How do we best make sense of the new dietary guidelines? Part 3
- Barbara J. Mayfield, MS, RDN, LD, FAND
- 25 minutes ago
- 10 min read
The 10th Edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released January 7, 2026, is pictured above with an additional subtitle hinting at the subject of this blog post.
This post is the third in a series titled, “How do we best make sense of the new dietary guidelines?” In this series, I am describing how I would teach about the guidelines if I were still in the classroom at Purdue.
The course in which I taught about the guidelines, NUTR 330, Diet Selection and Planning, covered dietary guidance, cultural aspects of food and diet, meal planning, and more. The DGAs were a cornerstone of the class content, covered at the start of the semester. Copies of the report were required reading.
In the first post in the series, we explored the history of the guidelines and the process used by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to prepare the Scientific Report. Much of the content of that post came from a lecture given in that class in 2015, updated with subsequent guidelines.
In the second post, we examined why the DGAC Scientific Report was rejected by the agencies and replaced with the Scientific Foundation Report, following a fast-tracked process by a newly appointed committee. The content in that post was taken largely from the original and updated reports, as they speak for themselves.
In this post, we will look at what’s good, what’s bad, and what’s ugly about the newest guidelines. I share my viewpoints along with those of other experts and professional organizations.
In teaching future food and nutrition professionals, our goal is to help them become critical thinkers, able to differentiate between solid and weak evidence. Generally, questionable sources are misguided influencers, not government agencies. Keeping this discussion politically neutral is my goal.
Organizing the guidelines around what is good, bad, and ugly is harder than one might think because nutrition is nuanced. That is why, as nutrition professionals, we avoid labeling foods as good or bad and prefer to say that “all foods can fit” in a healthy eating pattern.
For example, the overriding theme of the new guidelines is: Eat real food. On the surface, this appears like a sensible message. It sounds like what dietitians have said for decades – get your nutrition from food, not from supplements. Shall we put it in the “good” category? Maybe.
My definition of a “bad” guideline is when it is confusing or contradictory. I would contend that this guideline could be confusing. “Real” isn’t particularly well defined. One could assume it means food in its original state with no added ingredients or processing. Not bad, just not particularly clear. Moreover…
If you read the commentary that goes with this guideline, you will see the bashing and blaming of previous dietary guidelines, implying “For decades, federal incentives have promoted low-quality, highly processed foods and pharmaceutical intervention instead of prevention.” I believe this falls into the ugly category for unnecessary and unmerited negativity. These guidelines, unfortunately, seem primed to stir up distrust in scientific research and the history of nutrition guidance. In my opinion, that’s ugly.
As food and nutrition professionals, it is our role to help consumers make healthy choices. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are to be a roadmap to follow for federal food and nutrition programs and for the public. Let’s see where we can confidently agree, where we will need to provide additional expert advice, and where we will need to be positive advocates for change.
Because sound nutrition advice is nuanced, you will notice that some guidelines are all good, most are good and bad, and some are good, bad, and ugly.
What’s good? Many aspects of the new guidelines are consistent with existing evidence and guidelines.
Eat the Right Amount for You
This message is consistent with previous guidelines and encourages meeting and not exceeding caloric needs. It also emphasizes hydrating with plain water. All good.
Prioritize Protein Foods at Every Meal
Including sources of protein with all meals is a recommendation supported by science. However, opening with “Prioritize” as well as other aspects of this guideline necessitate further explanation.
Consume Dairy
Dairy foods have long been encouraged in previous guidelines as an important source of protein, calcium, and other nutrients. Dairy foods are associated with promoting bone health and reducing blood pressure. However, this version does not suggest alternatives to dairy and encourages full-fat dairy, see below.
Gut Health
The callout to eat for gut health is welcome and supported, encouraging plenty of vegetables, fruits, fermented foods, and high-fiber foods for a healthy microbiome.
Eat Vegetables & Fruits Throughout the Day
This guideline has been well-supported and a foundational guideline since the beginning of the DGAs. The guideline recognizes eating whole fruits and vegetables as well as those that have been frozen, dried, or canned with limited sugar, or, as 100% juices, in limited amounts or diluted. Nearly all good… See below for what is missing.
Incorporate Healthy Fats
This guideline is good on the surface and confusing in the details, as described below. Good to emphasize the need for essential fatty acids. The limit on saturated fats to < 10% of total calories is well supported. See below for the challenge in translating the contradictory guidance it contains.
Focus on Whole Grains
Good to prioritize high-fiber whole grains. However, it is important to note that significantly limiting “processed” grains may have unintended consequences, see below. Also noteworthy is the number of servings recommended is lower than previous guidelines. Is this promoting low-carb eating?
Limit Highly Processed Foods, Added Sugars, & Refined Carbohydrates
This is likely the guideline describing what is not considered “real” foods. Science supports limiting added sugar and excess refined carbohydrates. Science is not as clear on the negative impact of specific additives and the definition of “highly processed,” making this guideline less evidence-based than ideal. See below for additional concerns about implementing the specifics of this guideline.
Limit Alcoholic Beverages
Research supports limiting alcohol intake and total avoidance for specific populations as directed in this guideline. However, previous guidelines included more specific limits than drinking “less.” Is it vague on purpose?
Sodium
Sodium limits are listed by age and are supported by the evidence. See below for potential confusion with other guidelines mentioning flavoring with salt.
Special Populations & Considerations
Overall, these additional guidelines are consistent with previous guidelines. See below for an example of guidance that may be difficult to implement.
What’s bad? Several aspects of the new guidelines are confusing or inconsistent with existing guidelines.
Prioritize Protein Foods at Every Meal
Opening this guideline with “prioritize” could be interpreted to mean protein should be the prominent feature of each meal, when the evidence supports at least as much, if not more, food from high-fiber carbohydrate sources in the form of vegetables, fruit, and whole grains.
The recommended amount of protein per day is much higher than previous guidelines at 1.2-1.6 g/kg of body weight. The current RDA is 0.8g/kg. Increasing one’s protein intake above this will not magically build muscle unless one is in a period of growth or is engaging in muscle-building exercise. Excess intake of protein foods could reduce the intake of vegetables and fruits, which are often eaten in amounts below recommendations.
Additionally, the guideline promotes animal sources of protein over plant protein sources, which is the opposite of what the DGAC Scientific Report recommended. This could lead to an excess intake of saturated fat, see below.
Consume Dairy
Previous guidelines recommend low-fat and non-fat milk to reduce saturated fat and calories. Although recent research indicates saturated fat in dairy may not increase cardiovascular risk, it is not conclusive, and more evidence is needed. Previous guidelines also suggest fortified soy beverages as an alternative to dairy. This guideline does not mention this option, implying there are no alternatives.
Eat Vegetables & Fruits Throughout the Day
What’s missing from the new guidelines are more specific guidelines for vegetable subgroups to meet throughout the week. Those were instrumental in planning menus for populations of all ages. Variety is encouraged but may or may not be followed.
Incorporate Healthy Fats
This guideline has two confusing features. One is the inclusion of butter and beef tallow as healthy fats. This is coupled with a recommendation to limit saturated fat to < 10% of total calories. The guideline suggests that this is achieved by limiting processed foods.
However, the primary sources of saturated fat in the American diet are meats and dairy products. If one meets the protein guidelines with predominantly animal sources and chooses full-fat dairy, not to mention adding butter and beef tallow as fat sources, it is not possible to also meet the guideline for limiting saturated fat. Do the math. It does not add up.
I would assign my students to calculate various ways to simultaneously meet the protein, dairy, and healthy fat guidelines with varying amounts of animal versus plant proteins, varying amounts of high and low-fat dairy, and different types of healthy fats. After all, they will be required to do that with real people and real food in their future.
Focus on Whole Grains
This guideline recommends limiting processed grains, such as “ready-to-eat breakfast options.” This category of foods, such as breakfast cereals, is a primary source of nutrients due to fortification and enrichment. As an example, approximately half of the folic acid consumed in this country results from eating fortified and enriched foods such as breads and cereals. A severe reduction in consumption could have unintended consequences.
The lower serving recommendation may also be detrimental to individuals needing higher carbohydrate levels, and it reduces total fiber intake. If someone ate just the recommended 5 servings of fruits and vegetables, and 2 servings of whole grains, they would average about 22 grams of fiber. This falls short of the 25 grams/day recommended for women and 38 grams/day for men.
Limit Highly Processed Foods, Added Sugars & Refined Carbohydrates
What is “bad” about this guideline is that it's impractical to achieve. Limiting highly processed foods may seem noble and healthy, but could be impractical for those with limited access to fresh foods, cooking equipment, and the time required to cook from scratch.
Achieving very few processed foods is also impractical for federal programs that feed millions of children and seniors with minimal staff and equipment. Meeting this expectation will require support in the form of additional staff, equipment for food preparation and storage, time, and money.
Limit Alcoholic Beverages
If someone currently drinks a six-pack in one sitting, are they meeting the guideline by drinking only 5? Probably not, but someone could make that argument. Specificity is helpful.
Sodium
Several guidelines include statements to season with salt, which contradicts the guideline to limit sodium.
Special Populations & Considerations
The guideline for children up to age 10 calls for no added sugar. There is concern that this may be translated into guidance for school meals that is unrealistic and unenforceable. For families of young children, will birthday cakes and Halloween candy be forbidden? Less is smart, but none feels unnecessary and punitive. Could this promote an unhealthy relationship with food?
What’s ugly? Several aspects of the new guidelines are creating division and may be especially problematic.
Prioritize Protein Foods at Every Meal, Consume Dairy, Incorporate Healthy Fats
These three guidelines have elements that are good, elements that are bad, and elements that are ugly. How? Promoting red meat, full-fat dairy, butter, and beef tallow could be seen as being motivated by the participation of multiple members of the new committee who are supported by the beef and dairy industries. In full disclosure, I have personally given speeches that were financially supported by the beef and dairy councils, yet did not feel compelled to promote animal foods over plant-based foods. These guidelines, many in direct conflict with the science-based recommendations of the DGAC report, give the impression of conflicts of interest. To quote Marion Nestle, in an editorial in the British Medical Journal, January 23, 2026:
“Most troubling is the lack of due process, dismissal of scientific consensus, and overt conflicts of interests in producing these guidelines, despite stated promises that they would reflect “gold standard science” and would not reflect corporate interests.”
Rejection of the 2025 DGAC Scientific Report undermines public trust in science.
This ugliness was best summarized by the American Society for Nutrition. I encourage you to read their statement in its entirety: Here is an excerpt:
“ASN is concerned that departing from the established scientific review process undermines confidence in the DGAs and nutrition science, contributes to confusion and distrust, and obscures the opportunity for meaningful scientific discourse.”
Flipping the old Food Guide Pyramid does not create the clarity it claims.
Criticizing the retired pyramid was an ugly and unnecessary move. The new guidelines make no mention of the popular and much more easily understood MyPlate graphic. We can only hope we can retain it for educating the public. The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health issued a statement about the guidelines:
Here is the summary paragraph:
“Despite stronger positions on added sugars and highly processed foods, and technical alignment with the scientific consensus on saturated fat limits, certain aspects of the 2025 Guidelines send mixed signals. The New Food Pyramid graphic itself is particularly puzzling, given the visual emphasis on animal products high in saturated fat. Although DGAs are typically launched as policy documents, this edition appears more consumer-friendly, given its shorter length, associated graphics, and interactive website. Historically, research finds that Americans do not follow the dietary guidelines, so it remains to be seen if this edition will be any different. However, if you find yourself confused by some of the conflicting messaging, we recommend checking out the Healthy Eating Plate, or consulting a registered dietitian for more personalized guidance.”
Rejection of the focus on health equity may make the accessibility and affordability of meeting the dietary guidelines more difficult.
As the food and nutrition professionals responsible for translating and communicating nutrition science into actionable eating habits, these guidelines present numerous challenges. As the president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Deanne Brandstetter, MBA, RDN, CDN, FAND stated,
“Some of the recommendations in the DGAs are not aligned with the current body of evidence and will create challenges for implementation, particularly across federal nutrition programs that serve millions of Americans. Registered dietitian nutritionists and nutrition and dietetics technicians, registered, play a critical role in applying the DGAs in ways that protect public health and meet the needs of a broad spectrum of populations. However, elements of this version of the guidelines will make that work difficult.”
The American Heart Association released a statement on the new guidelines: Here is an excerpt:
“We see an important opportunity to educate consumers about the scientific basis for certain recommendations. For example, we are concerned that recommendations regarding salt seasoning and red meat consumption could inadvertently lead consumers to exceed recommended limits for sodium and saturated fats, which are primary drivers of cardiovascular disease. While the guidelines highlight whole-fat dairy, the Heart Association encourages consumption of low-fat and fat-free dairy products, which can be beneficial to heart health.”
What do we do with these new guidelines as nutrition communicators?
Stay tuned for the fourth and final post in this series, where we will explore how, as food and nutrition professionals, we can be superheroes, communicating common sense and advocating for sound science and realistic guidance.
For more information about the Dietary Guidelines for Americans:
“The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reflect both consensus and divergence from the evidence. On one hand, they retain several longstanding, evidence-based recommendations that are broadly supported across the nutrition science community. On the other, they depart in important and troubling ways from the evidence-based recommendations put forward by the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a panel of twenty independent, world-renowned nutrition researchers.” ~ Stanford University Medicine Nutrition Studies Research Group
If you liked this content, please share it.
