Washington Legal Foundation: Advisory Committee’s Violations of Federal Law Threaten Credibility of 2015 Dietary Guidelines

Violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) “infect the entire (2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC)) Scientific Report and call into question its recommendations and any federal regulatory proposals that rely on the report or the resulting Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA),” writes The Washington Legal Foundation in a recent blog.

The blog notes that Congress adopted FACA in 1972 to ensure that “standards and uniform procedures” would “govern the establishment, operation, administration, and duration of advisory committees.” However, The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services failed to comply with these requirements in forming the DGAC. The committee was homogeneously academic.

The blog notes that the DGAC members’ active defense of their self-described “bold action” even after the committee was formally disbanded is a further indication of their crusading preference for government solutions over consumer empowerment.

The blog calls for a thorough examination of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) and United States Department Agriculture’s (USDA) establishment of the 2015 DGAC to “help lift the veil that the federal government has placed around the Dietary Guidelines, and allow the public to fully evaluate the document’s nutrition and policy recommendations.”

“FDA’s citing of the DGAC report for including an ‘Added Sugar’ line item on the redesigned Nutrition Facts panel, as well as a percent Daily Value for added sugars, also necessitates a review of FACA compliance,” the blog states.

“Recent press accounts indicate that public-health activists are urging HHS and USDA to release the 2015 Dietary Guidelines before December 11, the day Congress would likely have to act on the appropriations bill that contains the riders discussed above. Actions can, and should, be taken prior to that day to initiate an examination of those agencies’ compliance with the mandates of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The public and respect for the Rule of Law deserve no less,” the blog concludes.

To read this Washington Legal Foundation blog in its entirety, click here.

Print

POSTED IN: The Sugar Packet