Criticism of the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) is less about specific food categories such as red meat, dairy or plant-based products, and more about structure and governance, according to Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Rather than focusing on whether the government is promoting the “right” or “wrong” foods, Barnard argues that the guidelines no longer function as a coherent framework grounded in nutrition science. Instead, he describes the DGA as a negotiated policy document shaped by scientific evidence, industry influence and political compromise simultaneously.
As a result, the guidelines operate less as a unified health model and more as a layered policy framework that attempts to balance competing priorities, Barnard said. This structure, he argues, creates internal contradictions and produces mixed signals for consumers, institutions and policymakers who rely on the DGA to inform school meals, federal nutrition programs and institutional food systems.
“The No. 1 determinant of public health is the foods that we put on our plate three times a day,” Barnard said. “So anything that affects policy affects mom’s health, dad’s health, the health of their kids.”
Barnard and several co-authors published a commentary in JAMA on Jan. 28 calling for a more evidence-based approach to the guidelines, framing the current one as a potential public health concern rather than a routine policy disagreement.
The publication followed a Jan. 8 petition filed by PCRM to HHS and USDA requesting the withdrawal and reissue of the 2025–2030 DGA due to what the organization described as “rampant industry influence.”
Check out more coverage on the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
US Dietary Guidelines sideline MyPlate in favor of inverted food pyramid: The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans spotlight an inverted f ood pyramid, effectively sidelining MyPlate and sparking debate among nutrition experts and educators
2026 beef trends: How new Dietary Guidelines are shaping protein demand: Dietary guidance, convenience-driven meals and emerging trends like b eef tallow may open new avenues for innovation in beef
‘Highly-processed’ or ‘ultra-processed’? New dietary guidelines reignite a definitional food fight : The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans avoid the term “ultra-processed foods,” prompting both praise and criticism
How the Dietary Guidelines may shape product strategy and development: The latest Dietary Guidelines may not reinvent the wheel, but they of fer manufacturers a roadmap to balance nutrition, consumer preference and formulation strategy across sweeteners, grains and processed foods, according to one expert
Study finds dietary guidelines linked to forced labor risks in supply chain: Seafood, dairy and red meat carry a higher risk of forced labor, accordin g to a new Tufts and University of Nottingham study that maps labor exploitation across popular US diets
Structural contradictions
Barnard’s central argument is that the guidelines are trying to reconcile several incompatibilities at once. For example, it nearly doubles protein intake compared to the previous edition, while aiming to reduce chronic disease risk. It emphasizes meat and dairy consumption while also advising limits on saturated fat. It discourages processed foods while relying on fortified products to deliver key nutrients.
Rather than presenting a unified framework in which recommendations reinforce each other, Barnard characterizes the DGA as a compromised document where competing priorities are layered without a clear scientific throughline.
Science, policy and governance
Barnard is particularly critical of guidance related to low-carbohydrate diets for individuals with health conditions, which he views as an example of policy diverging from scientific consensus.
“There’s explicit text saying that people with health issues should go on a low carbohydrate diet,” he said. “That should be clarified to say that people with health problems should not go on a low carbohydrate diet.”
A low carbohydrate diet is typically recommended to manage metabolic syndrome, heart disease or type 2 diabetes, according to the Mayo Clinic. The diet limits foods like refined and whole grains, fruits high in carbs or processed fruits or juice and starchy vegetables.
He links this recommendation to structural conflicts of interest and governance challenges rather than to isolated scientific disagreements.
Historically, the DGA and other federally governed frameworks like the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notices for food ingredients have been influenced by conflicts of interest.
While companies can market their products, Barnard argues that federal policy development must remain separate from commercial influence.
The same dynamic, he says, applies to plant-based nutrition. Although advisory committees have recognized evidence supporting plant-forward dietary patterns, Barnard argues those conclusions were weakened in the final guidelines.
“Probably the main one was that they were really making a point that plant-based diets are a good thing,” he said. “Whether it’s an entirely plant-based diet, or mostly plants, that bringing plants forward is going to be good.”
One of the cornerstones of PCRM’s health agenda is the promotion of plant-based diets to reduce the risk of dietary illnesses.
A structural focus
Rather than advocating for a rewrite of specific food recommendations, Barnard emphasizes structural reform of the guideline development process, which is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
“The Federal Advisory Committee Act says that there has to be balance,” he said.
PCRM’s proposal centers on restoring scientific clarity, transparency and governance guardrails so that evidence drives policy rather than negotiation among competing interests. This includes creating an advisory committee that is not dominated by special interests and include public-oriented, plant-focused experts, and disclosing all evidence-based studies in the report.
In terms of the nutrition recommendations, PCRM proposes on clarifying that Americans already consume more than enough protein and that animal protein should not be preferred over plant protein (e.g. beans, lentils, soy products). Barnard points out that the current protein recommendations are more for fitness enthusiasts over the general population.
Among the dairy recommendations, PCRM proposes soy milk be recognized alongside milk.
Last month, the Trump administration passed the Whole Milk for Health Kids Act which restored whole and 2% milk in schools, along with recognizing plant-based milks that have equivalent nutritional value.
However, Barnard considers whole cow’s milk a problem due to health risks associated with saturated fat intake.
“Take a mulligan,” he said. “These guidelines aren’t making anybody stand up and cheer. We can do better.”
This, Barnard argues, means addressing contradictions directly rather than layering compromises — from protein framing and dairy positioning to low-carbohydrate guidance, plant-based validation and definitions of processed food.
“We’re just trying to identify the issues, and toss them back to government,” he said.
Clarity over ideology
Barnard frames DGA’s contradictions as structural rather than ideological. In his view, the DGA is not undermined by any single recommendation, but by the loss of a coherent scientific model that aligns guidance across categories.
“How can you emphasize meat and dairy and limit saturated fat at the same time?” he said. “It’s really hard to do.”
