Hopes dashed as new US dietary guidelines veer off course
By Isabelle Sadler and Shireen Kassam
The Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee did not disappoint and left us hopeful that plant-rich dietary patterns would be at the forefront of the update. Their recommendations included prioritising plant sources of protein, encouraging people to eat less red and processed meat and recommended legumes to be placed within the protein section (where they should have always been!)
Then came the Trump administration and Robert F.Kennedy Jr appointed as the Secretary of Human Health and Services and sadly nutrition guidance has veered off course ever since. One reason cited for dismissing the recommendations of the then DGAC was because of the emphasis on health equity. Since when is this a bad; to consider all people, including different ethnicities and indigenous people? The Eat Lancet Commission has now centred justice at it’s core.
Sidebar: The guidance is accompanied by a 90 page scientific report and a 418 page Appendix. But we have to confess to not having read these documents fully. We just could not face it. When we saw that Ty Beal, PhD, a well known prominent of meat and dairy consumption had reviewed the evidence on vegan diets and written that ‘Most plant sources of protein do not contain all essential amino acids in high enough quantities to meet requirements without being combined with complementary plant proteins or animal-source foods.’ Big eye roll! In addition, processed meats and processed meat alternatives have been considered together as if they represent one entity. Neither are considered to cause health harms. How can that be when processed meat is classified as a group 1 carcinogen by the WHO?
For us, a healthy diet should be nutritious and healthy, sustainable for the producer, society and the planet, affordable and accessible, culturally adaptable and in our view kind and compassionate to all beings. The latest iteration is far removed from meeting these basic objectives.
The good aspects (or less bad!)
We certainly agree with one key recommendation, which is to focus on ‘real food’ and ‘whole nutrient-dense foods’, whilst limiting or avoiding added sugars and refined grains. This includes an emphasis on consuming fruits and vegetables, shown at the top of the flipped pyramid. This contrasts with the typical American diet where more than 50% of energy comes from ultra-processed foods and is therefore lacking in fibre and other health-promoting nutrients found in whole plant foods.
But from there on the guidelines moves away from the scientific consensus.
The bad (and a lot of it!)
The flipped pyramid
The US dietary guidelines have not used a pyramid shape since 2011. Instead, like many countries, it had moved to a picture of a plate (MyPlate), which provides a better depiction of the proportions of certain food groups to consume regularly/daily opposed to providing a hierarchy whereby one might assume eating foods at the top were sufficient.
A misplaced focus on protein whilst failing to emphasise fibre
We don’t have a major issue with the recommendation to consume 1.2 to 1.6g/protein per day rather than the usual global reference of 0.8g/kg, as there is some debate on this topic. However, most Americans are already meeting and exceeding this level of protein intake and thus emphasising it further risks citizens wrongly focusing on this nutrient. The further concern is the emphasis on animal sources of protein such as red meat, dairy and eggs rather than plant sources. Just the sheer size of the images depicting red meat, chicken, whole milk and egg (seemingly a fried egg!) gives the impression that these are preferred sources of protein. This is at a time when Americans are one of the highest consumers of meat globally, with an average daily intake of almost 400g per day. High meat diets, especially if high in red meat, are associated with a higher risk of chronic conditions and premature mortality, in part because it displaces other potentially healthier foods.
The nutrient that should have been emphasised first and foremost is fibre, since it is lacking in the diets of most Americans. Only 5% of Americans currently meet fibre recommendations, with the average intake only half of what is considered necessary for good health. Found only in plant foods, fibre consumption promotes both physical and mental health and wellbeing and is associated with a significant reduction in rates of chronic conditions.
As pointed out by Prof Christopher Gardner, one of the original 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee members, the portions of fruit and vegetables have been changed from cups to servings (1 serving = half a cup), which means that less is being recommended compared to prior versions.
Where have the beans and nuts gone?
We can’t see beans depicted in the pyramid (can you?) and nuts are shown in ridiculously small proportions. These two foods are the healthiest sources of protein, and also serve as a source of fibre and numerous vitamins and minerals.
Without reviewing all the evidence again, beans, lentils, soya foods, nuts and seeds are a cornerstone of every evidence-based dietary recommendation, associated with lower risks of chronic conditions and reduced risk of premature mortality. In the UK, we have an amazing campaign to double the consumption of beans by 2028 for just these reasons. Additionally, a 30g portion of nuts per day is also standard global advice given the association with better health outcomes.
Confusing and conflicting advice
Whilst the guidance to limit saturated fat consumption to less than 10% of energy intake is welcome, if citizens follow the advice to consume more meat, dairy and eggs, there is no way this can be achieved. All the foods that are being emphasised in the guideline are also high in saturated fat content.
The advice to cook with butter and beef tallow also adds further saturated fat to the diet. Although olive oil is also included, other plant-based oils, high in essential polyunsaturated fats are excluded. This is not a surprise as RFK is well known for spreading misinformation about seed oils but his views do not reflect the scientific consensus.
It is unclear why there is an emphasis on whole dairy specifically without consideration of alternative sources of nutrients found within dairy foods. Not only is it higher in saturated fat, it is unsuitable for people with lactose intolerance, especially prevalent in non-White populations. In the UK, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has clearly stated that milk from a cow is not necessary in the diet of children or adults. Health Canada removed dairy as a food group in their industry-free 2019 dietary guideline. This was based on the fact that dairy is not necessary in the diet, represents a more inclusive recommendation and because its production is terrible for the planet. So why do US officials consider dairy essential?
The guidance rightly emphasises the need to limit salt in the diet but then goes on to suggest flavouring foods with added salt!
The importance of the health of the gut microbiome is rightly acknowledged, but again, an emphasis on consuming the foods that promote gut health i.e. plants, is lacking.
Lack of nuance around processed foods
The guideline reads as if all food processing is bad. This is incorrect. It is well known that not all processed foods are created equal and that the degree of processing does not necessarily reflect its nutritional profile or impacts on health. The health harms associated with ultraprocessed foods consumption are almost exclusively due to the consumption of processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and foods high in salt, sugar and saturated fat. Certain processed foods, such as whole grain breads and cereals, fortified plant milks and certain meat alternatives, have not been shown to negatively impact health and can even be beneficial.
A nod to low-carb diets
The guidance endorses a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern. This may not be an issue in and of itself, since a range of macronutrient ratios can make up a healthy diet pattern.
However, people do not shop for macros, they shop for food. The guidance infers that animal-sourced foods should be consumed in favour of carbohydrate-rich foods (i.e. plant-based foods). This way of eating is known to increase the risk of chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and premature mortality.
Woeful guidance on vegetarian and vegan diets
Although great to see the inclusion of vegetarian and vegan diets, the guidance is insufficient to support the adoption of a healthy plant-based diet. Overly cautious, it assumes that vegetarians and vegans will merely remove animal sourced foods and then by default be deficient in a range of nutrients. Plant-based eaters don’t just remove foods, they replace and add in plant-based foods that on the whole can provide all the nutrients we need, bar vitamin B12 and vitamin D (when exposure to sunshine is limited). Since when do vegans have to worry about potassium consumption! One of the major benefits of a plant-based diet is the high potassium intake which is associated with a lower risk of high blood pressure.
Luckily, we had updated guidance in 2025 on vegetarian and vegan diets from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which confirms that these plant-based diets can meet nutritional requirements and can be associated with improved health outcomes.
Failure to provide exact limits on alcohol consumption
Although the guidelines do state limiting alcohol consumption, quantities have been removed from the previous set upper limits in favour of this vague guidance, for no clear reason (apart from industry influence…). Less alcohol means different things to different people. The scientific consensus has moved on from the past medical position that low intakes of alcohol can be healthy. Instead, current consensus is that there is no safe amount of alcohol to consume and zero is the optimal amount.
Failure to consider planetary health
Most recently, updated country-based dietary guidelines have considered the impact of the food system on planetary health and guidance has been tailored to ensure that the dietary recommendation can also support environmental health. Afterall, there are no healthy people on an unhealthy planet and the climate crisis is considered the greatest threat to human health. Without food system transformation, it is not possible to meet global climate and nature targets.
This does not seem to have been considered important in this new guideline. We know that the production of animal-sourced foods, especially red meat and dairy, have the most damaging effect on all indicators of planetary health and hence the scientific consensus, as outlined in the 2025 update of the Eat Lancet Planetary Health Diet, is the need for an urgent global transition to a plant-based food system and dietary pattern.
Clear influence of the meat and dairy industry
The usual transparent and open guideline development was thrown out for a closed door approach whereby the advisory committee for this new guideline was only revealed on the day of release. There is no doubt that the meat and dairy industry have had an oversized influence. At least seven of the nine subject matter experts involved have strong relationships with the meat and dairy industry, including links to the Global Dairy Platform, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Board, and the California Dairy Research Foundation.
They have certainly failed on this stated aim ‘“The American public deserves dietary guidance grounded in the best available science—free from ideological bias, institutional conflicts, or predetermined conclusions.”
Failure to consider the welfare of farm animals
The misguided emphasis on eating animals will encourage people to consume more animals, most of whom (99% in the US) are being raised in industrial farming operations. These ‘factory farms’ are hideous places where animals and the people who work in them suffer immeasurable harm. Since we know all animals are sentient, feel pain, have individual personalities, form loving bonds and want to live, surely, we should be aiming to minimise the harm we cause to our animal kin?
Knowing that a 100% plant-based diet can meet our nutritional needs at all stages and ages of life whilst also having the lowest impact on the environment, this should be the default approach wherever possible.
Our concern for long-term health
The major concern we have as a community of healthcare professionals is that these dietary recommendations will lead to worse long-term health outcomes. Meat and dairy heavy diets will lead to increased consumption of saturated fat, higher blood cholesterol levels, and higher blood pressure, all of which increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases. High meat diets increase the risk of overweight and obesity and also increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. Meat-based diets are associated with higher rates of cancer.
This seems to be a dangerous population experiment.
The silver-lining
It may be a blessing that most citizens do not follow their country-based dietary guidelines. People who focus on eating fibre-rich whole foods are not suddenly going to stop. Eating more plants has been popularised through widespread coverage of the health benefits of eating 30 different plant types per week, the latest trend of fibremaxxing and mainstream interest in improving gut health.
We hope that US citizens will take notice of the critiques being published by highly regarded, qualified and trusted health professionals and researchers. We are also pleased our friends at PCRM have launched a federal legal challenge.
Recommended reading
Dr David Katz
Part 1: on the deficiencies in THESE dietary guidelines
Part 2: on the historical deficiencies in the dietary guidelines process
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Science in the Public Interest in the US have released a healthy re-write of the new US dietary guidelines, based on the evidence. View them here:
Uncompromised Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Available at: cspi.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/20260107_CSPI_uncompromisedDGA_report_4_FINAL.pdf
A Model for Healthy and Sustainable Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Available at: biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/2025-sustainable-dga.pdf
Recommended watching:
I was Wrong about RFK Jr´s New Dietary Guidelines – Nutrition Made Simple