in Healthy Eating Index-2020 Score and Impacts on Body Mass Index among Adolescents in the Growing Up Today Study: A Prospective Cohort Study.The Journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Myths and Facts Regarding Low-Carbohydrate Diets.Nutrients · 2025Review
- The energy model of insulin resistance: A unifying theory linking seed oils to metabolic disease and cancer.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Reliability and reproducibility of systematic reviews informing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a pilot study.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Enhanced Labeling to Promote Consumption of Nutrient Dense Foods and Healthier Diets.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Lipid-Heart Hypothesis and the Keys Equation Defined the Dietary Guidelines but Ignored the Impact ofNutrients · 2024Review
- Conflicts of Interest for Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Members: Neither a New Nor Unexplored Issue.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Private Interests and the Start of Fluoride-Supplemented High-Carbohydrate Nutritional Guidelines.Nutrients · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The US Dietary Guidelines for Americans is an enormously influential policy that has guided US nutrition programs since 1980. During these last 40 years, some researchers have expressed concern that the guidelines are based on an insufficiently rigorous assessment of the scientific evidence, a view that was largely substantiated by a Congressionally mandated 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which identified a need for enhanced transparency, greater scientific rigor, and updates to the scientific methodology for the DGA process. This paper traces the history of these ideas and contextualizes the DGA within the law and regulations that govern its process. The paper also discusses how recent iterations of the Dietary Guidelines have not fully adhered to these guiding documents, which has resulted in diminished independence of the expert committee in charge of evaluating the science for the DGA and a continued lack of a fully rigorous scientific process for producing consistent and trustworthy guidelines for the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.