On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) released the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs). The Nutrition Policy Institute responded to the release by highlighting several changes in both the process and content of the new guidelines.
U.S. law requires that the DGAs be updated every five years. Traditionally, a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), composed of experts, conducts research and compiles a scientific consensus report to inform USDA and HHS as they develop the DGAs. This process is usually transparent and includes public input. However, this cycle saw a departure from precedent when “the two agencies explicitly rejected the DGAC’s consensus report. Instead, the agencies developed their own scientific report to justify the newly released DGAs and accompanying new graphic.”
The DGAs are significant because they influence what people in the United States eat and shape nutrition standards for federal programs such as school meals, WIC, and senior meal services. These programs provide food to millions daily. The guidelines also affect nutrition education for both professionals and the public.
The Nutrition Policy Institute noted positive aspects of the new guidelines: “The DGAs emphasize the importance of eating real, whole, nutrient-dense foods.” They also commended explicit recommendations to avoid highly processed foods, sugary drinks, excess added sugars, artificial flavors and preservatives, non-nutritive sweeteners, and petroleum-based dyes. According to their statement: “The Introduction to the DGAs articulates the grave dangers of the current American diet, emphasizing the extent of the crisis of poor diet in our nation.” The guidelines advise against sugary beverages in favor of water or unsweetened drinks. The institute also acknowledged that “the new DGAs are simple to read with visually appealing graphics and a clean design.”
However, concerns were raised about how these guidelines were developed: “The process of producing the final DGAs was opaque, politicized, and appears to be aligned with certain special interest groups.” They emphasized that dietary recommendations should be made transparently using sound science.
One key issue is an increase in recommended daily protein intake: “The new DGAs dramatically increase recommended daily protein consumption, which is not supported by science.” There is concern that overemphasis on animal-based proteins could lead people to believe high meat and dairy consumption is scientifically endorsed when it may not be optimal for health.
While saturated fat limits remain at 10% of daily calories, there is apprehension that highlighted foods—such as meat and whole-fat dairy—are high in saturated fats: “this may lead people to consume more saturated fat than current evidence suggests is optimal for health.”
A major change involves sugar intake for children: “The new DGAs recommend ‘no amount of added sugars’ for children aged 5-10 years,” compared with previous advice only restricting added sugars until age two. The institute warns this strict guideline does not consider cultural practices involving sugar.
Environmental impacts were also mentioned: “The new DGAs emphasize meat and dairy but do not address any of the challenges related to our industrial animal-based food systems in terms of human and environmental costs.”
Cost concerns were noted as well: recommending higher-cost foods per calorie without clear plans for affordability could make healthy diets less accessible.
Additionally, they criticized a lack of detail in guidance: “The new 9-page DGAs lack the detailed information needed for policy development and for clinicians and educators who provide nutritional guidance for a wide variety of people and their circumstances.”
Regarding visual communication tools like dietary graphics—which most Americans use—the institute expressed further reservations: “The new dietary guidance graphic gives prominent positioning to red meat, butter and whole milk while minimizing or ignoring legumes, soy and seeds.” They pointed out minimal representation given to grains—a source of fiber—and omission of water as a symbol despite its recommendation as a beverage choice.
These responses reflect ongoing debate over how national nutrition policies are created—and whom they serve—in shaping future health outcomes across America.
