While the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) reinforces existing priorities rather than upend them, for manufacturers, the opportunity lies in integrating nutrition science, consumer insight and policy into thoughtful, resilient portfolios that meet both regulatory and marketplace expectations.
The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) reinforce longstanding priorities around sweeteners, whole grains and highly processed foods. While the recommendations aren’t radical, they have clear implications for manufacturers seeking to align products with evolving nutrition guidance.
Understanding the guidelines from both a processing and nutrition perspective is key to successful product development, emphasizes Anna Rosales, VP of Science and Policy at the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT).
Non-nutritive sweeteners: Finding the balance
One notable point in the guidelines is the recommendation that no added sugars are non-nutritive sweeteners are “part of a healthy or nutritious diet,” and that one meal should contain no more than 10 grams of added sugar. For foods containing added sugar, DGA recommends those limits to follow FDA’s “healthy” claims.
“For example, grain snacks (e.g., crackers) should not exceed 5 grams of added sugar per ¾ ounce whole-grain equivalent, and dairy snacks (e.g., yogurt) should not exceed 2.5 grams of added sugar per ⅔ cup equivalent,” per DGA.
Rosales notes that consumer perceptions have historically been mixed, but recent research from the International Food Information Council (IFIC) points to a preference for natural or nutritive sweeteners:
“With this new shift towards more of the natural sweeteners being the ones of preference, I think that formulators are going to have to find a way to merge that science, consumer concerns and desires and policy,” she said.
From a scientific perspective, she points out that non-nutritive sweeteners “are all safe, they’re all healthy options for reducing sugar in products.” The challenge for manufacturers is balancing safety, consumer expectations and policy while minimizing future reformulation.
“Look for that sweet spot of those tradeoffs, and how can we avoid rework in the future,” Rosales advises.
For R&D teams, this means evaluating sweetener options across the portfolio, testing blends that combine nutritive and non-nutritive options, and monitoring consumer sentiment to ensure products meet evolving expectations.
Expanding grain portfolio options
The guidelines continue to emphasize whole, fiber-rich grains over refined options. Rosales explains that this recommendation is less a new shift than a continuation of long-standing guidance.
Consumer acceptance of different grains varies, making a portfolio approach essential.
“It might often mean that you don’t have just one solution. It might mean that you need to have a portfolio of solutions, because people are in different places within both their journeys for health and nutrition, but also what they’re prioritizing in their life,” she said.
For manufacturers, this translates to offering multiple grain-based products or formulations that account for taste preferences, fiber content and cultural considerations.
Sensory science: A critical lever for reformulation
Changes in ingredients affect not only nutrition but also taste, texture and shelf life. Rosales underscores the importance of incorporating sensory and consumer science into formulation decisions:
“Anytime we are adjusting those ingredients, we’re adjusting kind of that purpose. And so we’re going to have to really engage with the sensory science and consumer science teams… to make sure that we’re considering all of those different tradeoffs and how those will be perceived and or accepted or not accepted by consumers.”
Manufacturers should conduct sensory trials and prioritize ingredient choices that maintain product experience while meeting guideline goals.
Ultra-processed foods: The need for clarity
The guidelines reference highly-processed foods but stop short of offering a clear definition. Rosales stresses that the lack of a standardized, science-based definition complicates both research and communication.
“We need an actual definition of ultra-processed foods that is replicable, that is science based, that is easily understood, and that looks at separating out processing, formulation and nutrition,” she said.
Without clarity, consumers may be confused and manufacturers may struggle to align products with guidance. R&D teams should anticipate adjustments as definitions evolve and consider labeling and formulation strategies that reflect transparency and nutrition priorities.
“We recognize that this is a challenge for our community, and we’re working on creating both resources and workshops to be able to help them in that space,” Rosales says, highlighting IFT’s efforts to provide actionable tools for formulators.
