she was serving as deputy secretary during the time that dgac was chartered and appointed. the suggestion of including a sustainability and tax issues by the dgac has been a topic of discussion for some time. it's been on topic of intense discussion for some time. i recognize that you both jointly published a blog yesterday acknowledging the sustainability is out of the scope of this exercise and identify i hope to get comments about tax issues as well. i likewise -- i'm likewise sure that you recognize the inclusion of these issues in this process could have resulted in misguided recommendations which would have ill effects on consumer habits. the counter to potential bias in the process is the public comment period. 75-day period was the public's first real opportunity to review the 571-page document. in your written statement, secretary burwell, you mentioned that usda and hhs staff have already fully reviewed all the comments. you said that you focused most heavily on those with scientific justification. help us understand, then, what's going on right now. what have you

from 2015, the dga edition began to solicit nomination for the dgac in 2012.once selected and appointed, the dgac was composed of academics including professor, epidemiologists and even a physician scientist. in a departure from prior dietary guidelines advisory committees, nutritionists and food scientists were not selected to serve on this dgac. understandably questions regarding the inherent baias ar raised that no food industry scientists were included in the dgac committee. in additionally, after the dgac officially disbanded, the farmer advisory committee members decided to hold a public event acting in their capacity as dgac member which is they were not according to the committee's charter. based on the charter, is the dgac's responsibility to review the science and make recommendations to both of your departments which is then developed for final recommendations for the public. it is however not the responsibility of the dgac to educate the general public on a report that still needed to be considered by the hhs and usda before claiming nutritional re

so why would the dgac then recommend that the consumers not? you've used this evidence, pointed to where it could be helpful but then the committee recommends that the consumers not use low-calorie sweeteners as a tool in the tool box to reduce added sugars. if this report is going to have value for the welfare of the american people and you all say you're using the most relevant, basic information, then this clearly contradicts that. >> i think with regard to -- there are two different things. one is what's in the advisory report and the specifics of that as we said are not something we received in the recommendations. my understanding of what is in the committee report with regard to the question of substitution of the drinks is that not enough evidence exists one way or the other to make a recommendation and that that is where the committee left the issue of the specific of the substitution. >> thank you very much. i thank y'all for being here. you've both made reference to the fact that you take these comment periods seriously and that you

the current dgac report recommends that americans consume less red meat. will your agencies be reviewing studies submitted during the comment period that address the recommendations for red meat both pro and con and can you tell me more about that? >> do you want to take that? >> in terms of red meat, i think it's fairly clear there's a recognition that lean meat is and should be part of a healthy diet. i think the challenge is to understand that as americans if we look at the obesity epidemic that we're confronting in the country that some of us are consuming more calories than we should. in relationship to the overconsumption of calories and one way to reduce the overall consumption is to eat less of certain things. and within that category would be red meat but that's by no means the only category. so i want to be clear here -- >> i don't understand. i'm sorry, mr. vilsack, why would you include in that category red meat? why wouldn't you say anything that takes you over a caloric level that's unacceptable you shouldn't eat. why would there be a categor

in their capacity as dgac members which they were not according to the act.t your responsibility to make recommendations to both of your departments, which is then developed for final recommendations for the public. it is, however, not the responsibility for the dgac to educate the general public on a report that still needed to be considered by the hhs before claiming nutritional recommendations were based on dietary guidelines. secretary burwell, what instructions were given the advisory committee members regarding the advisory committee's disbandment? >> with regard to the specifics of the disbandment, i can get back to you, congressman, with regard to the direction that was given to review the science with regard to the issues that were in front of them with regard to the dietary guidelines and present a report about that. so with regard to the question of disbandment, i don't know what, if any, specific direction was given, but i think the point that you've made, which is this is about an advisory committee producing a document, an independent group of p

the current dgac report recommends that americans consume less red meat. will your agencies be reviewing studies submitted during the comment period that address the recommendations for red meat both pro and con and can you tell me more about that? >> do you want to take that? >> in terms of red meat, i think it's fairly clear there's a recognition that lean meat is and should be part of a healthy diet. i think the challenge is to understand that as americans if we look at the obesity epidemic that we're confronting in the country that some of us are consuming more calories than we should. in relationship to the overconsumption of calories and one way to reduce the overall consumption is to eat less of certain things. and within that category would be red meat but that's by no means the only category. so i want to be clear here -- >> i don't understand. i'm sorry, mr. vilsack, why would you include in that category red meat? why wouldn't you say anything that takes you over a caloric level that's unacceptable you shouldn't eat. why would there be a categor

fd yet dgac used a dubious process to call into question its safety, citing weak science against thebackdrop of decades of research that shows otherwise. now we're calling for more research in spite of the fact that fda spent over a decade studying this ingredient and safety and concluded there is no increased risk of cancer from aspertame. during your review of the guidelines, are you consulting with the fda on recommendations after they spent years reviewing the science? >> yes. fda is a part of process at hhs. with regard to the issue of the safety of aspartame -- there are basically five products that fda has said in gip contents are fine and safe. and so, yes, fda is a part of the hhs process. >> how do the inner agencies review impact the final recommendations? >> the review is an extremely important part of the process. i think both the secretary and i have indicated that the input of the advisory committee is something that we are reviewing. but our own experts across our departments, not just fda for us but cdc and nih, as well, the whole department is a part this process. i