How the Government Keeps America Sick and Fat

I agree that the standard American diet is in fact making people sick and fat at an alarming rate, and that addressing complex chronic diseases—obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease—is the key to lowering bloated healthcare costs in the United States. However, lack of nutrition research is not the root cause of the problem. Instead, it’s government food policy that subsidizes commodities making unhealthy, addictive food cheap and easily accessible.

We already know what produces the best health outcomes, and it’s simple. We need a diet that is largely or entirely made up of whole plant foods, sufficient water, to limit (or avoid) alcoholic beverages, to be tobacco-free, to get regular physical activity, and to manage stress. We know this from the countless studies that have already been done, as well as from the longest-lived populations, often referred to as “The Blue Zones.” The only argument or debate is how much animal protein you can consume while still avoiding one or more chronic diseases and maintaining a high quality of life into your 50s and beyond.

The solution is known. It’s eating 7 servings of vegetables (3 of which are dark leafy greens), 3 servings of fruit, a cup of legumes, 2-3 servings of whole grains and a handful of nuts and seeds, drinking 8-10 glasses of water, and moving your body at least one hour each day. Do we really need increased taxpayer funding to do research on a known prescription? It’s basically what our grandparents and great grandparents did before the industrialized economy.

Right now, the USDA’s strategic goals through 2022 are:

1. Ensure USDA programs are delivered efficiently, effectively, and with integrity and a focus on customer service.
2. Maximize the ability of American agricultural producers to prosper by feeding and clothing the world.
3. Promote American agricultural products and exports.
4. Facilitate rural prosperity and economic development.
5. Strengthen the stewardship of private lands through technology and research.
6. Foster productive and sustainable use of our National Forest System Lands.
7. Provide all Americans access to a safe, nutritious and secure food supply.

Nutritious food is buried in the last goal. So, nutrition’s budget of $88 million or 7% of the USDA’s total overall budget seems appropriate for its strategic goals. Now, whether the strategic goals should be changed—that is a topic for a different article.

The mission of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is “to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” We do not want the NIH spending any more money than their current $1.8 billion (or 5% of overall budget) on nutrition research for diseases we already know how to address. Most of these chronic diseases are lifestyle/behavior-driven, and are described by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as largely preventable. Would you want the NIH throwing more money at a problem we know how to fix? Or, like me, would you prefer they use additional money to address diseases that we don’t have solutions for—such as childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, or Huntington’s disease? We should prioritize by need; that’s just logic.

So a pattern must be broken: the government needs to stop using taxpayer money to artificially prop up high carbon-emitting animal agriculture and commodity products that make nutrient-poor ultra-processed foods cheap and ubiquitous in our communities and workplaces.

For example, earlier this year stockpiles of cheese were overwhelming storage facilities due to surplus dairy production. Demand for dairy is down, and we can’t blame President Trump’s trade war; the data does not show a reduction in exports of dairy from the previous two years. The USDA bailed out dairy farmers for this overproduction using taxpayer money. Cheese, loaded with hormones, proteins appropriate for baby calves (not humans) as well as the highest source of artery-clogging saturated fat in the American diet, is not something we need more of. That may be why demand is down.

If the US government wants to get involved in ensuring access to healthy foods for all Americans, it can change food policy to create incentives and programs to make locally sourced, nutrient-dense whole plant foods more widely available and affordable.

This problem is difficult because millions of Americans are addicted to diets based on high fat, sugar and salt. The US government and special interest groups have encouraged this addiction, and now food-addicted Americans are likely to balk at food policy that raise prices for meat, dairy and ultra-processed convenience foods. Because prices will go up if subsidies go away. And the drug companies won’t be too happy about the reduction in recurring revenue stream from costly long-term prescriptions for diabetes, heart disease, and other diet-related chronic conditions.

The authors make a great point about the complexity of biochemical reactions to different foods consumed. But that’s not a reason to throw even more money at nutrition science to address complex chronic diseases. More knowledge won’t result in better health outcomes: there’s no controversy to be cleared up about diet and health. We already know that better health outcomes are realized when people eat a varied whole, plant-based menu, and minimize or avoid animal products and ultra-processed convenience foods.

Yes, the situation is “dire” and “the current status quo is not acceptable”—but the problem isn’t with nutrition science research funding. It is with the taxpayer-funded food policy programs put in place decades ago that make unhealthy, addictive foods cheap and easily accessible.