The New Dietary Guidelines

Food has always been political. But with the newly released dietary guidance from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, critical thinking matters more than ever.

As a dietitian, my concern isn’t that guidelines evolve. It’s how they’re framed and what gets lost in translation.

First, the language. 

Public health messaging should be neutral, precise, and inclusive. Phrases like “evangelizing real food,” “heralding,” or framing nutrition as a “war on saturated fats” lean into religious and polarizing rhetoric. That kind of language doesn’t clarify nutrition science. It divides, oversimplifies, and distracts from nuance.

Second, the visuals. 

The return to a food pyramid-style graphic is a step backward. It’s harder to interpret and offers fewer actionable takeaways compared to MyPlate, which clearly shows balance and proportion. Visual tools matter because most people don’t read the fine print.

Third, protein and fat recommendations. 

The updated guidance suggests protein intakes of 0.54–0.73 g per pound of body weight. For a 150 lb adult, that’s roughly 81–109 g/day, higher than prior recommendations of 0.8–1.2 g/kg (about 54–81 g/day). The guidelines also explicitly encourage protein from red meat, poultry, eggs, full-fat dairy, and cooking fats like butter and beef tallow.

Here’s the issue. Those foods are significant sources of saturated fat. While research on saturated fat has been intentionally muddied, an extremely robust body of evidence shows that saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol, and LDL is a direct cause of cardiovascular disease. This position is upheld by organizations like the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology.

Industry-funded studies, particularly from meat and dairy sectors, are often designed to show “no harm,” creating doubt where scientific consensus already exists. That doesn’t make the science controversial. It makes the messaging confusing.

There’s also a practical contradiction here. If someone increases protein intake primarily through meat and full-fat dairy, it becomes extremely difficult to keep saturated fat under 10% of total calories while maintaining calorie balance. Those recommendations don’t align.

The bigger problem? Individualization is missing. 

Guidelines are meant to support population health, but these shifts risk flattening nuance. Many people can work with a dietitian to personalize nutrition. Many cannot.

And while most Americans never read the dietary guidelines, they quietly shape what’s served in schools, on military bases, and in federal nutrition programs for mothers and infants. These recommendations carry real-world consequences.

Nutrition guidance should be evidence-based, clearly communicated, and flexible enough to meet diverse needs. When the messaging becomes ideological or contradictory, it’s not empowering. It’s risky.

The New Dietary Guidelines are a reminder why nutrition literacy and individualized care matter more than ever.