Unmasking the USDA Dietary Guidelines: Leveraging AI to Propose New Standards

Calley Means Critiques Corporate Influence, Advocates for Evidence-Based Nutrition -

A post regarding Calley Means recent comments on USDA Dietary Guidelines caught my eye. Read the X post for more details, but the essential message is

The comments critique the integrity of USDA dietary guidelines, alleging they are compromised by significant conflicts of interest with food and pharmaceutical companies. Calley Means highlights how the guidelines have shifted diets toward sugar, carbs, and ultra-processed foods, describing them as marketing tools for these industries. He notes that many individuals involved in drafting guidelines have ties to major corporations like Kraft or pharmaceutical firms like Novo Nordisk, emphasizing the lack of conflict-of-interest rules in the process. Means argues that scientific credibility has been co-opted by corporate agendas, often under the guise of affordability or social justice, leading to harmful outcomes like permissive recommendations on added sugar despite a worsening metabolic health crisis in children. He asserts that scientists should focus solely on delivering accurate, unbiased truth, free from public policy considerations or corporate influence, to ensure policymakers can make informed decisions.

Post from X

AI Magic

I subscribe to the OpenAI Pro service ($200/month). I use it daily to think through tough problems, from creating new healthcare business models to structuring novel financial transactions. I used it the other day to think through a consortium strategy for building a foundation AI model linking soil health to human proteomic expression. On a tough business problem, I might ask it “What would Mike Milken do?” or “What would Elon Musk do”. It gives me some ideas. I share those with our portfolio companies. We develop better ideas.

Evidence-Based Dietary Standards

So, how do we develop objective dietary guidelines? And how do those who want better food and health take on the complexity of the healthcare cost of poor nutrition?

OpenAI is trained in part from PubMed data. So, I used OpenAI o1 Pro to see if it could do a better job than the FDA. Removed from political influence.

The Prompt

I gave it a prompt along with the text of the comments associated with Calley:

The Results from the o1 pro model….

Below is a draft of nutritional guidelines prioritizing clear, evidence-based recommendations while removing sources of bias (especially from food manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and other entities that may have conflicts of interest). These guidelines focus on core principles supported by a substantial body of nutrition science and strive to provide transparent, conflict-free information about healthy eating patterns.

---

1. Guiding Principles

1. Minimize Conflicts of Interest

   • All guideline authors or committee members should publicly disclose financial relationships with any industry groups (food manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, etc.).

   • Individuals or institutions receiving funding from these industries should recuse themselves from shaping core nutritional recommendations.

   • Independent review boards or committees without direct industry ties can help ensure the scientific process remains free from hidden incentives.

2. Base All Recommendations on High-Quality Evidence

   • Reference systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large epidemiological or clinical trials with minimal risk of bias.

   • Cite and transparently summarize research findings, noting limitations and uncertainties where they exist.

   • If existing evidence is inconclusive, clearly label guidelines as “conditional” or “emerging.”

3. Separate Scientific Findings from Policy Decisions

   • Nutritional science committees should focus solely on accuracy and health outcomes—unclouded by cost, social justice goals, or political considerations.

   • Policymakers, schools, and healthcare systems can adapt these scientific findings to specific budgets and populations. However, the science itself should not be altered for reasons of affordability or convenience.

---

2. Core Dietary Recommendations

1. Prioritize Whole, Minimally Processed Foods

   • Fruits and Vegetables: Aim for a variety of colorful produce daily. Evidence consistently links high fruit and vegetable intake with reduced risk of chronic diseases.

   • Whole Grains: Choose intact grains (e.g., oats, brown rice, quinoa) over refined grains (e.g., white bread, white pasta). Whole grains are associated with better metabolic health, reduced cardiovascular risk, and improved gut health.

   • Legumes, Nuts, and Seeds: Rich in protein, fiber, and essential micronutrients. They also provide healthy fats and contribute to satiety.

2. Limit Refined Carbohydrates and Added Sugars

   • Added Sugars: The evidence overwhelmingly suggests a link between excessive added sugar intake and increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

     • Guideline: Significantly reduce added sugar across all age groups. For children, discourage added sugar as much as possible.

   • Refined Grains: These rapidly increase blood glucose levels and often lack fiber and beneficial micronutrients. Replacing them with whole grains is consistently associated with better metabolic outcomes.

3. Emphasize Quality Protein Sources

   • Animal Proteins: Select lean meats, poultry, fish, and dairy (if tolerated). Choose from ethically and sustainably raised sources when possible.

   • Plant Proteins: Beans, lentils, peas, nuts, and seeds. These are beneficial for both health and environmental sustainability, offering fiber and phytonutrients alongside protein.

4. Encourage Healthy Fats

   • Monounsaturated and Polyunsaturated Fats (e.g., from fish, nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil) are consistently linked with positive cardiovascular outcomes.

   • Limit Trans Fats and highly processed industrial seed oils in large quantities. Look for low-heat cooking and fresh oil use to reduce harmful byproducts.

5. Prioritize Nutrient Density Over Caloric Density

   • Focus on foods that are high in essential vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants relative to their caloric content.

   • Educate consumers on the difference between nutrient-dense foods (fruits, vegetables, lean proteins) and calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods (sugary drinks, candy, ultra-processed snacks).

---

3. Special Considerations

1. Children’s Nutrition

   • Strong evidence indicates early childhood diets high in refined sugars and ultra-processed foods increase the risk of metabolic syndrome, dental problems, and poor dietary habits later in life.

   • Recommendation: Limit or avoid sweetened beverages, desserts, candies, and any foods high in added sugar. Focus instead on fruits, vegetables, protein, and whole grains for healthy development.

2. Individual Variations

   • Metabolic Health: People with prediabetes, diabetes, or other metabolic issues may need to further reduce refined carbohydrates and sugars, guided by healthcare professionals.

   • Cultural and Personal Preferences: Nutrient-dense dietary patterns vary globally (Mediterranean, traditional Asian diets, plant-forward Latin American diets). Embrace variety while adhering to core principles of whole foods and minimal added sugar.

3. Public Health Messaging

   • Nutrition advice should be consistent, clear, and not distorted by corporate marketing.

   • Even though cost and practicality matter in public programs, official health science guidelines themselves should not dilute or adjust the message for budgetary or political reasons. Any affordability strategies can be handled as separate guidance by policymakers.

---

4. Implementation and Education

1. Transparent Communication

   • All guidelines should be presented with clear, accessible explanations of the supporting evidence, including citations and open-access sources where possible.

   • Clearly distinguish between strong, well-established recommendations and emerging or suggestive findings.

2. Clear Labeling

   • Encourage labeling that discloses added sugars, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, and potential allergens.

   • Work with third-party, conflict-free organizations to establish consumer-friendly certification programs (e.g., “Minimally Processed,” “No Added Sugar”).

3. Ongoing Review

   • Establish a rigorous periodic update cycle (e.g., every 5 years) to reassess guidelines in light of new research.

   • Allow for public and professional input while minimizing industry-sponsored influence.

---

5. Summary

These updated guidelines aim to eliminate conflicts of interest and present the best possible scientific consensus on healthy eating. The core message remains straightforward and consistent: focus on whole foods, avoid unnecessary sugar and ultra-processed products, and prioritize nutrient density over calorie density.

By decoupling nutritional science from affordability, lobbying, and sociopolitical concerns, the hope is to provide a purely evidence-based foundation on which policymakers, healthcare professionals, and individuals can make informed decisions that protect and promote public health.

---

Some Thoughts…

That is not a bad summary. Very good starting point.

While guidelines are helpful, the right nutrition should also include the nutrition you will adopt. This is the notion of N-of-1 care.

N-of-1 care refers to a highly personalized approach to healthcare that tailors treatments, interventions, and care plans specifically to an individual patient's unique needs and circumstances. Unlike traditional care, which relies on population-level data and averages from large randomized controlled trials, N-of-1 focuses on the variability between individuals, often using real-time data from technologies like wearable devices, continuous monitoring, or advanced diagnostics. It may involve structured experimentation, such as testing different medications or therapies on the same patient, to determine the most effective approach. This patient-centered model dynamically adjusts care based on ongoing responses and integrates factors like genetics, physiology, lifestyle, and personal goals. While resource-intensive and challenging to scale, N-of-1 care represents a significant shift toward precision medicine, optimizing outcomes by recognizing and addressing the complexity of individual health.

While dietary guidelines are helpful, their failure is not just due to political influence; it is also that people will not follow guidelines for many reasons. To achieve Food is Health will likely take something well beyond monolithic dietary standards. While constant monitoring in an N-of-1 model is better, it has complex burdens. But with the evolution of sensors and AI, not only would a future version of Open AI be able to develop evidence-based standards, but it will also be able to modify those recommendations based on N-of-1 factors from age to blood tests.

This leads to a few other thoughts:

1. What economic, cultural, or educational barriers might prevent people from adopting a whole foods diet, and how can those be addressed without diluting the underlying science?

2. How can we better educate healthcare providers and the public to recognize the difference between reputable, transparent studies and those potentially influenced by industry conflicts?

3. Which community-based solutions can help people access fresh, nutritious foods consistently—even in low-income areas—without altering core dietary guidelines?

4. Could certain populations (e.g., individuals with allergies, those requiring specialized diets) need separate, more tailored dietary guidance, and how do we create those guidelines without introducing new conflicts of interest?

These questions can help refine how we apply science-based guidelines in real-world contexts. While the research behind these recommendations is strong, the practicalities of implementation should be addressed outside the scientific core to preserve the integrity and independence of nutritional advice.