WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 24, 2024—The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) expressed concerns about the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s latest report, criticizing the lack of scientific basis for recommending plant proteins as a replacement for animal proteins.
“The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has the opportunity to benefit public health by following sound science,” said NPPC CEO Bryan Humphreys. “While pork producers support the Committee’s recommendation to increase protein intake, their recommendation to replace animal proteins will severely compromise the American diet, as plant proteins are not nearly as nutritionally rich.”
The Committee recommends moving beans, peas, and lentils from the vegetable group to the protein group. While this increases the amount of recommended protein intake, this would be deceiving to Americans, as there are essential nutrients in animal protein that plant proteins do not provide.
This also puts at risk infants, young children, adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and older adults, as they require higher amounts of protein and nutrients that are provided by animal-based proteins. Pork can fill the gap in protein deficiencies, as well as provide ammino acids, vitamins, minerals, and other micronutrients.
With diet-related diseases on the rise and the continued challenge of food insecurity, science-based nutrition is paramount. Pork is an affordable protein for families, as well as federal nutrition program recipients, including the military and schoolchildren.
The Committee will finalize and submit its scientific report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, allowing for another opportunity for the public to weigh in prior to releasing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Earlier this month, NPPC submitted comments to the Committee, raising scientific concerns around replacing animal protein with plant protein. NPPC will continue to engage with the Departments as a scientific voice for the U.S. pork industry.
Comments