Precisely why we should never have had a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in the first place

Because it is bound to lead to mischief like this:

Unfortunately, ideology now trumps practicality; rather than devoting its time to the group’s actual purpose—serving as the cornerstone of Federal nutrition policy and nutrition education activities—the DGAC is focusing on environmental concerns. As Millen stated at the initial meeting, “Overall, we want to be certain to make recommendations for a healthy, ecologically responsible diet.” The Subcommittee on Food Sustainability and Safety made this objective even more explicit in their presentation at the second meeting when they stated: “The goal is to develop dietary guidance that supports human health and the health of the planet over time.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Miriam Nelson, chair of the subcommittee, did not attempt to hide her desire to manipulate the American diet to promote this agenda. Dr. Nelson was quoted in The Washington Free Beacon as saying that, “Eating fewer animals, but choosing those wisely, and reducing sugar, refined grains, things like that…would actually have a lower footprint than what we are currently doing.”

Right now, the DGAC is still gathering research before they formally issue new recommendations. Nothing concrete has been decided but their public statements have had a significant focus on the environment, including climate change.

It does not matter to “environmentalists” that DGAC’s sole purpose is to consider the health of Americans: For adherents of the environmental extremist movement, human welfare often comes second to that of the environment.

Well, there's also the matter of there being nothing in Mr. Madison's sacred document about government advising us on how to friggin' eat.