by Marion Nestle

Archives

Jan 27 2026

My latest publication: BMJ editorial on the dietary guidelines

Politics trump science in new US dietary guidelines Evidence takes a backseat to conflicting interests in the latest health mandates

BMJ 2026;392:s143 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s143 

The new dietary guidelines1 and food pyramid2 issued by the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture have been met with great fanfare and furore.34 Under the aegis of “make America healthy again,” their overall message is the sensible, “Eat real food.” Among the actual guidelines, three repeat longstanding advice: “Eat the right amount for you,” “Focus on whole grains,” and “Eat vegetables and fruits throughout the day.” The guidelines reiterate longstanding recommendations to limit sugars and saturated fat to 10% of calories, and sodium to 2300 mg/day. But for the first time, they also include food processing: “Limit highly processed foods, added sugars, and refined carbohydrates.” Although this guideline does not use the term “ultraprocessed,” that is what it means; it calls for limits on petroleum based dyes and artificial sweeteners, flavours, and preservatives.5 So far, so good.

But then come four additional guidelines: “Prioritise protein foods at every meal,” “Consume dairy,” “Incorporate healthy fats,” and “Limit alcoholic beverages.” These redefine protein to favour meat rather than plant consumption, prioritise full fat rather than low fat dairy foods, specify butter and beef tallow as examples of healthy fats, and omit warnings about alcohol as a cancer risk. This reverses decades of heart health advocacy.

Questionable provenance

Most troubling is the lack of due process, dismissal of scientific consensus, and overt conflicts of interests in producing these guidelines, despite stated promises that they would reflect “gold standard science” and would not reflect corporate interests.6 Since 1980, the production of the guidelines has followed a two to three year process: a scientific report is written by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the report is used to develop the guidelines, and a food guide is based on the guidelines. When I was a member of the committee in 1995, we set the research questions, reviewed the research, wrote the scientific report, and wrote the guidelines. Later, the departments of health and agriculture jointly took over all stages except the research review, allowing politics to overpower the science.

For these new guidelines, the agencies rejected the scientific report commissioned during the Biden presidency7 and appointed their own committee, giving it only three months to produce its 90 page report and 418 page appendix.89 Although the agencies insisted that these guidelines would not reflect industry influence and would be free of conflicts of interest, they kept neither promise. Most members of the research committee reported financial ties to food companies with vested interests in dietary advice; four members, for example, reported financial relationships with beef, pork, and dairy trade associations.910

One lawsuit is already charging the agencies with disregarding congressionally mandated processes for preparing the guidelines and, instead, relying on the recommendations of a “hastily assembled … panel of meat, dairy, and fat diet industry insiders,”11 whose names were revealed only on publication of their report. Who wrote the guidelines and designed the pyramid remains undisclosed.

Previous guidelines emphasised the benefits of diets based on lean meats, low fat dairy products, and plant sources of protein.12 These do the opposite. Although they say, “Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources,” animal sources clearly come first, making protein seem a euphemism for meat. The guidelines recommend increasing protein intake from 0.8 g/kg body weight to 1.2 to 1.6 g/kg, despite current US consumption levels already being close to 1.2 g/kg, two thirds of which comes from meat.13 Furthermore, there is scarce evidence that exceeding current levels provides additional benefit.14 Adhering to higher protein goals while keeping saturated fat to 10% of calories will be challenging.

The messages about meat and full fat dairy are explicitly evangelical.7 Health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, posted on X, “Beef is BACK.” He and agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, appear on X with milk moustaches promoting full fat dairy. It too is “BACK,” supported by a new law requiring whole milk to be offered in schools.15 As for alcohol, health official Mehmet Oz said, “I don’t think you should drink alcohol, but it does allow people an excuse to bond and socialise, and there’s probably nothing healthier than having a good time with friends in a safe way.”16 Such messages minimise the risks of alcohol to health and society.17

The idea behind these messages is that eating real food and avoiding ultraprocessed food will achieve satiety and promote health, which they well might.51819 But largely plant based diets benefit health—and the environment.2021 In contrast, meat and dairy production pollute the environment, release greenhouse gases, and raise issues of animal welfare and worker safety.2223 These guidelines ignore such issues.

Also omitted is any discussion of the resources needed to follow such advice. Real food is more expensive than ultraprocessed foods and requires cooking skills, kitchens, equipment, and time. Not everyone has such things, but the agencies explicitly reject equity as a consideration.7 These guidelines also must be understood within the context of the current dismantling of the US public health system. We need public health to support diets that really can promote human and environmental health.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: MN has no competing interests with food and beverage companies; she earns royalties from books and honorariums from lectures about the politics of food.

  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned, not externally peer reviewed.

References

  1. ↵ HHS, USDA. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030. https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf
  2. ↵ HHS, USDA. Real food starts here. https://realfood.gov/
  3. ↵ USDA. Kennedy, Rollins unveil historic reset of U.S. nutrition policy, put real food back at center of health. Press release, 7 Jan 2026. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2026/01/07/kennedy-rollins-unveil-historic-reset-us-nutrition-policy-put-real-food-back-center-health
  4. ↵ Tanner J. Experts reveal greatest concerns with RFK Jr.’s new dietary guidelines. The Hill 17 Jan 2026. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5692009-experts-reveal-greatest-concerns-with-rfk-jr-s-new-dietary-guidelines/
  5. ↵ Monteiro CA, Louzada MLC, Steele-Martinez E, et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence. Lancet 2025;406:2667-84. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01565-X.
  6. ↵ HHS. Fact sheet: Trump administration resets US nutrition policy, puts real food back at the center of health. 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-historic-reset-federal-nutrition-policy.html
  7. ↵ Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2025. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Scientific_Report_of_the_2025_Dietary_Guidelines_Advisory_Committee_508c.pdf
  8. ↵ HHS, USDA. The scientific foundation for the dietary guidelines for Americans. 2026. https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report.pdf
  9. ↵ HHS, USDA. The scientific foundation for the dietary guidelines for Americans Appendices. 2026. https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report%20Appendices.pdf
  10. ↵ Cueto I. Behind new dietary guidelines: Industry-funded studies, opaque science, crushing deadline pressure. Stat News 17 Jan 2026. https://www.statnews.com/2026/01/17/new-food-pyramid-behind-the-scenes-dietary-guideline-development/
  11. ↵ Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Petition for investigation and administrative action. 2026. https://pcrm.widen.net/s/p6qggt8j6n/dietary-guidelines-usda-hhs-complaint-physicians-committee-for-responsible-medicine
  12. ↵ US Government. Previous editions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/previous-editions
  13. ↵ Hoy MK, Clemens JC, Moshfegh AJ. Protein intake of adults in the US: what we eat in America, NHANES 2015-2016. Food surveys research group dietary data brief No 29. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK589212/
  15. ↵ USDA. Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025—implementation requirements for the national school lunch program. 2026. https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/wmfhka-implementation
  16. ↵ Rabin RC. New dietary guidelines abandon longstanding advice on alcohol. New York Times 7 Jan 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/health/dietary-guidelines-alcohol.html
  17. ↵ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol use and your health. 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/about-alcohol-use/index.html
  19. ↵ Dicken SJ,
  20. ↵
  21. ↵
  22. ↵
  23. ↵
Tags: ,
Jan 26 2026

The sugar industry fights back

With the new dietary guidelines taking such a strong stance on minimizing sugar intake, the sugar industry has its damage-control work cut out.

Lisa Sutherland, my co-author on our forthcoming (September 2026) Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast. Food, sent this link to information sent out to dietitian subscribers to Today’s Dietitian.

When it comes to added sugars, on one hand the public is hearing they should stop eating sugar entirely, on the other, they’re hearing that real sugar is healthier than other forms of added sugars and sweeteners. The fact is that added sugars currently make up around 13% of Americans total calories – the lowest amount in 40 years and close to the lowest amount ever recorded (11% in 1909). The steep decline in added sugars intake over the past 25 years has coincided with rising rates of childhood obesity and chronic disease – yet most people are unaware of these data and continue to demonize and place a significant amount of blame on real sugar for these conditions.

It then goes on to discuss all this under the following headings:

  • Real Sugar plays a key role in healthy balanced diets
  • Real Sugar is irreplaceable as a single ingredient
  • Facts over fear

And it comes with great charts.  My favorite, too big to reproduce here, is titled “Sugar is a partner in nutrient delivery.”  This points out that high-fiber cereals, fruit yogurs, canned vegetables, salad dressings, peanut butter, and pre-packaged snacks all are more enjoyable to eat and have longer shelf-life with some sugar tossed in.

Tags: ,
Jan 23 2026

Weekend reading: The Spinach King

John Seabrook.  The Spinach King: The Rise and Fall of an American Dynasty.  Norton, 2025 (346 pages).

This book is a memoir by New Yorker staff writer, John Seabrook, about his rich, unscrupulous, and bigoted grandfather and father but there is so much food politics in it that it belongs on my must-read list.  It’s also a riveting story, well told.

Seabrook’s progenitors were notable for having figured out how to grow vegetables at a huge scale in southern New Jersey, and how to freeze them so they could be shipped, stored, and sold at great profit.  Until things went bad, they were the largest vegetable growers on the eastern seabord, if not anywhere.  This book has plenty to say about how they did it—bought seed, planted, harvested, froze, shipped.

It is also about who did the work and how the worker were treated—farm labor as viewed from the owners’ perspective (unshared by the author, who is unsparing in his reporting).

I learned a lot about industrial vegetable farming from reading this book.

C.F. [Seabrook’s grandfather] could not have chosen a better time to build his vegetable factory.  Food prices, already rising in 1913, were further boosted by the outbreak of war in Europe, causing agricultural production abroad to contract severely.  The price of a bushel of corn in Minnesota rose from 59 cents in 1914 to $1.30 in 1919.  Wheat went from $1.05 a bushel to $2.34.  Mechanization was bringing tractors, threshers, seed drillers, and combine harvesters to the cultivation of wheat, rye, oats, and barley, greatly increasing production.  Land prices rose accordingly. (p.79)

I looked up today’s figures: Corn is $4.50 per bushel; wheat $5 to $6.  No wonder our agricultural production system is such a mess and requires so much in subsidies.

The Seabrooks of that era were ungenerous with their workers, particularly those who were Black, and had to deal with a strike in 1934.

Eyewitnesses…claimed the Seabrooks and their henchman crushed the strike using fire hoses, tear gas, mass arrests, and imported gangster named Red Sanders, armed vigilantes, and the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, who spread terror by burning crosses in front of Black Workers’ homes.  One ACLU observer reported seeing my uncle Belford, of whom I had only fond memories, leading a tear-gas attack on a striking worker’s house and setting it on fire with a woman and small children inside. (p. 109)

This must have been one tough book to write.  Seabrook says it took him 30 years to dig out the history of his complicated family and come to terms with it.  He did a great job.  It’s a great read.

Reviews

Tags:
Jan 22 2026

Canada’s new food warning label!

A reader, Doug Williams, alerted me to Canada’s new food warning label.  Even better, he followed it up with a photo.

Here’s what the warning label looks like up close.

Canada based the label on extensive consultation.

For most foods, the warning label is required when sugar, saturated fat, or sodium reach 15% of the Daily Value.  For saturated fat, for example:

There are lots of exceptions.  But the warning label is easy to spot.

The FDA is supposedly working on a warning label.  I can’t wait to see what the MAHA FDA comes up with.

Canada’s is better.  The ones in Latin America are better yet.  Let’s hope.

Resources

Tags: ,
Jan 21 2026

Journal retracts paper exonerating glyphosate (Roundup) from any harm to humans.

The journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a major paper, one that “had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades.”  The now-retracted paper had found the herbicide, glyphosate, to pose no health risk to humans.

Quotes from the retraction notice:

  • Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.
  • The article’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto, which have failed to demonstrate tumorigenic potential.
  • The authors did not include multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies…[although] they are aware of other studies, that were unpublished and not available.
  • Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content…employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors.
  • The authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such.
  • The lack of clarity regarding which parts of the article were authored by Monsanto employees creates uncertainty about the integrity of the conclusions drawn.
  • It is unclear how much of the conclusions of the authors were influenced by external contributions of Monsanto without proper acknowledgments.

The now retracted paper: Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans. Gary M. Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian C. Munro.  Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 31, 117–165 (2000).  doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1371

This paper exonerates glyphosate and its main metabolites from any harm other than eye irritation.  It says [Note: this is not necessarily my view] they:

  • Are poorly absorbed.
  • Are eliminated essentially unmetabolized.
  • Do not penetrate skin.
  • Do not bioaccumulate.
  • Are not toxic.
  • Do not damage DNA.
  • Do not cause mutations.
  • Do not cause cancer.
  • Do not cause developmental problems.
  • Do not affect fertility.

The paper concludes: “Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other
mammals…Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.”

The authors disclosure statement: “…we thank the toxicologists and other scientists at Monsanto who made significant contributions to the development of exposure assessments and through many other discussions. The authors were given complete access to toxicological information contained in the great number of laboratory studies and archival material at Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri, and elsewhere…We also acknowledge the participation and assistance of Douglass W. Bryant and Cantox Health Sciences International for scientific and logistical support in the preparation of the final manuscript.”

COMMENT

Producers of genetically modified seeds, particularly Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), have long argued that the glyphosate herbicide used with these seeds is safe and harmless to human health.  This now-retracted paper supported that argument and made it difficult to argue otherwise.  When people made ill by high glyphosate exposure filed lawsuits, lawyers were able to read internal Monsanto documents.  These exposed the role of Monsanto in manipulating this research.  Carey Gillam discusses one case in her book, The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice, which I reviewed here.

The retraction notice suggests that the journal editors were convinced that

  • The authors cherry-picked the data
  • Were paid to write the paper
  • Worked with Monsanto to write the paper

Obviously, none of this was disclosed—reason enough for retraction.

Better late than never.  Gillam published her book in 2021. 

Next, how about a ban?  The EPA says 280 million pounds of glyphosate are used annually in the United States.

Wouldn’t we all be better off without it?

Resource

Thanks to Tom Philpott for sending this: NYT’s Pro-Big Ag Pundit Gets It Right on Manure, But Misses the Mark on Herbicides

Tags:
Jan 20 2026

RIP USDA’s Household Food Security reports

Last September, the USDA said it would stop conducting the annual hunger survey, because they were “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous.”

As I said at the time,

If you live in an Orwellian universe, you can use not measuring to pretend that food insecurity does not exist and certainly that it is not increasing as a result of your policies.

It took a long time for the anti-hunger community to achieve federal documentation of this enormous social problem.  I suppose we will now have to go back to the old days of local anti-hunger reports.  See my comments (with Sally Guttmacher) on state hunger reports.

On December 30, the USDA published the last of its formerly annual reports: 2024 Household Food Security report.

The inconvenient finding continues: food insecurity continues to rise.

And this was before the current Trump-era cuts to SNAP and increases in the cost of food and health care.

No wonder they don’t want to publish reports like these any more.

 

Tags: , ,
Jan 19 2026

Industry-influenced studies of the week: artificial sweeteners

The new Dietary Guidelines have advised against consuming non-nutritive sweeteners despite research testifying to their harmlessness.  Much such research is funded by groups representing makers of artificial sweeteners, as these two examples show.

Study #1: A Systematic Review of Nonsugar Sweeteners and Cancer Epidemiology Studies Adv Nutr. 2025 Dec;16(12):100527. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100527.

Method: review of epidemiology studies of NSS intake and the risks of all types of cancer.

Results:  Overall, the epidemiology evidence does not support associations between any NSS and any cancer type.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient, Geosyntec, or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient and Geosyntec are environmental and risk sciences consulting firms. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s non-alcoholic beverage industry.

Funding: ABA provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Study #2:  Lack of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Potential for Nonsugar Sweeteners: A Review of Animal and Mechanistic Evidence.  Adv Nutr. 2025 Dec;16(12):100552. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100552. Epub 2025 Nov 4.

Method: review of the available experimental evidence.

Results: high-quality studies have not shown evidence for carcinogenicity in animal models, except for saccharin, which causes bladder tumors in rats via a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Conclusions:  The results of this evaluation are consistent with the results of epidemiology studies, which have shown no consistent associations between NSS intake and cancer risk. Taken together, the body of available evidence supports previous conclusions by authoritative and regulatory bodies that Ace-K, advantame, aspartame, cyclamate, neotame, saccharin, steviol glycosides, and sucralose do not pose a genotoxic or carcinogenic risk to humans.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient is an environmental and risk sciences consulting firm. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s nonalcoholic beverage industry. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Comment

These are two studies paid for by the American Beverage Association and conducted by paid consultants or employees to produce research favorable to the use of artificial sweeteners, which these studies did.

Research on artificial sweeteners is especially difficult to do because the amounts consumed are so small relative to other dietary components.  In general, independently funded research tends to find more problems associated with use of non-nutritive sweeteners than does industry-funded research.  This is an example of the “funding effect,” the by this time well documented influence of sponsorship on research outcome.

Tags: , ,
Jan 16 2026

The MAHA Dietary Guidelines VII: The Documents

A brief note about the political history of the dietary guidelines.  When I was on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in 1995, our committee selected the topics for review, reviewed the science, wrote the scientific report, and wrote the dietary guidelines.  We did the whole thing, except for the USDA’s food guide pyramid.   For this version, HHS and USDA ignored the scientific report and appointed a committee to do the rest.  They got all this done in a year, which must have been one big rush.

The press release

This was confusing because its list of recommendations differs from those in the actual guidelines, does not use the term “Eat Real Food,” and does not list the accompanying documents.

  • Prioritize protein at every meal
  • Consume full-fat dairy with no added sugars
  • Eat vegetables and fruits throughout the day, focusing on whole forms
  • Incorporate healthy fats from whole foods such as meats, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados
  • Focus on whole grains, while sharply reducing refined carbohydrates
  • Limit highly processed foods, added sugars, and artificial additives
  • Eat the right amount for you, based on age, sex, size, and activity level
  • Choose water and unsweetened beverages to support hydration
  • Limit alcohol consumption for better overall health

Fact Sheet

This sends up red flags.  Anytime I hear suggestions that everything you thought you knew about nutrition is wrong, I think uh-oh.  Science doesn’t work that way.  But these guidelines are not about science.  They are about politics.  They say Americans are sick

because their government has been unwilling to tell them the truth. For decades, the U.S. government has recommended and incentivized low quality, highly processed foods and drug interventions instead of prevention. Under the leadership of President Trump, the government is now going to tell Americans the truth.

Vast numbers of nutrition scientists have been lying about healthy diets?  Seems unlikely.

Dietary Guidelines for America 2025-2030

The only place where the message “eat real food” appears is in the secretaries’ introduction: “The message is simple: eat real food.”  Weirdly, that political message is not part of the actual guidelines.  These are:

  • Eat the right amount for you
  • Prioritize protein foods at every meal
  • Consume dairy
  • Eat vegetables & fruits throughout the day
  • Incorporate healthy fats
  • Focus on whole grains
  • Limit highly processed foods, added sugars, & refined carbohydrates
  • Limit alcoholic beverages

Press conference video

You can watch HHS and USDA official enthuse about the new guidelines and pyramid.

Eat Real Food: The Interactive Website

Here, at last, is where you get the real-food message: “whole, nutrient-dense, and naturally occurring.”  It is also where you get a sense of the guidelines’ priorities: “Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources” (meat and full-fat dairy come first).  The site provides links to the scientific reports and the servings document, and also a Q & A.

The Scientific Foundation for The Dietary Guidelines of America

This 90-page document was produced by a committee appointed by HHS and USDA to redo the work of the Scientific Advisory Committee because “Equity considerations and public policy preferences pervaded the DGAC Report. The Committee consistently advocated plant-based dietary patterns, deprioritized animal-sourced proteins, and favored high linoleic acid vegetable oils.” Instead, this committee is ostensibly “free from ideological bias, institutional conflicts, or predetermined conclusions.” The report lists their ties to meat, dairy, and other food associations with vested interests in what the guidelines might say.  There’s some surprising stuff in here: “Supporting testosterone health in men.”

Scientific Foundation Appendices

This is 418 pages of research review.  For this, I am taking the easy way and quoting Kevin Klatt’s detailed analysis.

Their whole basis is that nutrition is the key determinant of chronic disease risk, that you need to take personal responsibility to reduce your risk and that you’ve been lied to by past administrations who’s recommendations caused your health issues….There is no illusion from reading the Review and Appendix that the DGAs resulted from a rigorous and transparent process that pre-registered questions to be addressed, reviewed the data, and got the experts in a room to set down a common measuring stick by which they’re assessing the evidence- the approach is little more than a gish gallop to support the preformed conclusions that the HHS Secretary, MAHA advocates and influencers have been pushing since the moment they got into office. 

Daily Servings by Calorie Level

This one came as a surprise.  I wish it had been included with the guidelines because it specifies what the guidelines actually mean in practice.

South Park’s take on this

History of the Dietary Guidelines and Pyramid

My version of this history

I have written extensively about dietary guidelines and food guides on this site since the 2010 guidelines and pyramid.  Search for either term.  Here is a selection of my academic papers on the topic.

Other views

Tags: , ,