Every new year, people around the world put together a list of their new year’s resolutions; an improved diet is among the goals of millions of people. Earlier this month, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) which are revised every 5 years. The DGAs serve as our nation’s general nutritional recommendations. The DGAC (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) Report is the independent scientific panel’s evidence-based document intended to provide the scientific foundation for the DGAs. This year HHS and USDA implemented a new separate review, entitled “The Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030.” The new review asserts that it provides an independent evidence review process, supporting the Make America Healthy Again Commission emphasis on “the importance of rigor, transparency, and gold-standard research”. Nonetheless, the MAHA review diverges from traditional methods and has led to several conflicting statements across the reports. Most notably, the administration’s review explicitly states its concerns with the DGAC, which considered health equity as a guiding principle throughout their scientific report. The new guidelines from the 2020-2025 DGAs include a clear limit on processed foods, encouraging more whole foods, and higher protein consumption.
The translation of dietary recommendations to consumer-friendly graphics has taken a new turn with the release of an inverted food guide pyramid. The original food pyramid, released by the USDA in 1992, recommended that foods from the bottom of the pyramid, such as bread, cereals and carbohydrates were foods that should be most frequently consumed. These were followed by fruits and vegetables. Fats, oils, and sweets were at the top of the pyramid, indicating that they should be consumed sparingly, and meat, poultry, beans, eggs and nuts and other sources of proteins, and separately milk, yogurt and cheeses were just below fats oils and sweets. The number of servings for each segment of the pyramid were also specified. In 2011, the pyramid was replaced by My Plate, which provided qualitative guidance for how much of each major food group should be consumed. Half of the plate should be devoted to vegetables and fruits, a quarter of the plate to grains, half of which should be whole grains, and half to proteins which included both animal and plant-based sources. Dairy was included in a glass adjacent to the plate. MyPlate provides a useful semiquantitative illustration of the volume of each food group that should be consumed.
The new DGA’s updated and upside-down food pyramid, made no mention of MyPlate as a guide to amounts to consume within each food group. The new recommendations include prioritizing protein at every meal and consuming full fat dairy. In contrast to previous recommendations, the new DGAs put no limit on meat consumption. Saturated fats from beef and dairy are given a pass, although the intake of saturated fat was capped at 10% of calories; perhaps to promote overconsumption of beef, no guidance is provided to enable the average consumer’s ability to calculate the quantity of saturated equivalent to 10% of calories. Plant-sources of protein were not emphasized. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the Academy) has expressed grave concerns regarding the DGA’s emphasis on saturated fats including butter, beef tallow, red meat and full fat dairy. The Academy states “evidence shows that these foods are high in saturated fat, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease”. The other concern about the inverted pyramid is that it now suggests that the amounts of protein and dairy should be comparable to the intakes of fruits and vegetables. The position and size of whole grains at the base of the pyramid minimizes their intake and importance.
These revisions have implications for dietary intake associated with weight loss. Optimal weight loss should minimize the loss of fat-free mass, especially muscle, while maximizing the loss of fat mass. Although protein can increase muscle mass and strength when combined with physical training, excess protein intake can be converted to fat, which may increase visceral fat and the risk of diabetes. Excess protein intake may also increase saturated fat intakes, adding a new risk factor to existing co-morbidities. The new DGAs most mysterious comment states “consume meat with no or limited added sugar, refined carbohydrate or starches…”
A final concern is the conflict of interest among members of the authors of the scientific report. MAHA claimed that many DGAC members suffered from conflicts of interest, whereas members of the new scientific committee delivered gold standard science. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has filed a petition over the guidelines claiming eight of the nine authors of the Scientific Report “received research funding or other compensation from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Texas Beef Council, General Mills, the National Dairy Council and the National Pork Board, among others.” The hypocrisy of their appointments hardly represents gold standard science and calls into question the independence and scientific rigor behind the new recommendations.