To the Editor:

The recent MAHA report highlighting an argument that the medical profession may be unduly influenced by "groupthink" and "corporate interests," potentially curtailing research and critical discourse, resonates deeply when considering the field of registered dietitians (RDs). A similar dynamic appears to shape conventional nutritional guidance, particularly concerning the steadfast recommendation for significant consumption of animal products, with an emphasis on dairy.

Many RDs, often guided by established dietary recommendations, advocate for regular intake of meat and dairy as foundational to a healthy diet. However, a considerable body of independent scientific literature presents a more complex and, at times, contradictory picture. For instance, while dairy is promoted for bone health, numerous studies and systematic reviews suggest its benefits for adult bone density are limited, and some research even questions its necessity. Furthermore, independent research has raised concerns about high dairy intake in relation to certain cancers and its contribution to saturated fat intake. Similarly, extensive independent research links high consumption of red and processed meats to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer, and other chronic ailments. This growing body of evidence does not uniformly support the broad emphasis on animal product consumption often seen in conventional dietary advice and, in some cases, points to potential risks.

The persistence of strong recommendations for high animal product and dairy intake, despite nuanced or contrary findings in independent research, begs the question of influence. Could it be that, as the report suggests for doctors, the dietetics profession is also swayed by entrenched conventional wisdom, potentially shaped by powerful corporate interests? These interests have a long history of funding nutrition research, educational materials, and professional organizations.

Indeed, the corporate financing of dietitian education, continuing professional development, and the activities of their primary professional body, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), is a documented concern. Respected New York University Professor Emerita of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, Marion Nestle, has extensively commented on this. As she wrote on her Food Politics blog, RDs’ advice "would be more credible if AND were not so heavily linked to food and beverage corporations, especially those whose products contribute to poor health." This observation strikes at the heart of the issue: when conventional guidance aligns closely with the commercial interests of industries that fund aspects of the profession, it can curtail critical evaluation of that guidance and limit research into alternative approaches for tackling chronic disease.

If RDs are to be seen as unbiased arbiters of nutritional science, it is crucial that the profession critically examines the extent to which corporate partnerships and established dogma may curtail research into, and the promotion of, dietary patterns not reliant on animal products, and thereby truly address the root causes of chronic disease.

Randy Johnston

Potsdam