Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Summary
Pages 1-16

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 1...
... The National Academies convened the Committee on Redesigning the Process 1 This Summary does not include references. Citations for findings presented in the ­Summary appear in the subsequent chapters of the report.
From page 2...
... THE COMMITTEE'S TASK AND APPROACH In 2021, the Congressional Appropriations Act cited continued interest in the decision-making process leading to the development of the 2020–2025 DGA, particularly the extent to which USDA implemented the 2017 National Academies report recommendations. The overall task given to the Committee on Evaluating the Process to Develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, was described by Congress, then the Departments created specific questions associated with each sub-task (see Box 1-2 for the full Statement of Task)
From page 3...
... To approach its task, the committee considered each recommendation as well as the 2017 National Academies report's stated values. The committee issued its mid course report, Evaluating the Process to Develop the Dietary Guidelines for
From page 4...
... The committee interpreted Task 3 as a request to analyze how the 2020–2025 DGA would have differed in terms of timeline, cost, and integrity if the 2017 National Academies report recommendations had been fully implemented. Some recommendations were not implemented as recommended (even though the Departments might have taken steps to address them in other ways)
From page 5...
... The midcourse report addressed Task 2, a comparative analysis focusing on the systematic reviews used in the process to develop the 2020–2025 DGA. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR TASK 3 Recommendation 1 Findings The committee found that the components of recommendation 1 were not implemented as proposed in the 2017 National Academies report.
From page 6...
... The only substantial input from scientific experts outside of the federal government to the 2020–2025 DGA process was provided by the members of the DGAC. The committee found that such input is not currently available in the strategic planning process or the prioritization of systematic reviews, as the committee does not view the public comments that were solicited by the Departments as providing input equivalent to that obtained from greater involvement with external, subject-matter experts.
From page 7...
... The committee found that a full explanation of all differences between the 2020 DGAC Scientific Report and the 2020–2025 DGA would not have affected the content of the 2020–2025 DGA because these actions would have taken place after the establishment of the DGA. Recommendation 2 Conclusions The committee concluded that recommendation 2 was substantially implemented as the 2020–2025 DGA were largely aligned with the 2020 DGAC Scientific Report and the differences between the recommendations
From page 8...
... For recommendation 3b, the committee found that peer review of the systematic reviews occurred for the first time, but it did not have information to identify constraints that would explain why experts external to the federal government were not included in the peer review as recommended, nor how including them would have changed the results of the systematic reviews. For recommendation 3c, the committee found that, although the DGSAC was not created, the DGAC synthesized and interpreted the results of systematic reviews and drew conclusions independently of NESR.
From page 9...
... The committee found that the current process for selecting CQA t­ opics appears internally driven, with NESR staff identifying the topics based on input from key stakeholders. In contrast, the National Academies 2017 report recommended that both federal and non-federal experts should accomplish strategic planning and topic identification.
From page 10...
... Both full implementation of this recommendation and maintaining best practices for conducting systematic reviews for population-level nutrition guidelines are critical for sustaining the rigor and integrity, and thus the trustworthiness, of the DGA. Recommendation 5 Findings The committee found that some refinements were made to the food pattern modeling used to develop the 2020–2025 DGA but that the analytic methods used did not change and TEPs were not employed to support the food pattern modeling.
From page 11...
... The committee further concluded that the gaps in the implementation of recommendation 6 are unlikely to have substantially affected the content or perceived rigor of the 2020–2025 DGA. Recommendation 7 Findings The committee found that none of recommendation 7 was implemented as proposed.
From page 12...
... TASK 3 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS Overall, the committee concluded that it is not yet possible to evaluate the full potential of the proposed redesign of the DGA process to support its continued improvement. Given the expectations of the 2017 National Academies report committee, an important implication of these conclusions is that opportunities remain to improve the deliberative nature, transparency, rigor, and integrity of the DGA process as well as the ability of the DGA to address the needs of the diverse U.S.
From page 13...
... Implementation of the Values from the 2017 National Academies Report As noted above, the 2017 report committee identified five values that would improve the integrity of the process and lead to the development of credible and trustworthy guidelines. These values provided an additional lens through which the committee viewed its tasks, and are important because they were essential to the redesign of the process and are shared by the Departments.
From page 14...
... Opportunities remain for further improvements in the involvement of external expertise. These include strategic planning and generation of topics for inclusion in the DGA, which includes creation of the DGPCG, or a group including experts external to the federal government, and relevant TEPs; peer review of the systematic reviews by experts external to the federal government, and the involvement of experts to bring systems-science approaches into the DGA process.
From page 15...
... These investments in continuing to redesign the structure and process used to create the DGA can still be made and, in the committee's opinion, are essential because the recommendations are expected to be effective and impactful when fully implemented. Moreover, as noted in the 2017 National Academies report, "Redesigning the process is an essential first step, but evaluation will also be needed to understand whether the public trusts the process and, in the long-term, whether adherence to the DGA recommendations actually improves."


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.