Addressing misinformation about the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) provides science-based advice on dietary intake to promote health, reduce risk of chronic disease, and meet nutrient needs. It is jointly published by the United States Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (USDA) every 5 y. As chronic diseases continue to rise to pervasive levels, helping the United States population follow the DGA is especially important for improving the health of our nation. The DGA is developed using a rigorous and transparent scientific process, and with the advice of an independent, external committee of leading scientists. Career federal nutrition scientists who manage the process ensure that the methods used to develop the DGA remain state of the art. Unfortunately, misinformation about the scientific basis, transparency, and relevance of the DGA for the United States population threatens its credibility. The main objective of this article is to correct this misinformation with factual information about the process used to develop the DGA. The DGA provides guidelines for the general public, and its primary audience includes policymakers and nutrition and health professionals who help individuals and families consume a healthy dietary pattern. Providing accurate information may bolster trust in the recommendations among these audiences while improving implementation across sectors to promote better adherence to the DGA, thereby improving diet quality among the United States population.

Effects of Inclusion of Food Purchase Restrictions and Incentives in a Food Benefit Program on Diet Quality and Food Purchasing: Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is interest in reshaping the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to better support family nutrition. OBJECTIVE: The Grocery Assistance Program Study (GAPS) for Families evaluated the effects of prohibiting using program funds for the purchase of certain sugary foods on the nutritional quality of foods purchased and consumed by program participants. DESIGN: A randomized experimental trial was carried out with participants randomized to one of three food benefit conditions. Baseline and follow-up measures collected included interviewer-administered 24-hour dietary recalls, food purchase receipts, food security, height, and weight. PARTICIPANT/SETTING: Adult-child dyads in households eligible for SNAP but currently not enrolled were recruited from the Minneapolis/St Paul MN metropolitan area from May of 2018 through May of 2019. A total of 293 adult-child dyads received the intervention as allocated. Of these dyads, 233 adults completed follow-up measures and met criteria for inclusion in the analytic sample, resulting in an attrition rate of 20.5%. A total of 224 children completed follow-up measures and met criteria for inclusion in the analytic sample, resulting in an attrition rate of 23.5%. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: restriction (not allowed to buy sugar-sweetened beverages [SSB], sweet baked goods, or candy with program funds); restriction paired with incentive (30% incentive for fruits and vegetables [FV] purchased with funds); and control (funds provided with no restrictions or incentives). Funds were provided on a 4-week cycle for 20 weeks via a study-provided debit card. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 total score. Additional outcomes included selected HEI-2015 component scores; energy intake; food security; body weight; and purchasing of SSB, sweet baked goods, candies, fruits, and vegetables. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Linear regression analyses were conducted with change in the outcome regressed on treatment condition for the primary outcome analyses. RESULTS: No differences were observed between conditions in change in the nutrition and food security measures examined. Purchases of SSB and sweet baked goods and candies significantly differed by experimental condition. Purchase of restricted foods was lower at follow-up in the restriction and restriction paired with incentive conditions compared with the control condition. For example, spending on SSB at follow-up was significantly lower in the restriction ($2.66/week) and restriction paired with incentive ($2.06/week) conditions in comparison with control condition ($4.44/week) (P < 0.0003 and P < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to find evidence in support of prohibiting the purchase of sugary foods with food program funds as a strategy to improve program participant nutrition, even when paired with an FV incentive. Research carried out in the context of the SNAP program is needed for a more robust evidence base.

Participant Satisfaction with a Food Benefit Program with Restrictions and Incentives.

BACKGROUND: Policy makers are considering changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Proposed changes include financially incentivizing the purchase of healthier foods and prohibiting the use of funds for purchasing foods high in added sugars. SNAP participant perspectives may be useful in understanding the consequences of these proposed changes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether food restrictions and/or incentives are acceptable to food benefit program participants. DESIGN: Data were collected as part of an experimental trial in which lower-income adults were randomly assigned to one of four financial food benefit conditions: (1) Incentive: 30% financial incentive on eligible fruits and vegetables purchased using food benefits; (2) Restriction: not allowed to buy sugar-sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candies with food benefits; (3) Incentive plus Restriction; or (4) Control: no incentive/restriction. Participants completed closed- and open-ended questions about their perceptions on completion of the 12-week program. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Adults eligible or nearly eligible for SNAP were recruited between 2013 and 2015 by means of events or flyers in the Minneapolis/St Paul, MN, metropolitan area. Of the 279 individuals who completed baseline measures, 265 completed follow-up measures and are included in these analyses. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: χ2 analyses were conducted to assess differences in program satisfaction. Responses to open-ended questions were qualitatively analyzed using principles of content analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant or meaningful differences between experimental groups in satisfaction with the program elements evaluated in the study. Most participants in all conditions found the food program helpful in buying nutritious foods (94.1% to 98.5%) and in buying the kinds of foods they wanted (85.9% to 95.6%). Qualitative data suggested that most were supportive of restrictions, although a few were dissatisfied. Participants were uniformly supportive of incentives. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a food benefit program that includes incentives for purchasing fruits and vegetables and/or restrictions on the use of program funds for purchasing foods high in added sugars appears to be acceptable to most participants.