Will America’s Dietary Guidelines Lose Their Scientific Backbone?

By Joy Dubost
December 30, 2025
Will America’s Dietary Guidelines Lose Their Scientific Backbone?
Park et al. / Scientific Reports
X
Story Stream
recent articles

With the release of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030 (DGAs) expected by end of year, it is an important time to reaffirm the need for rigorous, transparent, and evidence-based science in shaping public health and nutrition policy.

The DGAs play a crucial role in guiding policymakers, educators, and public health officials to help Americans adopt healthier eating habits. These dietary recommendations underpin federal nutrition programs, from school meals to foods assistance programs, influencing health outcomes and eating habits nationwide. The DGAs serve as a key element of the country’s public health infrastructure.

With the mandate from Congress to provide dietary recommendations every 5 years across the lifespan — the challenge of developing recommendations from infancy to the elderly for a “healthy” population while addressing cultural practices and socioeconomic needs is no small feat.

So far, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission has launched an aggressive campaign, releasing two reports with more than 100 initiatives. Within these reports, HHS claims rising childhood disease rates and America’s broader health decline are associated with the foods and ingredients we eat. The mission to reduce childhood diseases possibly related to foods and dietary patterns sounds noble — who doesn’t want a healthier nation? But the execution is characterized by sweeping generalizations, patchy data, and a troubling lack of transparency.

In its zeal to sound the alarm, there may be a greater risk of doing more harm than good. When messaging drifts into fear-based pseudoscience, it erodes public trust and opens the door to food regulations and public health policies built on shaky evidence rather than high quality science.

For example, MAHA’s concerted focus on “ultra-processed foods” is problematic because there is little agreement on a definition at present among scientists and other stakeholders (including the public health community). As a result, the consumer is likely to become more confused and eliminate nutrient rich foods from their diets. While some processed products can be nutritionally poor, such as confections, some beverages and packaged snacks, other processed products offer clear benefits by assisting in meeting under-consumed food group recommendations like dairy and whole grains. These kinds of foods provide safe foods that are shelf stable and provide an array of essential nutrients. The varying array of products that could be considered “ultra-processed” underscores why policy must evaluate nutritional and ingredient quality; not processing methods alone. Similarly, placing the blame and focusing on high-fructose corn syrup as a singular driver of obesity, despite major scientific bodies affirming that it is biologically equivalent to table sugar, creates more confusion. Such claims divert attention from real solutions and spread misinformation. Early reports suggest the new DGAs may encourage Americans to eat more saturated fats by dropping current limits. This shifts from long-standing recommendations, like the 2020–2025 DGAs that advise keeping intake below 10% as initially advanced by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. As advanced by Ancel Keys based on carefully selected studies, the link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease has been questioned over time. Since that time, this relationship has been rebuffed, even in the latest DGA. However, in reviewing current evidence, many scientists now agree that not all saturated fats have the same health effects. Removing the limit entirely, rather than assessing specific fatty acid profiles, could have unintended health consequences.

At its core, MAHA’s agenda pursues well-intentioned goals - but the road to inadvertent consequences is at times paved with good intentions. Without high quality science, sincerity and passion is no substitute for science-based evidence. Policy should not run ahead of science, especially when the emerging science is contrary to historical public health policies and dietary guidelines.

We must be cautious yet vigilant about rapid pushes and sweeping changes that break from established scientific consensus. While dietary habits are complex, sustainable improvements depend on measured, evidence-based policymaking grounded in rigorous and repeatable research…that’s the foundation of the scientific method. When regulations outpaced the data, they risk doing more harm than good. Oversimplification of guidelines may also undermine the clarity of use in institutional settings.

It is right to focus on the critical issues - improving childhood health, strengthening research, and supporting nutritious diets. Yet for the upcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2025–2030), science must remain at the forefront. The DGAs will shape what Americans should eat, how schools should feed students, and how communities define healthy living. For guidance that will influence the nation’s health for the next half decade, every recommendation must rest on transparent, credible evidence - not ideology or anecdotal evidence.

Dr. Joy Dubost, Registered Dietitian

With the release of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030 (DGAs) expected by end of year, it is an important time to reaffirm the need for rigorous, transparent, and evidence-based science in shaping public health and nutrition policy.
The DGAs play a crucial role in guiding policymakers, educators, and public health officials to help Americans adopt healthier eating habits. These dietary recommendations underpin federal nutrition programs, from school meals to foods assistance programs, influencing health outcomes and eating habits nationwide. The DGAs serve as a key element of the country’s public health infrastructure.
With the mandate from Congress to provide dietary recommendations every 5 years across the lifespan — the challenge of developing recommendations from infancy to the elderly for a “healthy” population while addressing cultural practices and socioeconomic needs is no small feat.
So far, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission has launched an aggressive campaign, releasing two reports with more than 100 initiatives. Within these reports, HHS claims rising childhood disease rates and America’s broader health decline are associated with the foods and ingredients we eat. The mission to reduce childhood diseases possibly related to foods and dietary patterns sounds noble — who doesn’t want a healthier nation? But the execution is characterized by sweeping generalizations, patchy data, and a troubling lack of transparency.
In its zeal to sound the alarm, there may be a greater risk of doing more harm than good. When messaging drifts into fear-based pseudoscience, it erodes public trust and opens the door to food regulations and public health policies built on shaky evidence rather than high quality science.
For example, MAHA’s concerted focus on “ultra-processed foods” is problematic because there is little agreement on a definition at present among scientists and other stakeholders (including the public health community). As a result, the consumer is likely to become more confused and eliminate nutrient rich foods from their diets. While some processed products can be nutritionally poor, such as confections, some beverages and packaged snacks, other processed products offer clear benefits by assisting in meeting under-consumed food group recommendations like dairy and whole grains. These kinds of foods provide safe foods that are shelf stable and provide an array of essential nutrients. The varying array of products that could be considered “ultra-processed” underscores why policy must evaluate nutritional and ingredient quality; not processing methods alone. Similarly, placing the blame and focusing on high-fructose corn syrup as a singular driver of obesity, despite major scientific bodies affirming that it is biologically equivalent to table sugar, creates more confusion. Such claims divert attention from real solutions and spread misinformation. Early reports suggest the new DGAs may encourage Americans to eat more saturated fats by dropping current limits. This shifts from long-standing recommendations, like the 2020–2025 DGAs that advise keeping intake below 10% as initially advanced by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. As advanced by Ancel Keys based on carefully selected studies, the link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease has been questioned over time. Since that time, this relationship has been rebuffed, even in the latest DGA. However, in reviewing current evidence, many scientists now agree that not all saturated fats have the same health effects. Removing the limit entirely, rather than assessing specific fatty acid profiles, could have unintended health consequences.
At its core, MAHA’s agenda pursues well-intentioned goals - but the road to inadvertent consequences is at times paved with good intentions. Without high quality science, sincerity and passion is no substitute for science-based evidence. Policy should not run ahead of science, especially when the emerging science is contrary to historical public health policies and dietary guidelines.
We must be cautious yet vigilant about rapid pushes and sweeping changes that break from established scientific consensus. While dietary habits are complex, sustainable improvements depend on measured, evidence-based policymaking grounded in rigorous and repeatable research…that’s the foundation of the scientific method. When regulations outpaced the data, they risk doing more harm than good. Oversimplification of guidelines may also undermine the clarity of use in institutional settings.
It is right to focus on the critical issues - improving childhood health, strengthening research, and supporting nutritious diets. Yet for the upcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2025–2030), science must remain at the forefront. The DGAs will shape what Americans should eat, how schools should feed students, and how communities define healthy living. For guidance that will influence the nation’s health for the next half decade, every recommendation must rest on transparent, credible evidence - not ideology or anecdotal evidence.
Dr. Joy Dubost, Registered Dietitian


Comment
Show comments Hide Comments