Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

1 Introduction
Pages 13-22

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 13...
... The target population for the DGA will also expand in the 2020–2025 edition to include recommendations for all Americans by including pregnant women and children from birth to 2 years. Despite the many accomplishments, recent challenges to federal nutrition guidance prompted Congress to question the process by which food and nutrition guidance is developed (Conaway, 2015; Hartzler et al., 2015)
From page 14...
... When the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee was released in February 2015, more than 29,000 written public comments were submitted. Only five of these public comments focused 2National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, Public Law 101-445, 101st Cong.
From page 15...
... There was general agreement among commenters that the composition of the DGAC should be diversified and expanded to include additional expertise including government, food industry, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and consumer representatives.3 It was noted that no single sector should have undue influence on the selection process. Some stakeholders supported the current selection process, and others offered suggestions such as publicizing selection criteria and any relevant conflicts of interest, as well as using public nominations for selecting the advisory committee (USDA, 2016b)
From page 16...
... Three specific examples are described below. Aligning School Meal Standards with the DGA As two nutrition programs administered by USDA, the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program must provide meals that are aligned with the DGA.
From page 17...
... In 2009, Massachusetts became the first state to enact a statewide food procurement policy for state agencies.d The resulting nutrition standards developed by the Mas sachusetts Department of Health were based on the DGA, 2005 (Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, 2016) , and have been reevalu ated to ensure alignment with subsequent editions (Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 2012)
From page 18...
... Although most of the evidence and analysis related to the other questions will be reserved for the second report, some issues related to the second report had to be included in the present report when needed to address the advisory committee selection process. For example, the Agricultural Act of 2014 requested that the DGA expand to include people across the life span, adding guidance for pregnant women and children from birth to 24 months.
From page 19...
...  ow the advisory committee selection process can be improved to provide H more transparency, eliminate bias, and include committee members with a range of viewpoints; 2.  ow the Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL)
From page 20...
... Additionally, some of the questions relevant to the selection process, such as how specific priority areas are determined and how the DGAC's conclusions are considered in the final DGA, will be explored in this committee's second report. Committee Methods The National Academies appointed 14 members to the Committee to Review the Process to Update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to respond to a congressional request.4 To assess the advisory committee selection process, this National Academies committee met in person once and convened in closed session three times.
From page 21...
... 2016. Public comments on the scientific report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
From page 22...
... . Comments presented at USDA Dietary Guidelines for Ameri cans listening sessions: Snack Food Association.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.