A recent commentary in The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, has slammed the release of new 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines, despite being lauded recently by industry groups and other stakeholders
The guidelines should be framed not just on the recommended foods alone, but around implementation, equity and whether the guidelines can realistically improve public health, according to recent commentary in The Lancet. The critique is authored by Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.
CSPI issued a statement following the The Lancet critique adding that while parts of the recent guidance align with longstanding nutrition science, other elements – combined with broader federal policy shifts – could undermine health outcomes, particularly for vulnerable and marginalized populations.
Check out more from the Dietary Guidelines edit
- DGA sweetener warning sparks industry pushback: Dietary Guidelines pose a challenge for formulators around non-nutritive sweeteners
- Whole food now at the heart of US nutrition policy: The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines focus on federa l programs and procurement to drive whole-food consumption and reduce ultra-processed foods nationwide
- Why the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines need a ‘mulligan’ – and how to fix them: This isn’t a food fight, it’s a structural failure, according to experts w ho say the new US Dietary Guidelines need a reset, not another round of compromises
- US Dietary Guidelines sideline MyPlate in favor of inverted food pyramid: The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans spotlight an inverted foo d 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 offer 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
What the DGA gets right
The Lancet authors acknowledge that several core recommendations remain evidence-aligned. These include encouraging higher intakes of fruits and vegetables, whole grains and water in place of sugar-sweetened beverages – pillars of chronic disease prevention that have anchored past dietary guidance.
DGA’s recommendations for these foods are broadly supported by epidemiological evidence linking higher produce and fiber intake with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and certain cancers.
The authors also note that the DGA continues to emphasize dietary patterns rather than single nutrients, a framework intended to reflect real-world eating behaviors.
Where the concerns lie – and why
However, the authors contend that other elements of the 2025-2030 guidance create contradictions that could weaken public health messaging.
One concern centers on the continued promotion of animal proteins, including red meat and full-fat dairy, alongside a reserved recommendation to limit saturated fat intake. The authors argue that elevating foods higher in saturated fat, like red meat and full-fat dairy, while maintaining a cap on saturated fat consumption risks sending mixed signals to clinicians and consumers.
They also criticize what they describe as a departure from the independent Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s scientific report, which had recommended greater emphasis on plant-based proteins and unsaturated fats. According to the commentary, sidelining that evidence base compromises the scientific rigor that historically underpinned the DGA.
But the most striking dimension of the Lancet critique, and the one that broadens the story beyond scientific debate, is its focus on federal nutrition programs.
The authors write that the Dietary Guidelines are “consequential, shaping personal nutritional advice and federal programs until 2030,” highlighting its role in determining standards for SNAP, WIC and school meal programs.
At the same time, the authors point to significant reductions in funding for public nutrition education and projected long-term cuts to SNAP benefits, arguing that these shifts make adherence to even evidence-aligned recommendations more difficult for millions of Americans. In this context, they characterize the 2025-2030 DGA as potentially amounting to “a recipe for poorer health”.
Industry praise and public health pushback
Beef and livestock stakeholders applauded aspects of the updated guidance, particularly its recommendations to increase animal protein, while some policymakers framed the new DGA as practical and reflective of American eating habits.
Yet, pushback from public health and nutrition advocates, including CSPI, argued that promoting animal products risks undermining heart health goals.
CSPI’s statement adds that clinicians and educators “might prefer to rely on evidence-based guidelines from professional nutrition and medical associations, such as the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society,” rather than the 2025-30 DGA.
That recommendation underscores a widening divide: while agricultural and some policy voices view the guidelines as balanced and economically supportive, segments of the public health community question whether they reflect the strongest available evidence – and whether they are feasible in a landscape of tightening federal food assistance.
If federal nutrition programs are constrained while dietary advice grows more ambiguous, the authors suggest, the populations most reliant on those programs may bear the consequences.
