by Marion Nestle

Search results: USDA meat

Jun 2 2026

American Journal of Health Promotion: papers on misinformation: my latest

The True Health Initiative held its 2nd Annual Global Health Misinformation Symposium, in which I participated.  The papers from the symposium have just been published in the American Journal of Health Promotion.  They are available under the heading “Knowing Well, Being Well” on the journal’s site.  All are open access.  My contribution is here.

Food Politics in an Era of Misinformation

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH

I write books about the politics of food, most recently What to Eat Now. When my first book on the topic, Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, appeared in 2002, the first question everyone asked me was “What does food have to do with politics?” But since President Donald Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I am no longer asked that question. Trump introduced Kennedy’s nomination with this statement: “For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to public health.”1 It is now more obvious than ever that just as food has cultural, religious, and socioeconomic dimensions, it also has political dimensions. Here, I present examples of how politics affects food choice in three areas especially vulnerable to misinformation: food and nutrition research, ultra-processed foods, and dietary guidelines.

Food and Nutrition Research

Food companies are not social service or public health agencies; their primary, first-priority job is to generate profits for shareholders. One way food companies express this priority is to sponsor research. But industry-funded studies tend to follow what Sheldon Krimsky termed the “funding effect”—industry-funded studies strongly tend to produce results favorable to the sponsor’s commercial interests.2 Such studies are not invariably biased in a corporate-friendly direction; they just are skewed in that direction more often than not. When researching my book on this topic, Unsavory Truth, I was only able to find 11 studies published on the funding effect in food and nutrition research (by 2018). These varied in methods, products, and health effects, but all reported benefits to sponsors’ interests. Recipients of industry funding often appear unaware of the influence of industry funding and deny it. They may conduct their studies according to high scientific standards, but investigations of funding effects demonstrate that the bias mainly shows up in the framing of the research question or in the interpretation of results (null results interpreted as positive, for example). It is one thing to call for open-ended research on diet and health, but quite another to request proposals for research to demonstrate benefits. Food companies are unlikely to sponsor research that might produce unfavorable results.3
Some scientists argue that concerns about funding effects represent ad hominem attacks on researchers. Career goals, scientific beliefs, dietary practices, and belief systems, they insist, are just as biasing as industry funding; disclosure is sufficient to deal with the problem.4 But not all influences in science pose conflicts of interest. All scientists have beliefs about the likely outcome of their research; they have hypotheses they are trying to prove. These beliefs differ among researchers, as do the outcomes of their studies. But with industry funding, the biases are the same; they tend to favor the sponsor’s interests.5 Companies fund studies to “prove” their products are superfoods, or health promoting, or at least not harmful. Industry-funded research is about marketing, not science.

Ultra-Processed Foods

In 2025, The Lancet released three comprehensive reports on the science,6 policy,7 and politics8 of ultra-processed foods (I am a co-author on the last two). The process for producing these reports was lengthy and difficult, not least because the journal’s editors were skeptical of the concept of ultra-processed foods and pushed the authors to clarify the concepts and strengthen the evidence. Eventually the editors were convinced; they introduced the reports with an editorial powerfully titled “Ultra-processed foods: time to put health before profit.”9
Ultra-processed foods were defined by Carlos Monteiro et al in 2009 according to what they called the Nova system, which divides foods into four categories based on their degree of processing: unprocessed or minimally processed (Nova 1), processed culinary ingredients (Nova 2), processed (Nova 3), and ultra-processed (Nova 4).6,10 Ultra-processed foods are industrially produced, do not resemble the foods from which they were produced, typically contain sugars, salt, and industrial chemicals, and are designed to be irresistible (if not addictive)–and highly profitable. Many studies link diets high in ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes. Although most of these studies are observational and cannot prove causation, well controlled clinical trials demonstrate that ultra-processed diets induce people to greatly overconsume calories, without realizing it.11 This result alone is reason enough for advice to reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods.
Understandably, the food industry opposes this concept: eating less is bad for business. Food trade associations argue that all foods are processed, processing is necessary, and the concept of ultra-processed is poorly defined, especially because it excludes highly nutritious foods such as commercial whole wheat breads and yogurts. The food industry is joined in these criticisms by some nutrition scientists concerned about inaccuracies in observational studies and the short duration and limited number of subjects in the controlled clinical trials.12 These criticisms hold grains of truth, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence argues in favor of advice to reduce intake of ultra-processed foods.
The food industry, however, is on the attack. It much prefers education focused on salt, sugar, and saturated fat (encouraging product reformulation) Business advisors call for strongly defending ultra-processed foods in two ways. The food industry should educate the public about the benefits of ultra-processed foods and the flaws in the Nova classification system; it also should conduct its own research to demonstrate those benefits and flaws13–misinformation via public relations and funded research.

Dietary Guidelines

The call for education brings me to the 2025-2030 dietary guidelines, supporting documents released on January 7, 2026, and the process used to produce them. When I was a member of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) in 1995, we selected the topics to be researched, did the research, wrote the research report—and wrote the actual dietary guidelines. We turned these documents over to HHS and USDA to be printed. We were fully responsible for their content. That changed in 2005 when the agencies took over writing the guidelines. Since 2010, the agencies have taken over the entire process except for
the DGAC research review. The dietary guidelines are now an almost entirely political—rather than scientific—document.
The DGAC for the 2025-2030 guidelines was appointed during the previous administration; it released its report in December 2024.14 Its recommendations were much like those of previous guidelines since 1980: balance calories; eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; reduce intake of sugars, sodium, saturated fat, alcohol, red and processed meat; choose low-fat dairy. Although this DGAC was asked to consider a recommendation on ultra-processed foods, it chose not to on the basis of flaws in observational data and the short duration of the one, then available, exceptionally well-controlled clinical trial conducted in a metabolic ward.11
The Trump administration’s HHS and USDA, however, rejected most of that report and started over. It gave nine experts three months or less to write their own reviews of the science; these formed the basis of the new guidelines and the new inverted pyramid food guide released under the slogan “Eat real food.” While most of the eight guidelines are similar to those issued previously, one of the differences is advice to limit intake of highly processed foods (a euphemism for ultra-processed). So far, so good.15
Beyond that advice, however, the new guidelines include recommendations less well supported by existing evidence. They call for prioritizing and doubling intake of protein (a euphemism for red meat), consuming whole milk, and choosing “healthy” fats rich in essential fatty acids. Unfortunately, the guidelines’ examples of such fats are olive oil, butter, and beef tallow, none of them good sources of the two essential fatty acids, linoleic and linolenic. Errors like these, confusing messages (add salt, but restrict sodium; eat animal fats but keep saturated fat to 10% or less of calories), and the way animal-source foods are presented in the accompanying website for the inverted pyramid (RealFood.gov), make the guidelines appear to have been influenced by the meat and dairy industries, especially because so many writers of the science summaries reported financial ties to meat and dairy trade associations.16 The guidelines also appear to reflect the dietary ideology of Secretary Kennedy, who consumes a publicly avowed carnivore diet.
The new dietary guidelines are aimed explicitly at personal responsibility for dietary choice. But placing the dietary burden entirely on individuals absolves the government from doing anything other than educate. If objections to the guidelines from the food industry have been mild so far, it is surely because its leaders know that education is not enough to change dietary behavior. They much prefer education to policies aimed at regulating product contents or marketing. But to really help people eat real food and reduce intake of ultra-processed foods, we need a wide range of policy options—taxes, subsidies, marketing, procurement, product placement7—to make healthier foods more available, accessible, and affordable, so that the healthy choice is the easier choice.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author receives honoraria for lectures and royalties from books about the politics of food.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

References

1. Trump DJ. @RealDonaldTrump; 2024. https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1857170020427595797. Accessed 21 Mar 2026.
Google Scholar
2. Krimsky S. Do financial conflicts of interest bias research? An inquiry into the “funding effect” hypothesis. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2013;38(4):566-587.
3. Nestle M. Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.. Basic Books; 2018.
4. Cope MB, Allison DB. White hat bias: a threat to the integrity of scientific reporting. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99:1615-1617.
5. Bero LA, Grundy Q, Abelson J, Dobbins M, Carter N, Pavord I. Why having a (nonfinancial) interest is not a conflict of interest. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(12):e2001221.
6. Monteiro CA, Louzada ML, Steele-Martinez E, et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health 1. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence. Lancet. 2025;406(10520):2667-2684.
7. Scrinis G, Popkin BM, Covalan C, et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health 2. Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption. Lancet. 2025;406:2685-2702.
8. Baker P, Slater S, White M, et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health 3. Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response. Lancet. 2025;406(10520):2703-2726.
9. Lancet. Editorial: Ultra-Processed foods: time to put health before profit. 2025;406(10520):2601.
10. Monteiro CA. Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(5):729-731.
11. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):67-77.e3.
12. Ludwig DS, Willett WC, Putt ME. Concerns over conclusions in an ultra-processed food trial. Nat Med. 2026;32(2):463-464.
13. Southey F. The UPF problem: no more burying heads in the sand. Food Navigator-Europe. 2025. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/11/27/food-and-drink-makers-cant-ignore-upf-problem-any-longer/. Accessed 21 Mar 2026.
14. HHS USDA. Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2024. Accessed Mar 21, 2026. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2025-advisory-committee-report
15. HHS USDA. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030. 2026. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/. Accessed 21 Mar 2026.
16. Neves FS, Nilson EAF, Mendes LL, Khandpur N, Nestle M. The 2025–2030 US dietary guidelines: an analysis of scientific integrity and global health governance. Lancet Reg Health, Am. 2026;56:101402.
Tags: , ,
Jun 1 2026

Industry funded study of the week: beef again

I learned about this one first from a reader, Kevin Mitchell, and later from Leslie Raabe of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Beef vs. Chicken: Surprising Results From New Prediabetes Study

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) offers insight into one often-debated question: does eating red meat worsen metabolic health in people already at risk?  According to the findings, consuming 6 to 7 ounces (170 to 198 grams) of beef per day did not negatively affect markers linked to T2D or cardiovascular health in adults with prediabetes. The study appears in Current Developments in Nutrition.

To its credit, the source of this account, SciTechDaily, gives the complete reference.

“Effects of Diets Containing Beef Compared with Poultry on Pancreatic β-Cell Function and Other Cardiometabolic Health Indicators in Males and Females with Prediabetes: A Randomized, Crossover Trial” by Elizabeth Guzman, Indika Edirisinghe, Meredith L Wilcox, Carol F Kirkpatrick, Caryn G Adams, Britt M Burton-Freeman and Kevin C Maki, 30 October 2025, Current Developments in Nutrition.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107589

It also discloses the funding and conflicts of interest:

This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff, which was not involved in the data collection or analysis, nor publication of the findings, except for reviewing a draft of the manuscript prior to submission.

Disclosures: MLW is an employee of Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received research funding and consulting fees from food and pharmaceutical companies. CFK is an employee of Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received research funding and consulting fees from food and pharmaceutical companies. CGA is an employee of Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received research funding and consulting fees from food and pharmaceutical companies. BMBF has received research grant support from the California Strawberry Commission, Gallo Inc., Hass Avocado Board, National Institutes of Health/Nutrition for Precision Health Common Fund, National Mango Board, USDA/National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the Watermelon Promotion Board; received honoraria for lectures from the National Mango Board, Today’s Dietitian, and the University of Missouri; and served on advisory boards for the McCormick Science Institute, the Nutrient Institute, and NutriSciences Innovation, LLC. KCM has received research grant support from Cargill, General Mills, Global Organization for EPA and DHA, Greenyn Biotechnology, Hass Avocado Board, Helaina, Inc., Indiana University Foundation, Matinas BioPharma, MDLifespan, Medifast, Inc., National Cattlemen’s Beef Association/Beef Checkoff, National Dairy Council, Naturmega, NewAmsterdam Pharma, Novo Nordisk, PepsiCo, Pharmavite, and Ro; and received consulting fees from and/or served on advisory boards of 89bio, Acasti Pharma, Beren Therapeutics, Bragg Live Food Products, Campbell’s Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Helaina, Inc., Lonza Group, Matinas BioPharma, MDLifespan, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Dairy Council, NewAmsterdam Pharma, NorthSea Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, and Seed Inc.

Leslie Raabe sent another account of this study from The Independent.  it points out that the study

was released shortly after the Trump administration’s dietary guidelines, that puts animal protein at the top of the food pyramid.  Three of the guideline’s authors had financial relationships with the [Cattlemen’s] association, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine reported.

Comment

It is much to the beef industry’s advantage to find evidence that beef has no ill effects on health.  The Beef Board funds studies for that precise purpose; the results of the studies it funds find benefits or no ill effects more often than not.  Coincidence?  Hardly.  It’s not going to fund studies that might risk producing results that do not show benefits.  That’s why I consider industry-funded studies to be about marketing, not science.

If food companies were really interested in independent science, they could pool their funds and turn them over to a third party for soliciting research proposals and awarding grants.  That they are not interested in doing this tells you all you need to know.

Tags: , , ,
Apr 9 2026

New school food rules on the horizon?

The new MAHA dietary guidelines could mean that changes are coming to school meals.  Or so the USDA says.

While waiting for the USDA to issue new rules, various groups are urging specific improvements.

United We Eat, a coalition of MAHA-supporting groups, urges the USDA Secretary to get busy Aligning School Meal Standards with the MAHA Mandate to Protect Children’s Health.  It is especially concerned about the poor quality of meat served in school meals (something I hear a lot about from school food service directors).

These processed animal products often contain additive heavy formulations, including preservatives
such as nitrites and nitrates, which health authorities have associated with increased colorectal cancer risk in processed meats, as well as other processing agents such as sodium phosphates that raise broader nutritional concerns and kidney damage….Beyond the concerns with processed meat, majority of all animal proteins served in schools are sourced from industrial supply chains that rely on routine antibiotic use, growth-promoting drugs including ractopamine, and feed grown with significant pesticide inputs.

Another coalition, this one of nearly 200 food service professionals, school districts, and other groups, is pressing for plant-based meat alternatives in the protein group.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including those released in January, have long recommended diversifying protein intake across plant and animal sources. Yet in practice, school menus remain heavily dominated by animal-based proteins. A forthcoming analysis of a sample of 45 school district menus from November 2025 found that, excluding nut butter and jelly sandwiches, fewer than one in ten school lunch entrée offerings utilized plant-sourced protein to fulfill the M/MA requirement. More than 90% of school lunch entrees contained animal-sourced proteins…a plant protein subgroup within the Meats/Meat Alternates category would provide a clear, practical framework to diversify protein intake, increase fiber consumption, and improve inclusivity within child nutrition programs.

USDA ought to be issuing new school food rules soon.  I can’t wait to see what they are.  In the meantime, this is a good time to weigh in.

Tags: ,
Mar 9 2026

Why the dietary guidelines matter: Avocado marketing!

I received this e-mailed message from the Avocado Nutrition Center, sponsored by the Hass Avocado Board (a USDA-sponsored research & promotion—checkoff—program).

 

Indeed, the New Pyramid does highlight avocados.  What a gift to the Hass Avocado Board!

Comment: As I’ve pointed out repeatedly (see my previous posts on these guidelines), the new guidelines and pyramid have losers (ultra-processed foods, sugars, refined carbohydrates, and even whole grains) and winners (meat, dairy, beef tallow—and avocados.  The avocado board is not missing a chance to take advantage of this.  That’s its job!

Tags: , , ,
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 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: , ,
Jan 12 2026

The MAHA Dietary Guidelines III: Conflicts of Interest

On Mondays, I typically post something about industry-funded research or investigator conflicts of interest.

In the light of Robert F. Kennedy’s complaints about conflicts of interest in previous dietary guidelines advisory committees, it is startling to observe the industry ties reported by members of this administration’s committee.

These conflicted interests are also surprising in light of the high prioritization of meat in these guidelines, which advise eating protein (a commonly understood euphemism for meat) in every meal, and high-fat dairy.

The committee’s membership and disclosures are given on pages ix-xviii of the Scientific Foundation report.

To focus just on ties to meat and dairy groups, members report financial ties to

  • Global Dairy Platform
  • Nutricia/Danone
  • National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
  • Texas Beef Council
  • American Dairy Science Association
  • National Dairy Council
  • National Pork Board
  • California Dairy Innovation Center
  • Fonterra Limited
  • California Dairy Research Foundation
  • Dairy Management Inc

This was reported originally in Stat News (which quotes me elsewhere in the story).

It’s unclear how the Trump administration appointed its group of nutrition scientists and other researchers. A scientific report linked at the bottom of a new federal website, RealFood.gov, says only they were chosen through “a federal contracting process based on demonstrated expertise.”

Merrill Goozner quickly picked up the story on his GoozNews substack ( <gooznews@substack.com>): “Advisors to new nutrition guidelines rife with conflicts of interest”

So a tip of the hat to RFK, Jr. for fully disclosing that information. But put a dunce cap on his hypocritical head for allowing onto the review panel six reviewers with financial ties to corporate interests with a direct stake in the outcome of the guidelines. There is no evidence that this committee, two-thirds of whom have ties to industry, received vetting under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1948.

The New York Times story points out the hypocrisy (I’m also quoted later in this one):

Soon after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was sworn in as the nation’s health secretary, he promised to overhaul the federal nutrition guidelines. A key step, he said, would be to “toss out the people who were writing the guidelines with conflicts of interest.”

His own panel, he said, would “have no conflicts of interest.” But the new guidelines, which were released Wednesday and emphasize protein, meat, cheese and milk, were informed by a panel of experts with several ties to the meat and dairy industries.

The Times quotes Mark Kennedy, the senior vice president of legal affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which supports plant-based diets and has filed a complaint with the government saying it should withdraw the guidelines.

Disclosing conflicts of interest at the end of the process “isn’t really going to cut it..Because if nobody ever had a chance to weigh in, and nobody other than the government behind closed doors had a way to assess it, there’s no way to ensure there’s fair balance.” (Mr. Kennedy is not related to the health secretary.)

Comment

In reading through press accounts, I’m pretty sure I saw one where one of the committee members reporting financial ties tossed it off with some comment about how he was sticking to the science and that’s all that mattered (I’ve searched but can’t find it now).

I heard that a lot after publication of my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.  In that book, I review research on the “funding effect,” the strong correlations between who pays for food and nutrition research and its outcome.  Industry-funded research tends to produce results favorable to the funder’s interests (otherwise it wouldn’t be funded).  But recipients of funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence.  It is not surprising that this committee—unlike many other scientific committees over the past decades—came to precisely the conclusions decided in advance by Secretaries Kennedy and Rollins.

Tags: , ,
Jan 9 2026

The MAHA Dietary Guidelines II: Personal Responsibility vs. Public Health Policy

This is the second in a series of posts I will be writing about the new Dietary Guidelines for America, 2025-2030.

Yesterday, I gave an overview of the guidelines, finding them cheerful, but muddled, contradictory, ideological, and retro.

I do like the cheerful message: Eat Real Food.

But after reviewing lsome of the rest of the materials that come with the guidelines, I think those terms miss a more important concern: they are about personal responsibility, not public health.

This is most explicit from the Eat Real Food Website.

Our nation is finding its footing again, moving past decades of unhealthy eating and rebuilding a food culture rooted in health, science, transparency, and personal responsibility.

In March, I posted a a comment about a statement made by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Secretary [of HHS] Kennedy and I have a powerful, complementary role in this, and it starts with updating federal dietary guidance. We will make certain the 2025-2030 Guidelines are based on sound science, not political science. Gone are the days where leftist ideologies guide public policy.

I could not imagine how anyone could think the dietary guidelines reflected leftist ideology and guessed that she must have been talking about plant- as opposed to meat-based diets.  I wasn’t entirely wrong.  Eating meat is the first priority of the guidelines, a matter I will discuss next week.

But now I think she must have meant personal responsibility as opposed to public health policy.

This approach leaves it entirely up to you to make healthful food choices, never mind that if you try to eat healthfully, you are fighting the entire food system on your own.

The goal of food companies—even those selling real food—is to get you to buy as much of it as possible, regardless of how their products affect your health or that of the planet.

Given this administration’s destruction of the public health system in America, you really are on your own.

The groups in America who eat most healthfully are educated; have decent jobs, money, and resources; have homes with functioning kitchens; can cook; live in safe neighborhoods with grocery stores; and have access to affordable health care.  That’s what public health is about.

If the government leaves it to you to “do your own research” and fight the food system on your own, it is saying it has no responsibility for creating a food environment that can help you eat and enjoy real food.

It’s all on you.

The eat-real-food message is cheery and for sure it’s how I eat, at least most of the time.  I will have more to say about it next week too.

But the focus on personal responsibility troubles me.  Shouldn’t all of us be able to eat as healthfully as possible?

The Fact Sheet rejects health equity out of hand, but then says:

We reject this logic: a common-sense, science-driven document is essential to begin a conversation about how our culture and food procurement programs must change to enable Americans to access affordable, healthy, real food.

Isn’t that what health equity is about?  For that we need policy backed by resources.  Personal responsibility won’t work without it.

Tags: ,