How do we best make sense of the new dietary guidelines? Part 2
- Barbara J. Mayfield, MS, RDN, LD, FAND
- 20 minutes ago
- 6 min read
The newest version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the 10th edition, for 2025-2030, was released in January 2026. Although other editions have generated some controversy, this edition has created more confusion and controversy than any previous version.
Unlike previous editions, this edition rejected most of the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, instead using a new report generated using a different process than what was outlined in Part 1 of this series.
This blog will describe why that report was trashed and replaced with an updated report, which was used to create the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. If we are to understand the new guidelines, it is imperative that we understand how they were derived.
As I shared in Part I, one of the topics I taught about when I was at Purdue was the Dietary Guidelines. As I reflect on the newest version, I am asking myself, how would I teach this to future nutrition professionals? In this series, I am sharing my answer.
In this week’s blog, we will look at the controversy of the scientific reports.
What happened to the 2025-2030 dietary guidelines?
Why was the original advisory report replaced?
Unlike previous editions of the guidelines, the 10th edition was based on a new report rather than the Scientific Report submitted in December 2024 by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. The newly appointed administration did not agree with the report and pulled together a new committee to generate a new “Scientific Foundation” report. Let’s look at why…
What was in the original report that was unacceptable?
A major cause of rejection was the focus on health equity. The 2025 DGAC was charged with examining the evidence through a health equity lens. As stated in the 2025 Scientific Report:
“The 2025 Committee’s work took place against a backdrop of several significant nutrition-related issues in the United States: Chronic health conditions for which poor nutrition is a risk factor and data that show significant disparities in prevalence of nutrition-related chronic health conditions between sociodemographic groups. Against this backdrop, the Committee’s report is particularly notable for its intentional focus on health equity, which it defined as the state in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to attain their highest level of health. The Committee considered health equity as a guiding principle as it examined the evidence.”
Shortly after this report was submitted, a new administration took office. This focus on health equity was in direct conflict with one of the first executive orders signed by President Trump in early 2025, which was the revocation of federal diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) related programs and actions in the federal government and among federal contractors and grantees.
This disagreement is clearly stated in the updated report as follows:
“To establish a rigorous scientific foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Trump Administration implemented an independent evidence review process to address and correct deficiencies identified in the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC Report), which framed its analysis through a health equity lens. In contrast, the Trump Administration believes that the central framework for the Dietary Guidelines should be the best available nutrition science centered around what humans should eat to prevent and reverse chronic disease and support optimal health. Accordingly, supplemental scientific work was undertaken.”
How else does the new report “trash” the original report?
Of the 56 recommendations made by the 2025 DGAC Scientific Report, the agencies rejected 30, accepted 14, and partially incorporated 12 into the new dietary guidelines. For example:
The new report disagrees with prioritizing plant-based protein and fat sources:
“The Committee consistently advocated plant-based dietary patterns, deprioritized animal-sourced proteins, and favored high linoleic acid vegetable oils. For example, the DGAC proposed reorganizing protein food subgroups to prioritize beans, peas, and lentils while listing meats, poultry, and eggs last—a symbolic reordering lacking scientific justification. The Report recommended that fat replacements “focus on plant-based sources,” encouraged dietary patterns that “increase plant-based and decrease animal-based protein foods,” and continued longstanding recommendations for low-fat dairy and butter replacement, despite emerging evidence that calls these positions into question.”
The new report disagrees with the original report for recommending less rigorous limits on processed foods and sugar:
“Additionally, despite substantial evidence linking highly processed foods to rising rates of chronic disease, the DGAC did not recommend clear limits on their consumption. Instead, the Report emphasized “cultural adaptation” and “flexibility” over clear, measurable guidance. It also failed to take a stronger position on limiting added sugars for children, despite epidemics of childhood obesity and prediabetes in the U.S.”
How does the new report “trash” previous guidelines and the research on which they were based?
The new report blames previous guidelines for not effectively preventing chronic disease and suggests they are based on faulty science:
“These 10 sets of recommendations have failed to effectively counter the rising tide of chronic diseases. Although often presented as settled science, upon close inspection it becomes clear that several enduring tenets have been based on weak or contradictory evidence. Recommendations have relied primarily on findings from non-randomized and uncontrolled studies that are potentially subject to confounding due to healthy adherer bias and other factors, with comparatively little evidence from gold standard randomized controlled trials (RCTs).”
The new report suggests current nutrition research is lacking in causal evidence:
“This report also emphasizes limitations of the existing body of evidence and identifies high-impact evidence gaps to guide future research. These steps are intended to strengthen the scientific basis of national nutrition policy and provide practical, trustworthy guidance to improve the metabolic health, health span, and lifespan of Americans.”
The new report suggests that previous reports led to guidelines that were too hard to follow:
“Moreover, DGA reports have become increasingly lengthy and complex and consequently have not conveyed guidance in a way that is simple, focused, and actionable.”
The use of an inverted pyramid has been accompanied by negative comments about the former Food Guide Pyramid:
"For decades, we have been fed a corrupt food pyramid that focused on demonizing saturated fats, suggesting limiting eggs and meat, and ignoring a huge blind spot: refined carbohydrates." HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., when unveiling the new pyramid
What do you think about the new report?
This would be a question I would pose to the students for them to evaluate both the process and the conclusions of the new report. Students could be assigned to examine various aspects of the new report, such as those quoted above, and describe why they agree or disagree and provide evidence to support their viewpoint.
Some of the potential problems that could be discussed include:
The process outlined by Public Law 101-445 for developing the scientific report was not followed for the new report, especially the lack of public meetings or comments.
Removing the “bias” of health equity appears to replace it with an “anti-health equity bias.” The report does state, “We recognize and share concerns regarding the affordability and accessibility of healthy food, particularly for disadvantaged populations.” However, the affordability and accessibility of foods promoted by the guidelines are major points of concern.
The new committee disclosed potential conflicts of interest, which revealed numerous connections to the meat, dairy, and supplement industries.
The assumption that what is negative about the typical American diet is the result of previous guidelines is faulty. The “typical American diet” does not mirror previous guidelines, as they were, for the most part, poorly followed. Additionally, no previous guidelines have advocated for the consumption of highly processed foods.
Nutrition research has long been underfunded. No previous DGAC would suggest that the research on which they based their recommendations was as complete as they would like. Nutrition research is generally observational and often conflicting, which can undermine confidence in nutrition science.
Considering the push for more RCTs, not only are they often cost-prohibitive, in many instances, they are impractical and unethical. As a member of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Dr. Carol Boushey stated, “We hope no one ever does a randomized controlled trial where the endpoint is death.”
Turning the pyramid upside down feels out of touch by bashing a food guide that was retired 15 years ago. The old pyramid was deemed ineffective and was replaced by MyPlate, which consumers found easy to understand.
The emphasis on animal-sources of protein and fat over plant-sources, the promotion of red meats and high-fat dairy along with no more than 10% calories from saturated fat, the stricter limits on additional sugars, refined carbohydrates, and processed foods, along with looser limits on alcohol, have implications that may make these guidelines impractical, contradictory, and less healthy than intended.
Translating dietary guidance in ways that are simple, focused, and actionable will likely not be easier with these newest guidelines.
What else would you add?
The new report and resulting guidelines are not all bad. Next week’s blog post will summarize the good, the bad, and the ugly of the new guidelines. We will explore:
The Good: What aspects of the new guidelines are consistent with existing evidence and dietary guidance?
The Bad: What aspects of the new guidelines are confusing, contradictory, or inconsistent with existing evidence and dietary guidance?
The Ugly: What aspects of the new guidelines are creating division and may be especially problematic?
For more information about the Dietary Guidelines for Americans:
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
If you liked this content, please share it.
Comments