We should establish a National Institute of Nutrition
Celebrities like the Jonas Brothers and Drake are having a lot of fun posting photos of what they might look like when they’re old, using apps to age their faces. The truth is that no one knows how many wrinkles or crow’s-feet may show up decades from now. However, we do know that keeping a good diet is one of the key ways to help your body age well. Yet American health statistics increasingly show we still haven’t gotten the memo. Congress should help.
Poor nutrition is both the leading cause of bad health and arguably the most serious threat to the U.S. public health care system. Over two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have nearly tripled since the 1960s and nearly doubled since the 1980s.
The economic impact of managing diet-related chronic conditions, such as heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, is estimated at $583 billion. Yet only about 5% of the National Institutes of Health annual budget is allocated to nutrition research. The establishment of a National Institute of Nutrition within NIH is long overdue. The time is now to begin investing in preventing our children’s future health complications.
Nutrition research is grossly underfunded by the federal government. For example, check out the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) — or in laymen’s terms, “How much vitamin C should I get each day?” These nutrient recommendations are issued by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The majority are outdated by more than 20 years because of a lack of government priority and funding.
We need to conduct more research
Why does it matter? These values are the cornerstone for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a policy document that directs all government nutrition assistance, education and communication programs. This document doesn’t just determine what foods are on the Department of Agriculture nutrition guide MyPlate. Multibillion dollar taxpayer programs like the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) have mandates to be aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and therefore the DRIs.
Americans have options they might not know about for health-promoting substances in their daily diet. For example, Lutein is a vitamin-like dietary bioactive compound that has been shown to accumulate in the macular region of the eye and decrease the risk of age-related macular degeneration. It’s a prime target for a DRI. Flavonoids, those heart-healthy compounds in products like unsweet tea, cocoa and blueberries, are ready for a DRI. Choline, a vitamin considered “essential” since 1998, is now showing astounding impacts on cognition in children whose mothers were supplemented with twice the recommended intake during the third trimester. We need the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and subsequent government programs to reflect this data.
Health care in 2020: Democrats can beat Trump on health care if they focus on high costs and economic security
Congress mandates that every five years, USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services issue Dietary Guidelines for Americans reflective of science. Each cycle, an advisory committee of 15-20 of the most prestigious nutrition scientists around the nation leave behind questions, for which research has yet to address. These questions rarely get answered because of lack of government funding for nutrition.
More funding needed
Another unfortunate side effect of scant nutrition funding is limitations on research. Many people are skeptical of research funding from the food industry, but it’s often the only option due to high competition for dollars at publicly funded universities. This is particularly true for young- to mid-career nutrition scientists. The choice between conducting research that will be seen as biased because of the funder or simply doing without ultimately stifles innovation and new ideas.
Furthermore, the miniscule amount of research dollars allocated for nutrition is scattered throughout the treatment-focused institutes within the current NIH structure. As a result, many of these funds end up in the hands of large medical schools with impressive facilities but lack of expertise or training in nutrition.
Creating a National Institute of Nutrition would solve many of these challenges and enable future generations of Americans to live free from the burden of excessive health care costs. There is a direct link between diet and chronic disease. With 18% of federal dollars being spent on health care, we can no longer afford to go without an organizational government focus on nutrition that a national institute would provide.
Health care needs to be fixed: Medicare for All is a distant dream. Here's how to start fixing health care right now.
While healthy diet and regular exercise are keys to prevention, the causes of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases are varied and complex — with socioeconomic and environmental factors that are inequitably experienced across the population.
This is a bipartisan issue that should be a motivation for political campaigns across the country. Congress should work alongside organizations such as the American Society for Nutrition, and act now.
Taylor C. Wallace is the principal consultant at the Think Healthy Group and an affiliate professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at George Mason University. Follow him on Twitter: @DrTaylorWallace
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: America should establish a National Institute of Nutrition
