If the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) 2025-2030 report  has taught us anything so far, it’s that people love to argue about food as much as they love to argue about politics.

And given that the Guidelines–jointly issued on January 7, by the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture—is a government directive about food, it’s no surprise they’ve generated a lot of heat among health advocates, practitioners, and policy-makers.

Heralded by their authors as “a national reset built on real food,” the new guidelines bear a strong MAHA imprint.  Protein, full-fat dairy, and healthy fats are in. Processed foods, added sugar, soft drinks, and refined carbs are out. There’s lots of praise for fresh, non-processed fruits and vegetables, while grain-based foods get the side-eye.

The new DGA eliminates the old My Plate proportions—half a meal consisting of produce, a quarter whole grains, and a quarter lean protein, with occasional servings of low-fat dairy)—and replaces it with a New Food Pyramid positing animal proteins, healthy fats, fresh produce, and full-fat dairy as the foundation of a healthy diet, with grain-based foods recommended only in small quantities.

The core principles of the new guidelines, especially their emphasis on fresh “real” food and the call to minimize if not eliminate ultra-processed foods (a term that still lacks a formal definition), have won loud applause from across the healthcare spectrum. Generally speaking, those two recommendations are evidence-based and they make good common sense.

But other facets, like the guidelines’ glowing approval of animal-derived proteins and fats—yes, beef tallow is now officially deemed a healthy fat, as is butter—are rankling vegetarians, vegans, and low-fat advocates who insist that wholly or mostly plant-based diets are essential for improving public health. 

Mixed Reviews

Though HHS explicitly positions the DGA as a key tool for stemming and hopefully reversing the tidal wave of chronic disease, Jeff Bland, PhD, one of functional medicine’s leading lights, sees in them something bigger.

Bland praised the new guidelines as, “extraordinary, because for the first time they incorporate the evolving science that we understand about the role that food has on health. Not just on disease, but on health. It goes from a negative spin of preventing disease to a positive spin of producing health.”

Mark Hyman, MD, former director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Functional Medicine, longtime friend of RFK Jr, and one of MAHA’s most prominent medical voices, stated in a Facebook post that, “For the first time in my medical lifetime, the US government is telling the truth about food. This marks a real course correction after decades of advice that coincided with rising obesity, diabetes, and diet-driven chronic disease.”

Hyman went on to say that the new DGAs recognize that “what we eat matters more than how many calories we count.” He added that the guidelines, “aren’t perfect, and personalization still matters. But this is the most scientifically defensible set of Dietary Guidelines we’ve seen.” He called them “a necessary first step, not the final answer.”

Others are not so impressed. Marion Nestle, emerita professor of nutrition and public health at New York University, described the new DGAs as “Cheerful, muddled, contradictory, ideological, and retro.”

In a recent post on her Food Politics website, she took particular issue with the seemingly contradictory advice to increase meat and full-fat dairy intake while limiting saturated fat. “If you increase the amount of protein, meat, and full-fat dairy in your diet, you will not be able to keep your saturated fat intake below 10% of calories, and you will have a harder time maintaining caloric balance—fat has twice the calories as protein or carbohydrate.”

Further, Nestle points out that the guidelines recommend that people increase their dietary fiber. But compared to the previous DGA, the new ones reduce rather than increase total amounts of fruit and vegetables they recommend. “If you want to increase the amount of fiber in your diet, you need to prioritize vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, not meat and dairy.”

Ending the “War on Protein”

The guidelines have definitely found favor with MAHA’s meat-lovin’, iron-pumpin’ Gym Bro contingency.

“We are ending the war on protein,” states realfood.gov, the newly created government website supporting the new DGA. “Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources, paired with healthy fats from whole foods such as eggs, seafood, meats, full-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados.”

The DGA advises adults eat 1.2 – 1.6 g of protein per kg body weight daily, “adjusting as needed based on your individual caloric requirements.” That’s basically a doubling of the longstanding Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of 0.8 g per kg.

The authors consider as “healthy proteins” eggs, poultry, seafood, and red meat, “as well as a variety of plant-sourced protein foods, including beans, peas, lentils, legumes, nuts, seeds, and soy.”

In a January 7 press conference, HHS secretary Kennedy also stated that he is “ending the war on saturated fats.”

“Beef is BACK! Whole milk is BACK! Butter is BACK! Bacon is BACK! Eggs are Back!” Kennedy gleefully crowed on his X account. “The war on real, nutrient-dense food is over. Are you ready to enjoy eating again?”

The hyperbolic warfare references reflect a belief that past federal guidelines de-emphasized meat and butter, vilified full-fat dairy, and promoted over-consumption of processed and artificial “low-fat” and “low-cal” foods, to the detriment of overall public health and personal pleasure.

While the new protein guideline is indeed a change from the past, the saturated fat guideline is exactly the same as in the previous DGA: saturated fats should not exceed 10% of total daily calories. But as Nestle and other nutrition scientists have pointed out, that’ll be hard to achieve if people start eating more red meat, butter, and beef tallow.

The broad-brush recommendation to double protein intake has prompted criticism from nutritionists who believe that most Americans are already eating as much protein as they really need, and some are over-consuming.  

Noticeably absent in the new DGAs is any explicit mention of seed oils, which Kennedy and other MAHA thought-leaders have vilified as inherently unhealthy. That viewpoint is controversial and has been the subject of heated debates in nutrition science circles over the past year.

Key Recommendations

Among the other key recommendations in the new DGA are:

• Explicit promotion of full-fat dairy: The guidelines suggest a daily intake of 3 servings of full-fat, non-sweetened dairy products as part of a 2,000-calorie daily diet. Notably, there’s no recognition that many people are lactose-intolerant or otherwise sensitive to dairy and probably should avoid it for optimal health. Nor is there any specific mention of plant-based milk substitutes.
• Strong but vague emphasis on fruits & vegetables: The DGAs advise eating three daily servings vegetables, and two servings of fruit, ideally in a whole, raw, or minimally cooked form. That’s more or less in line with the previous DGA, though the older document expressed the recommendations in practical terms, as cup-equivalents (1.5 – 2 for fruit, 2-3 for vegetables). The term “serving,” used in the new DGA, is ambiguous and can be interpreted in many ways.
• Incorporation of whole grains: The guidelines recommend 2-4 servings of fiber-rich whole grains per day, while simultaneously reducing intake of refined grain-based carbs.
• Limit processed, packaged foods: One of the main strengths of the new DGAs is that they unequivocally direct Americans to “avoid highly processed packaged, prepared, ready-to-eat, or other foods that are salty or sweet.” This, along with the recommendation to eliminate sweetened sodas and “energy” drinks, is one of the advisories that has met with universal agreement among health advocates.
• Limit Sugar & Salt: The new DGA suggests limiting total sugar intake to no more than 10g per meal, and keeping sodium intake to less than 2,300 mg per day, though the authors acknowledge that athletes and highly active people may need more salt to replace that lost in sweat.
• Reduce Alcohol: Reflecting a general nationwide trend toward temperance, the new guidelines does away with the prior notion that 1 alcoholic drink per day for women, and two for men (aka “moderate drinking”) are reasonably safe and healthy limits. The current DGA gives no specific quantities but simply advises people to “consume less alcohol for better health.”

A Step Forward…or Backward?

Though Secretary Kennedy and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins tout the new DGA as a major step forward for nutrition and health, Dr. Nestle believes they are actually quite retrogressive.

“Except for the excellent advice to reduce intake of highly processed foods, which were not particularly prevalent back then, these guidelines take us back to the diets of the 1950s when everyone was eating lots of meat and dairy and not worrying much about vegetables, and heart disease was rampant,” she wrote. “I’m all for eating whole foods but these guidelines dismiss 75 years of research favoring diets higher in plant foods.”

Devil’s in the Details

For public consumption, HHS and USDA have markedly downsized the DGA document, cooking everything into nine nicely illustrated, easy-to-read pages. The previous edition was a voluminous 164 pages.

Those wanting a deeper scientific dive can download the Scientific Appendices document realfood.gov. Weighing in at over 400 pages, the Appendices feature:

• A comprehensive list of chemical additives in packaged foods with a list of common preservatives sweeteners antimicrobials, emulsifiers and dyes that are now in HHS’s crosshairs.

• A treatise on research priorities, clinical trial design, and proposed topics for future studies. Among them: head-to-head comparisons of ultra-processed versus fresh food diets; impact of full-fat, low-fat, or fat-free products on specific health indicators; assessment of various culinary oils for frying; impact of reducing linoleic acid in people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome; long-term assessment of high versus low-protein intake on muscle mass in midlife.

• A rather convoluted paper, by unnamed authors, on the question of whether low linoleic acid is or is not an indicator of cardiovascular risk. This section is where HHS and USDA have chosen to conduct the “seed oils” debate.

• A review by Keck School of Medicine’s Michael Goran on Highly Processed Foods and Health. Goran assessed 27 metanalyses and—not surprisingly—concluded that, “Consumption of HPF is consistently and adversely associated with a broad range of chronic disease outcomes, with multiple dose-response gradients and moderate-to-high certainty for several major conditions.” 

• Another Michael Goran “umbrella review” on Sugars, Sugar Sweetened Beverages, and Fruit Juices. This one concludes that “the most promising opportunity to address added sugars is through public health and policy strategies that promote reduction in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.

• A “narrative review” on Refined Carbohydrates, Insulin Resistance & Chronic Disease by cell biologist Benjamin Bikman, PhD, of Brigham Young University. The report states that refined carbs are “uniquely capable of driving hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance,” that numerous trials show improved insulin sensitivity and glycemic control when refined carbs are reduced or replaced, and that previous DGAs did the public a disservice by focusing on total carb counts while ignoring the distinction between refined and unrefined carbs. 

• An intensive look at Low Carb Diets for Weight & Diabetes Management by kinesiologist Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, of Ohio State University. Volek reviewed 34 metanalyses on the impact of ketogenic and low-carb non-keto diets in people with T2D or metabolic syndrome. “Taking the most conservative view, there was uniformity across all meta-analyses that low-carbohydrate diets performed at least as well as low-fat diets (i.e., no studies showed that higher carbohydrate, low-fat diets were associated with greater weight loss, improved markers of metabolic syndrome, or better management of T2D).”

• A section on Special Considerations for Vegan and Vegetarian Diets by Ty Beal, PhD, UC Santa Barbara. The author notes that up to 7% of all US adults are vegetarians, and 1% are vegans. Recognizing that such diets “can support health” Beal also points out that roughly one-third of all vegans are below the RDA for protein intake, and both vegans and vegetarians are at risk for deficiencies in iron, vitamins A, D, E, B6, and B12, riboflavin, niacin, choline, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, omega-3s (EPA/DHA) and iodine. He advises vegans and vegetarians, “to work with healthcare providers to monitor nutritional status for key biomarkers such as iron, vitamins B12 and D, and omega-3s,” so as to minimize risk of deficiency.

Testosterone Anxiety

Curiously tucked inside the Vegetarian & Vegan chapter, is a section on Supporting Testosterone Health in Men. In it, the unnamed authors state that “Men seeking to maintain healthy testosterone levels should focus on a balanced diet that includes foods rich in healthy fats.” They advise men to supplement with DHA-rich fish oils, as well as zinc and vitamin D, and caution against low-fat diets claiming that they reduce serum testosterone.

This is the first time that HHS and USDA have specifically addressed testosterone in a DGA document, and it’s not entirely surprising. Anxiety about the emasculation of American men is an undercurrent theme in MAHA circles.

Though there’s no scientific consensus on whether dietary changes like this can actually raise serum testosterone levels, there is reasonably good evidence that obesity is associated with lower testosterone. That’s largely due to the fact that an enzyme in fat cells converts testosterone to estrogen, which suppresses pituitary signaling to the testicles. There’s also evidence showing that weight loss above 15% of total body weight can increase testosterone levels.

This is the first time that HHS and USDA have specifically addressed testosterone in a DGA document, and it’s not entirely surprising. Anxiety about the emasculation of American men is an undercurrent theme in MAHA circles. Kennedy himself takes testosterone as part of his “anti-aging” protocol, and has called the nation’s declining birth rates—a phenomenon in which male infertility plays a significant role—a “national security threat.”

Organics Overlooked

Glaringly absent in the new DGA is any coverage of organically grown/raised produce. Neither the guidelines document itself, nor the Scientific Appendices even mention the word. That’s surprising given that Kennedy himself, and many prominent voices within the MAHA movement, are strong personal advocates for organics.

On the other hand, it’s not entirely surprising given that the DGAs are issued by the USDA, which has, at best, an ambivalent relationship with the organic and sustainable agriculture sectors. An overt endorsement of organic produce from the USDA would be a major break from the agency’s history, and would presumably be perceived as an affront to conventional Big Ag.

Absent in the new DGA is any coverage of organically grown/raised produce. Neither the guidelines document itself, nor the Scientific Appendices even mention the word.

All of which raises a question about the degree to which the DGAs are influenced by industry. On the surface, it seems like the new recommendations are a big wet French kiss for the dairy and ranching industries. At any rate, they’re certainly not going to hurt sales of beef, bacon, and butter.

The DGA’s Scientific Report states that, “As part of the Trump Administration’s commitment to radical transparency, all external nutrition experts conducting scientific reviews…were asked to disclose any nutrition-related private interests, including those that present an appearance of a private interest, a potential private interest, or a material private interest.”

While some of the outside experts have indeed received research grants or consulting income from companies such as Abbott Nutrition, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Weight Watchers, and the National Dairy Council, there are no clear indications of egregious influence-peddling.

That said, the report contains no disclosure information for federal employees—such as people working for the USDA or HHS—involved in the drafting and promotion of the new DGAs. A report by STAT News suggests that pressure from the meat and dairy industries did indeed have a hand in shaping the new guidelines.

A Woke-Free Diet

The new DGAs are not without a tablespoon of culture war rhetoric. In the intro to The Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, also download-able from Realfood.gov, the DGA advisory committee states that they intend to “address and correct deficiencies” in the previous DGA iteration, “which framed its analysis through a health equity lens.”

They point out that the term “health equity” appeared more than 170 times in the prior DGAs, and that the Biden administration’s social justice priorities obligated previous USDA and HHS reviewers “to filter evidence through considerations of race, ethnicity, culture, and socioeconomic status.”

The current committee contends that while socioeconomic considerations are “important for policy implementation,” they should not be imposed as “interpretive filters.”

“Embedding an equity framework within a document intended to provide unbiased scientific assessment risks allowing existing policy challenges to shape scientific conclusions. Science should inform policy—not be constrained by it. As a scientific document, the DGAC Report should reflect the best available evidence, independent of current policy preferences or implementation concerns.”

The current committee contends that while socioeconomic considerations are “important for policy implementation,” they should not be imposed as “interpretive filters.”

In other words, along with the ultra-processed foods, the DGA’s authors want to make sure the guidelines are free from “wokeness”—interpreted here as considerations about whether poor, marginalized, and medically underserved people could actually follow the recommendations.

In principle, there is some sense to the notion that optimal dietary guidelines should be based solely on the best available, well-conducted, and replicated nutritional research, independent of public policy concerns.

But the federal DGAs are, by definition, a policy document with clearly stated public health objectives. Achieving them would require widespread embrace, adoption, and implementation of the guidelines. In that context, it is reasonable to reckon with the reality that millions of Americans do not have the money, time, or energy needed to live the MAHA ideal. 

Many of the DGA’s critics have pointed out that life under the New Food Pyramid is largely inaccessible for a lot of people. First, the high-quality healthy animal proteins and fresh produce touted by the guidelines are expensive—increasingly so. Second, they require time and effort for preparation– two things a lot of people don’t have. Third, a lot of people, rural and urban, live in food deserts–communities where unhealthy processed foods are plentiful, and fresh healthy options are limited.

The most scientifically sound guidelines in the world are little more than public health theatrics, if they can’t be integrated into peoples’ lives.

Implementation Questions Abound

But the real target for the DGAs is not the average consumer in the grocery aisles. It’s the nation’s school lunch programs. It’s the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). It’s hospital food services, the military, and other massive institutional food providers. In these settings, the DGA priorities really do matter.

Here, too, implementation is everything. And according to a report from the School Nutrition Industry Conference (SNIC) held Austin, one week after the new DGAs dropped, food service administrators have lots of questions, and the USDA has few practical answers.

The most scientifically sound guidelines in the world are little more than public health theatrics, if they can’t be integrated into peoples’ lives.

One of the main concerns is how school districts are supposed to eliminate highly processed foods and replace them with fresh, from-scratch alternatives, given that most programs operate on very tight budgets, and are dependent on food service suppliers like Sodexo and Aramark.

According to an article in FoodService Director, attendees at the SNIC conference asked USDA officials if the government would be providing “farm-to-school grant funding” to increase the amounts of fresh produce on the menus, and similarly if school meal reimbursement rates would rise to meet the increased costs of healthier nutrient-dense, scratch-made lunches.

USDA officials at the meeting said the administration is indeed about to release $18 million in farm-to-school grants—a good first step but seems like a drop in the bucket given the size and scale of the nation’s lunch programs. But they added that USDA has no control over federal reimbursement rates for school lunches. “That’s something that Congress would need to act upon,” said USDA’s Jess Saracino.

The new DGAs have certainly generated headlines. At the very least, they underscore the benefits of real unprocessed foods and the hazards of highly processed ones. Whether they can deliver on the promise of better public health remains to be seen.