Skip to main content

Health Care

Research

Education

Give

About

2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines

What the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines Get Right—and Where They Fall Short

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.

WHERE THERE IS BROAD CONSENSUS

The guidelines appropriately reaffirm several core principles that are widely supported by nutrition scientists and were included in previous guidelines. 

These include recommendations to:

  • Eat more vegetables and fruits 
  • Choose whole grains over refined grains
  • Limit added sugars and avoid excess sodium
  • Reduce intake of highly processed foods (i.e., junk foods high in added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat)

These messages are consistent with decades of research and remain foundational to improving health.

WHERE THE NEW GUIDELINES DIVERGE FROM THE EVIDENCE, FACTS, AND EQUITY

Despite carrying forward familiar themes, the guidelines fall short of translating nutrition science into clear, coherent, and equitable guidance.

Protein is overemphasized, while fiber is downplayed.
The guidelines place a strong emphasis on protein intake, despite robust evidence that shows most Americans already consume sufficient amounts. The proposed protein targets are difficult to meet without exceeding recommended limits for saturated fat and sodium. At the same time, fiber, one of the nutrients Americans most consistently fail to consume in adequate amounts and one that is central to long-term health, is downplayed.

Recommendations around saturated fat are inconsistent.
It was a relief to many nutritionists that the guidelines continue to advise limiting saturated fat to less than 10 percent of total calories, despite many previous statements from the current administration that this upper limit would be discontinued (a position that concerned many health professionals). However, the new guidelines also simultaneously promote foods such as red meat, full-fat dairy, butter, and beef tallow. Following these food-based recommendations would make it difficult, if not impossible, for many Americans to remain below the recommended upper limit for saturated fat threshold, making these guidelines internally inconsistent.

Language around processed foods lacks clarity.
While acknowledging concerns about highly processed foods, the guidelines introduce vague terminology that offers inadequate practical guidance for schools, institutions, and policymakers who are actively working to improve food environments. This lack of specificity risks undermining progress and effectively gives the food industry a pass.

Simple factual errors.
The guidelines suggest prioritizing healthy fats that provide essential fatty acids, yet the examples provided - olive oil, butter, and beef tallow - contain negligible amounts of the two types of essential fats. In addition, Xylitol is listed as a non-nutritive sweetener, despite being a sugar alcohol. These simple factual errors call into question the adequacy of the expert review of the new guidelines.

Biological and cultural diversity are insufficiently addressed.
The continued emphasis on dairy is particularly concerning given that approximately 75 percent of the global population is lactose intolerant. This raises serious questions about whether the guidelines adequately reflect the needs of diverse populations, particularly those without northern European ancestry.

Hypocrisy and equity.
While the 20 members of the DGAC were criticized by the current administration regarding conflicts of interest, the members of the newly assembled committee tasked with preparing the updated guidelines reveal even clearer alignment with the interests of Big Meat, Big Dairy, and Big Food. Notably, the administration cited the DGAC’s consideration in its evidence review of a health equity lens as a “primary concern” and a rationale for dismissing the committee’s science-based recommendations. This rationale reinforces structural bias by treating attention to race, culture, and socioeconomic context as illegitimate rather than essential to evidence-based public health guidance. 

CONCLUSION

Americans deserve dietary guidance that is clear, accurate, inclusive, and grounded in rigorous, evidence-based science. While the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reflect many areas of consensus, they also diverge from science in ways that introduce confusion, inconsistencies, and avoidable errors. This ultimately undermines public trust and will likely lead to unnecessary and avoidable harm to public health and vitality.

Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC)

  • Full DGAC Report (400+ pages): The comprehensive, evidence-based report submitted that was submitted to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services in December 2024 to inform the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines. This report was sidelined by the current administration. The primary reason cited: our work evaluated the evidence through a health-equity lens.
  • Executive Summary (12 pages): A concise, accessible overview of the DGAC's findings. This is the best place to start if you want a clear picture of what the science showed. 

What the Science Community Is Saying