S-1129-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Sponsored by Roger Marshall (R-KS)
What it does
This bill would amend the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 to change how the federal government develops and publishes the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. It would extend the update cycle from every 5 years to at least every 10 years, require the guidelines to go through formal federal rulemaking (notice-and-comment), create a new Independent Advisory Board with members appointed partly by congressional leaders of the opposite party from the President, mandate full conflict-of-interest disclosures for advisory committee members, restrict the guidelines to topics directly related to dietary guidance (excluding topics such as race, socioeconomic status, food production practices, and federal feeding program purchases), and appropriate $5 million per year from 2025 through 2029 to fund implementation.
Who benefits
Americans with nutrition-related chronic diseases, who would receive more targeted dietary guidance. Researchers and advocacy groups who have raised concerns about industry influence on the guidelines, who would benefit from enhanced conflict-of-interest disclosures. Members of the public who participate in federal rulemaking, who would gain a formal comment period. Congressional minority-party members, who would gain appointment power over advisory board seats. Nutrition scientists outside government, who would have a formal role in the Independent Advisory Board and peer review process. Food and agriculture industries whose practices would be shielded from inclusion in the guidelines.
Who is hurt
Public health advocates and researchers who argue the current 5-year cycle keeps guidelines current with evolving science — a 10-year cycle could leave outdated guidance in place longer. Groups focused on health equity (e.g., low-income populations, racial and ethnic minorities) who may lose tailored dietary guidance, since the bill would exclude socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and culture from the guidelines. Federal nutrition program administrators (USDA school meals, WIC, SNAP) whose programs are tied to the guidelines and could face longer gaps between updates. Scientists whose research on food systems or social determinants of health would be excluded from the guidelines process. Taxpayers who fund the $5 million annual appropriation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current dietary guidelines process has been compromised by conflicts of interest and scope creep beyond nutritional science, pointing to peer-reviewed critiques — including a 2020 BMJ analysis — finding that advisory committee members have had undisclosed ties to food and pharmaceutical industries. They contend that applying formal notice-and-comment rulemaking and requiring evidence-based review with standardized, peer-reviewed methods would produce more scientifically rigorous and legally defensible guidelines. Supporters further argue that restricting the guidelines to dietary science — rather than social policy topics like taxation or food production — restores the original statutory purpose and prevents the guidelines from being used as a vehicle for broader regulatory agendas.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that extending the update cycle to 10 years would lock in potentially outdated nutritional science for a decade, given how rapidly the field evolves — the current 5-year cycle was itself established to keep pace with new evidence. They contend that excluding socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and culture from the guidelines would make recommendations less actionable for the populations with the highest rates of diet-related chronic disease, undermining the guidelines' stated goal of improving health outcomes. Opponents further argue that subjecting dietary guidelines to formal federal rulemaking would politicize a scientific process, slow updates, and expose nutrition policy to litigation, while the partisan appointment structure for the advisory board introduces political considerations into what should be an expert-driven process.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to fund and structure federal advisory and rulemaking processes under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). Requiring formal notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. §553 for the guidelines could subject future dietary guidance to heightened judicial scrutiny under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), where courts now independently assess whether agency actions fall within their statutory authority rather than deferring to agency interpretation.
Checks and balances
Congress gains direct oversight through the advisory board appointment mechanism and mandatory pre-update notifications; the executive branch (USDA and HHS Secretaries) retains rulemaking authority but must follow formal APA procedures subject to judicial review.
Historical precedent
The National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 originally established the 5-year dietary guidelines cycle; Congress has periodically debated but not previously enacted changes to the update frequency or rulemaking requirements for the guidelines.