The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) are a set of recommendations that advise Americans on their intake of various food groups, vitamins, and minerals. They are also used by healthcare providers and policymakers to help inform nutrition programs, education, and policy. The DGAs help shape preventative nutrition measures that can offset chronic diseases, and also provide intake recommendations for individuals with varying dietary preferences and across different life stages. A comprehensive report is published every 5 years and builds upon the ideas of previous DGAs. These ideas are all brought together into a visual infographic that can be easily understood by the general public.

What has changed in this version of the DGA’s?

The latest version of the DGA’s has a heightened emphasis on limiting our consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), added sugars, and packaged/ready-to-eat refined carbohydrates.  This specific recommendation has been well-received by health organizations throughout the USA, such as the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR). The AICR stated their approval for these measures, stating that excessive intake of ultra-processed foods and added sugars can lead to unhealthy weight gain, suboptimal diet quality, and increased cancer risk [1]. 

In terms of protein, the new DGAs recommend a daily protein intake of 1.2-1.6 grams per kg of body weight [2]. This is higher than the previous recommendation of 0.8 grams per kg body weight, which is adequate for maintaining health. Top nutrition experts state that there’s no need for Americans to drastically increase their protein intake [3]. Increasing protein intake can be helpful for people who are trying to build muscle through strength training. However, most Americans are already meeting or exceeding the current protein recommendation - further raising the goal value could result in excessive intake, subsequent increases in consumption of fats and calories, and unnecessarily tax our kidneys [3].

Additionally, the DGA’s recommend eating red meat and full fat dairy, and categorize butter and beef tallow as “healthy fats” [4]. This recommendation has been questioned by many experts, because these food sources are high in saturated fats, which are associated with increased levels of ‘bad cholesterol’ (LDL cholesterol). The American Heart Association stated that they were concerned these recommendations could lead Americans to consume more saturated fat, and in turn drive up rates of cardiovascular disease [5]. The AICR pointed out that the “increased emphasis on red meat” is in “conflict with scientific evidence,” as research shows that red and processed meat is associated with higher risk of cancer [1].

Move over, MyPlate!

Photo Credit: U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2026)

The visual model of MyPlate, which has been used for the past 14 years, has now been replaced with a blast from the past: the food pyramid…turned upside down. 

Photo Credit: USDA (2026)

As English readers, we read left to right and top to bottom, so the first thing we see on the pyramid is worth talking about. In the top left corner is protein, more specifically red meat. As we start going slightly downward, we see fruits and vegetables, and also a large number of animal-derived products, including: whole milk, yogurt, eggs, and butter. Compared to the 10 animal-derived protein sources, there are only 4 sources of plant protein. These are: rice/beans, peanuts, walnuts, and almonds. 

This lack of emphasis on plant protein in the food pyramid and the guidelines has warranted responses from experts. Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition at NYU and highly-regarded food policy activist, emphasizes that these guidelines redefine protein consumption as largely animal consumption, and avoid the evidence of plant-based diets benefiting health and environmental impact [6]. At the very bottom of the pyramid, we find “Whole Grains”, which includes the mere three examples of whole wheat bread, rice, and oats. This placement and lack of options in this category is interesting, considering that the quote “focus on whole grains” was exemplified in the guidelines.

Who determines what makes it into the guidelines?

While there has long been a lack of transparency on who at the USDA and HHS specifically writes the DGAs, we know that a group called the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee (DGAC) recommends the ideas and information that should be considered when writing these guidelines. This committee is composed of the nation’s top nutrition experts such as dietitians, PhDs, and medical doctors, who “undergo extensive vetting for conflicts of interest and submit annual financial disclosures” [7,8]. ​​The DGAC provides recommendations to the USDA and HHS based on current scientific literature and the state of American health [9]. 

During the creation of the most recent dietary guidelines, the Trump administration bypassed historical norms and decided to put together their own “independent” group to review the DGAC’s recommendations – stating that they needed an “independent evidence review process to address and correct deficiencies” of the DGAC report. This independent group had nine authors, a number of whom had financial relationships with organizations such as the National Dairy Council and the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, as disclosed in the report [10]. 

The scientific review authors rejected 30 out of the 56 of the DGAC's recommendations. These recommendations included ideas like continuing “to report current dietary intakes by age and life stage”, which has been done in previous iterations of the DGAs [10]. They also chose to only partially implement or reject most guidance related to consuming more unsaturated fats and fewer saturated fats. For example, they did not “reaffirm current guidance to lower consumption of butter and replace butter with vegetable oils that are higher in unsaturated fatty acids.” They also determined it was not necessary to “include more nutrient-dense plant-based meal and dietary recommendation options” [10].

A correlation can be seen between the Trump Administration’s scientific review authors’ financial affiliations and the content of the DGAs – especially regarding the recommendations of full-fat dairy and red meat as protein sources, as well as the classification of butter and beef tallow as so-called “healthy fats”.

Who will be impacted?

The new dietary guidelines set a precedent for federal nutrition programs that serve millions of Americans. This includes programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which will be required to create food packages and nutrition education adhering to the new guidelines [8]. 

US school systems will also be challenged with implementing these dietary guidelines into school meals. Many schools rely on ready-to-eat or processed foods to help feed their students, and cutting back won’t be easy. While they’ve worked with food companies in the past to ensure product formulas to meet DGA requirements, lowering salt and sugar levels even further will pose an added obstacle. The DGA’s also recommend a shift towards whole-food-based meals. Cooking all school meals from scratch would be difficult to accomplish, as many school kitchens lack the proper equipment and infrastructure, and would need to hire and train additional staff to make this transition [11]. 

Another important point to consider is the lack of clarity in the new DGAs on nutrition requirements by age and grade level. The previous guidelines (2020-2025) are more structured in terms of school lunch nutrition, and provide the breakdown of calorie needs and food portions, in addition to providing options of what can be served. The new guidelines give no such recommendations, and solely state the importance of replacing highly processed foods with “nutrient-dense foods and home-prepared meals” [12]. 

Important Takeaways

Experts from many disciplines can agree: the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans have some important nutrition recommendations but lack others that are rooted in science and cultural humility. Certain groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have taken matters into their own hands by releasing their own dietary guidelines. 

For now, the challenge lies in implementing the DGAs in healthcare settings, schools, community centers, and home kitchens. While these guidelines may work for some Americans, others will not see their lives or diets represented in a pyramid that creates a hierarchy of certain foods over others. 

An important thing to remember is that these are called guidelines for a reason. Food choices are highly personal, and one size does not fit all. Americans should be encouraged to take an individualized approach to diet and lifestyle, and to consider their own personal preferences, dietary restrictions, cultural foods, socioeconomic status, environmental concerns, medical conditions, and recommendations from their health care providers.

Works Cited:

1. AICR. AICR’s Reaction to the Launch of the New Dietary Guidelines for Americans. American Institute for Cancer Research [Internet]. 2026 Jan 9 [cited 2026 Mar 24]. Available from:https://www.aicr.org/resources/blog/aicrs-reaction-to-the-launch-of-the-new-dietary-guidelines-for-americans/
2. U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eat Real Food [Internet]. [cited 2026 Mar 24]. America’s New Dietary Guidelines. Available from: https://realfood.gov
3. Aleccia J, Associated Press. PBS News [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Mar 24]. Why nutrition experts are wary of new federal dietary guidelines that advise doubling protein. Available from: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/why-nutrition-experts-are-wary-of-new-federal-dietary-guidelines-that-advise-doubling-protein
4. U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030 [Internet]. Available from: https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf
5. American Heart Association. American Heart Association [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Mar 24]. New dietary guidelines underscore importance of healthy eating. Available from: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/releases-20260107-6915862
6. Nestle M. Politics trump science in new US dietary guidelines. BMJ. 2026 Jan 23;392:s143. doi:10.1136/bmj.s143PubMed PMID: 41577359. (View the full PDF here: Marion Nestle BMJ)
7. U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of Agriculture [Internet]. HHS and USDA; 2024 [cited 2026 Mar 24]. Report No. Available from: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2025-advisory-committee-report doi:10.52570/DGAC2025
8. Bleich SN, Tagtow AM, Woteki CE. Federal Dietary Guidance Upended. JAMA Health Forum. 2026 Feb 26;7(2):e260677. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0677
9. Roeder A. Understanding the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health [Internet]. 2026 Jan 8 [cited 2026 Mar 24]. Available from: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/understanding-the-new-dietary-guidelines-for-americans/
10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030. https://www.cacfp.org/assets/pdf/The+Scientific+Foundation+for+the+Dietary+Guidelines+for+Americans%2C+2025%E2%80%932030/. Published 2024. Accessed March 6, 2026. 
11. Mills K. How the new dietary guidelines could impact school meals. NPR [Internet]. 2026 Feb 5 [cited 2026 Mar 24]. Available from: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/05/nx-s1-5691598/school-lunch-food-pyramid-usda-dietary-guidelines
12. Powder J. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Mar 24]. New Dietary Guidelines May Mean New School Lunches. Available from: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2026/new-dietary-guidelines-may-mean-new-school-lunches

— Vama Naik