Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

5 Concluding Remarks
Pages 103-112

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 103...
... , summarizes its conclusions from these three tasks, and considers the stated perspectives of the federal agencies relative to the recommendations made by the Committee on Redesigning the Process for Establishing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (the 2017 report committee)
From page 104...
... As a result, it is understandable that the Departments were unable to implement all seven recommendations made by the previous committee. Implementation of the 2017 National Academies report recommendations ranged in difficulty from relatively easy to more challenging (i.e., those that would require a multi-year process)
From page 105...
... could not have known about these practices before its work for the process to develop the 2020–2025 DGA began because the committee created them after NESR's work was completed. The committee noted that the absence of the ongoing surveillance system recommended in the 2017 National Academies report hampered NESR's ability to determine the need for and type of updates required to the systematic reviews.
From page 106...
... Task 3 The analyses conducted for Task 3 (see Chapters 3 and 4) required the use of the committee's scientific expertise and judgment, particularly for the 2017 National Academies report recommendations, for which there was a large gap between what was recommended and what occurred during the process to develop the 2020–2025 DGA.
From page 107...
... Creating TEPs for this purpose would have had a low barrier, but none were implemented in the 2020–2025 DGA cycle. Although the Departments sought external expertise from other federal groups, including within their own agencies, the committee interpreted the intent of the 2017 National Academies recommendation as a call to obtain expertise from content experts outside of the federal government.
From page 108...
... IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VALUES FROM THE 2017 NATIONAL ACADEMIES REPORT As noted in this report's conceptual model (see Chapter 3, Figure 3-1) , the desired final outcome of implementation of the 2017 report recommendations is the trustworthiness of the DGA.
From page 109...
... The committee believes that a more systematic, structured, and bidirectional communication process with experts, other stake­ holders, and the public is required to reach the full benefit of the redesign to the DGA process described in the 2017 National Academies report. To promote diversity of experience and expertise, the 2020–2025 DGA process -- for the first time -- included federal-level peer review of the new systematic reviews.
From page 110...
... As noted in Chapter 2, management of COI of individual members of the DGAC committee was updated in response to the 2017 National Academies report (NASEM 2017b)
From page 111...
... The Departments received the 2017 National Academies report for redesigning the DGA process after it had begun again and thus limited time and funding were available to address several of its recommendations. To their credit, the Departments made numerous changes in response to the recommendations.
From page 112...
... 2018. USDA-HHS response to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine selecting the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.


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.