The latest U.S. government Dietary Guidelines for Americans continue to push outdated advice on saturated fats, sugar, and red meat—here’s why you want to look elsewhere if the plan is really to Make America Healthy Again. Action Alert!
Listen to the audio version of this article:
THE TOPLINE
- The DHHS Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee continues to promote outdated guidance on saturated fats, added sugars, and red meat, while turning a blind eye to the problems caused by ultraprocessed foods that typically make up over 65% the calories in the average American’s diet.
- The report overgeneralizes recommendations to reduce red meat and eggs without distinguishing their nutrient-dense benefits from less bioavailable plant-based proteins, which may pose challenges for individuals with metabolic conditions.
- The guidelines are marred by industry influence, black-and-white thinking on scientific evidence, and insufficient recommendations on critical nutrients like vitamin D, magnesium and zinc, undermining their credibility and public health impact.
The U.S. government has released the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which will inform the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) for 2025-2030. While the report aims to provide evidence-based nutritional advice, it continues to perpetuate several misconceptions that may hinder public health progress. We encourage all of our readers to take action below using our system to leave a comment on the USDA’s public docket voicing your concerns on this report.
Saturated Fat: Persisting Misconceptions
The report maintains the longstanding recommendation to reduce saturated fat intake, citing concerns over cardiovascular health. However, contemporary research indicates that saturated fat is not directly linked to heart disease. Moreover, saturated fats play essential roles in the body, including supporting immune function and brain health. Worse still, the report recommends replacing saturated fats with seed oils. Our recent reporting explains why this is a terrible idea: seed oils are generally high in omega-6 fatty acids, which throws off a healthy balance of omega-3/omega-6 fats; most commonly used forms are also highly processed, so devoid of essential nutrients and laced with inflammatory compounds; and recent research has connected seed oils to vascular calcification.
Ultraprocessed Foods: A Deliberately Missed Opportunity?
Despite growing evidence linking ultraprocessed foods to various health issues, the committee did not provide specific guidance on their consumption, citing “limited” evidence. This is an incredible omission that turns a blind eye to a critical aspect of modern diets that contributes significantly to poor health outcomes. It is, quite frankly, astounding that the committee punted on this issue, considering that a staggering 58% to 81% of the calories in the average American’s diet come from ultraprocessed foods.
Not only that, 73% of the food on grocery shelves in the USA are ultraprocessed foods. Addressing the consumption of this junk food is essential if we want to get serious about stemming the tide of the chronic disease epidemic.
Added Sugars: Insufficient Restrictions
The committee suggests that Americans limit added sugars to less than 10 percent of daily caloric intake. Given the overwhelming evidence linking added sugar consumption to chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes, a more stringent recommendation to minimize or eliminate added sugars would better serve public health, as would helping people to better recognize that it is total sugars, not just added sugars, that are a problem. The body can, after all, also be pushed into metabolic disease and obesity if all added sugars are replaced with bags of dried fruit and piles of fruits in a smoothies!
Red Meat: Overgeneralized Recommendations
The report advises reducing red meat consumption without distinguishing between types of red meat. This generalized guidance fails to recognize the nutritional differences between conventionally raised, grain-fed beef and grass-fed, pasture-raised beef, let alone how the meat is prepared or cooked prior to being eaten. Grass-fed beef offers higher levels of beneficial nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid. A more nuanced approach would help consumers make informed choices rather than discouraging red meat consumption altogether.
It gets worse. The committee went further, continuing its program to demonize animal proteins of all kinds, advising reductions in poultry and egg consumption. What should we be eating instead? Plant-based proteins like peas, beans, and lentils, as well as seafood. Note that protein from these plant sources is neither complete in terms of its amino acid profile nor is it as bioavailable as those from animal sources. Leguminous protein sources can be high in lectins, plant defense compounds that are considered anti-nutrients because they block absorption of other nutrients and can be harmful for certain individuals with gut sensitivities.
They may also not be the best idea for those with metabolic conditions like diabetes and obesity, as they are packed with carbohydrates that can cause blood sugar spikes. Our colleagues at ANH International covered many of these points in more depth when they critically reviewed the EAT Lancet report.
Vitamin D: Inadequate Recommendations
The committee acknowledges the importance of vitamin D but recommends daily intakes of 600 IU for most adults and 800 IU for those over 75. Really – in 2024?! These amounts are way too low for many people, particularly those with darker skin or who have higher requirements, to achieve optimal blood levels necessary for bone health, immune function, and disease prevention. Integrative health experts often advocate for higher daily intakes, tailored to individual needs based on factors like geographic location and existing health conditions.
Crony Influences
Big Ag, Big Food, and Big Pharma interests have for decades leaned on the USDA and the DHHS in an effort to make sure dietary guidelines suit industrial interests, not the public’s health. Such influence manifested the push for low cholesterol and low fat diets, both of which have played a major part in generating today’s metabolic disease spiral. Now, amongst many other problems that manifest through conflicts of interest, we have the demonization of animal proteins and no concerted effort to warn the public of ultraprocessed foods. And they expect Americans to get healthier? Pigs will fly first!
There is an inherent problem whenever the government tries to weigh in on something like nutrition: Big Ag and Big Food will use its considerable clout to influence the recommendations, which helps explain why the government’s guidelines are so off in several important areas. An independent investigation by the US Right to Know nonprofit public health research group found the current Dietary Guidelines committee to be rife with conflicts of interest and industry influence. Nearly half of the 20-member committee had high-risk or medium-risk conflicts of interest with food, pharmaceutical, and weight loss companies or industry groups. US Right to Know also found that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND)—an organization that has a history of cozying up to junk food companies—had substantial influence over the committee.
This all indicates that what we’re looking at is the best nutrition advice Big Food can buy.
Corruption of the Scientific Method: Black and White Thinking
One of the most troubling trends in the latest report is the committee’s increasing inability to deal with scientific uncertainty. Historically, scientific findings have been evaluated through a graded hierarchy of evidence—from conclusive to less conclusive studies. Instead, the committee has adopted a black-and-white approach that we’ve seen applied in other realms of scientific inquiry, in effect categorizing anything that does not meet the highest level of scientific conclusivity as “misinformation.”
This corruption of the scientific method creates a false sense of certainty in a field where almost everything contains some degree of uncertainty. It disregards emerging evidence that does not yet meet the highest grading standards, stifling innovation and diversity of thought in nutrition science. It leads otherwise intelligent researchers to decide that there isn’t enough evidence to say that ultra-processed foods are bad and should be avoided.
Even when there’s high quality evidence, the committee doesn’t get it right. Investigative journalist Nina Teicholz demonstrated how the studies cited by the committee in support of their recommendations do not actually support their conclusions.
Conclusion
The path to better health isn’t more government advice or intervention, but to allow Americans access to all kinds of information about a variety of products and foods, particularly natural options, so we can make our own informed decisions. This is especially the case in our current information environment that perverts the scientific method and where the major gatekeepers try to keep us in the dark about anything where there isn’t a mythical “certainty.” This cannot continue.
Action Alert! Leave a comment on the public docket for the Dietary Guidelines committee critiquing the most recent advice and calling for a more independent process. Please send your message immediately.
