Washington Post reporter, Tim Carman, contacted me for comment about a speech he heard made by RFK Jr’s top food advisor, Calley Means, in which Means made patently false charges about my work. From Carman’s report, MAHA Mondays at the Great American State Fair miss one obvious problem:
Means suggested her research had been bankrolled by sugar and tobacco industries, the latter of which once owned major food companies. The industries “funded her to say that basically the base of our diet should be carbs,” Means said. He added that the report made Americans afraid of foods other than grains.
These charges surprised me for two reasons: (1) Anyone even remotely familiar with my work would know these statements could not possibly be true, and (2) I am not MAHA’s enemy. I support parts of its agenda, and am on record as calling for coalition-building around common objectives.
Means began making the false claims on June 30, when we were on a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival, moderated by Corby Kummer. You can watch the session here and make your own decision about how it went.
I would have let the whole thing go, except that Calley Means followed it up with his speech at the Great American State Fair on July 6. Tim Carman sent me a transcript of Means’ remarks:
In the 1980s, a group called the Sugar Research Council paid her to do a lot of research. And they really funded her to say that basically the base of our diet should be carbs, and the base our diet to be grains, and we should fear fat. And really, we should fear a lot of natural foods in favor of grains. And her research, she claims credit for being the architect of the 1992 food pyramid. And I told her, when we talked last week, I think it’s actually demonstrable that the dietary guidance from the 1990s has been the most destructive public health document in modern history, because they put grains and carbs at the base of the pyramid. And they didn’t differentiate whole grains or refined grains. Why did they do that? That was directly prompted by the food industry, which at the time was the cigarette industry.
Carman asked: “Any of this true?”
Good grief no. Not only are these statements false; they are spectacularly false.
Let’s take them line by line.
Means: In the 1980s, a group called the Sugar Research Council paid her to do a lot of research.
False. In the 1980s, I was teaching nutrition to medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) school of medicine and running a nutrition education program funded by NIH and, later, by the John Tung Foundation. To avoid conflicts of interest, I have a long-standing policy of not taking payments from food companies. The policy is posted on this site here.
Means: And they really funded her to say that basically the base of our diet should be carbs, and the base our diet to be grains, and we should fear fat.
False. Here, I think he must be referring to the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) which funded researchers at Harvard who wrote a skewed review of diet and heart disease in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967; the review downplayed sugar, and emphasized fat. The SRF’s role in this research was exposed in 2016 in JAMA Internal Medicine by Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt and Stanton Glantz: Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. I wrote the commentary on this study: “Food industry funding of nutrition research: The relevance of history for current debates.” I also wrote about both pieces on this site.
Means: And really, we should fear a lot of natural foods in favor of grains.
False. Here, I think, he must be talking about my role as managing editor of the 1988 Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health. The report summarized the research consensus of that time.
“Fats and cholesterol. Reduce consumption of fat (especially saturated fat) and cholesterol. Choose foods relatively low in these substances, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grain foods, fish, poultry, lean meats, and low-fat dairy products.”
“Complex carbohydrates and fiber: Increase consumption of whole grain foods and cereal products, vegetables (including dried beans and peas), and fruits.”
The National Academies’ even more comprehensive report, Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, made similar recommendations in 1989.
Means: And her research, she claims credit for being the architect of the 1992 food pyramid.
False. I have never claimed such responsibility; I had none. My only role in the 1992 pyramid was to work closely with a reporter for the New York Times, Marian Burros, to expose how the meat industry induced the USDA to suppress the pyramid when it was about to be released in 1991. I devoted an entire chapter of my book, Food Politics, to providing the evidence for this.
Means: And I told her, when we talked last week, I think it’s actually demonstrable that the dietary guidance from the 1990s has been the most destructive public health document in modern history,
True. This is what he said and, I assume, is what he thinks.
Means: because they put grains and carbs at the base of the pyramid. And they didn’t differentiate whole grains or refined grains.
False. The USDA’s pyramid brochure said: “Choose a diet with plenty of grain products, vegetables, and fruits which provide needed vitamins, minerals, fiber, and complex carbohydrates, and can help you lower your intake of fat.”
It also says, “Here are some selection tips: ☛ To get the fiber you need, choose several servings a day of foods made from whole grains, such as whole-wheat bread and whole-grain cereals. ☛ Choose most often foods that are made with little fat or sugars. These include bread, english muffins, rice, and pasta… ☛ Baked goods made from flour, such as cakes, cookies, croissants, and pastries, count as part of this food group, but they are high in fat and sugars.”
Means: Why did they do that? That was directly prompted by the food industry, which at the time was the cigarette industry.
Misleading. Yes, the cigarette industry owned Kraft Foods and other food companies at that time, and taught those companies how to use the tobacco playbook to promote unhealthy products (as we only recently learned). But the major food industry influences on dietary guidelines and food guides in the 1980s and 1990s were the meat and dairy industries, as I describe in Food Politics. As far as I can tell, they still are, as witnessed by the 2025-2030 guidelines and inverted pyramid.
But that’s not all. Calley Means said on Instagram: “At @aspenideas, I spoke with @marionnestle – an architect of the 1990s U.S. Dietary Guidelines that led to an explosion of refined carbohydrates and ultraprocessed food in the American diet.”
Misleading again. I was indeed a member (although hardly the architect) of the 1995 Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee. Here is what the 1995 guidelines said about grains.
“Most of the calories in your diet should come from grain products, vegetables, and fruits These include grain products high in complex carbohydrates—breads, cereals, pasta, rice—found at the base of the Food Guide Pyramid, as well as vegetables such as potatoes and corn. Dry beans (like pinto, navy, kidney, and black beans) are included in the meat and beans group of the Pyramid, but they can count as servings of vegetables instead of meat alternatives.”
Doesn’t this look a lot like what the 2025-2030 guidelines say about grains? I think it does.
Yes, the 1995 guidelines did not say anything about reducing intake of ultra-processed foods. How could they? The term was not coined until 2009.
So: Why on earth is Calley Means attacking my work?
I can only speculate. I see the underlying issue in our current food problems as the food industry having profits to stockholders as its primary fiduciary responsibility, as I have described for decades in my daily newsletter foodpolitics.com, and in my books, most notably,
In making false charges, could Calley Means possibly be attempting to deflect attention from the difficulties MAHA is confronting in implementing its agenda? (I will say more about that tomorrow). Means seems to view me as an appropriate target for deflection. Obviously, I disagree.
MAHA’s agenda appears to be running up against the pushback that inevitably happens when you do something that might threaten food industry profits. See, for example:
A final comment
Reasonable people can disagree about elements of nutrition policy. But reasonable people cannot invent a history that did not exist.
If Calley Means or anyone else believes that I have misrepresented the science or the historical record in my lengthy body of work, show me the evidence. I will be happy to consider it.
That’s how Gold Standard Science works. Otherwise, it’s just name-calling.
Addition
I was just sent this link to Vanity Fair’s article about Calley Means.
_____________________
Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.
