2. Doesn’t this contradict Mediterranean Diet recommendations?
Yes and no. The Mediterranean Diet is typically described as emphasizing minimally processed foods, particularly vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and unsaturated fats, with moderate intake of seafood, dairy, and poultry and limited red meat. In that sense, there is some overlap with the DGA. Where the two diverge is in emphasis: the new DGA places greater focus on protein foods, particularly from animal sources.
While the Mediterranean Diet is certainly a nutritious way of eating, it’s important to recognize that there are many healthy foodways around the world. The “Mediterranean Diet” often carries a health halo and reflects a narrow interpretation of eating patterns from select regions like Italy and Greece, while overlooking others across the Mediterranean, such as North Africa and the Levant, where staple foods and cultural practices differ. This broader context helps explain why the previous DGA included multiple dietary patterns (Healthy U.S., Healthy Vegetarian, and Healthy Mediterranean-Style) rather than promoting a single model.
4. Is there more emphasis on reducing carbohydrates, and is there science to this?
The new DGA emphasizes limiting refined carbohydrates, not necessarily total carbohydrates, but there are some notable shifts. Fruit and vegetable recommendations remain similar (2 and 2.5 cups in the prior DGA versus 2 and 3 cups in the new DGA, respectively). The biggest change is in grains: the new DGA recommends 2-4 servings per day, down from 6 previously (one serving = ½ cup cooked rice or oats, or one slice of bread or tortilla). In addition, while earlier guidelines recommended that at least half of grains be whole, the new DGA recommends that all grains be whole.
Most experts agree that reducing low-quality carbohydrates - such as added sugars and refined grains - in favor of higher-quality sources like fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains is beneficial. Importantly, research consistently shows that diet *quality* matters more than macronutrient ratios. Some healthy dietary patterns are relatively higher in carbohydrates (e.g., plant-forward diets or for endurance athletes), while others may be lower in carbohydrates, such as for people with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes.
Lastly, it’s important to recognize that refined grains can still play a valuable role in healthy diets, often serving as a vehicle for other nutrient-dense foods. Additionally, many are fortified or enriched, contributing important micronutrients like folic acid - which is especially critical during pregnancy and has significantly reduced the prevalence of neural tube defects since fortification began.
I have issues with whole grains because they tend to raise my HbA1c levels and they cause me to gain weight, even when eating reasonable amounts of them. I am not sure how to include most of them, other than very occasionally, to prevent those problems.
I had to switch to a grain-free diet due to allergies and food sensitivity. So far I have worked with three different nutritionists and they all agreed that the diet that is healthiest for me does not need to include grains.
I happen to live in a region with a high rate of genuine celiac disease, so nutritionists here are accustomed to advising on gluten or grain-free diets. The vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, and protein found in whole grains are also in other foods. Legumes provide most of these, especially fiber. Ask your doctor for a referral to a nutritionist. They are often covered by insurance if you have a health justification.
Thank you, Joan. The main grains I have been eating are oats and teff. Once in a while I will do kamut, but apart from that I stay away from wheat and most other grains. I have done a little research and discovered that several types of beans, and lentils, are excellent sources of fiber. I discovered black soy beans through a food blog; they aren't the best for fiber but are very low carb. I did ask my doctor for a referral to a nutritionist, about a month ago and nothing has happened. My insurance covers them for diabetics, but since I am pre-diabetic and want to stay that way, I would love for insurance to cover what I need. But the most important care I've received over my lifetime (psychotherapy) I always had to pay out of pocket, so I'm used to that. My gastroenterologist referred me to one that won't be covered by insurance, but I think I only need a couple of visits to get things straight. The main reason I stay with oats is because I love overnight oats. Teff makes a nice porridge. I just got a bunch of chia pudding recipes which should help with my fiber intake.
Mmm. I miss oatmeal and teff porridge. You might try buckwheat, amaranth, and quinoa. Kamut is a wheat hybrid, but spelt and farro are a little more distantly related. Quinoa and red lentils have nearly identical cooking requirements so I cook them together. There are many, many options, some more accessible than others. Enjoy teff for me!
I will enjoy the teff for you - it would be my pleasure, even though I'm sad you can't have it. I may have to try farro - it's higher fiber than spelt. I'm not the biggest fan of quinoa, and it's not as great in the fiber department as some things. I will also check out buckwheat; amaranth is too earthy flavored for me, but who knows I might try it again. It's good to have variety.
5. What is the deal around the change in alcohol language?
The prior DGA recommended we limit alcohol, if at all consumed, to up to 2 drinks per day for men and 1 for women. The new DGA removed concrete limitations and instead offered a more general recommendation to “consume less alcohol for better overall health.” Experts agree alcohol is *not* healthy, though there is ongoing debate about dose-dependent effects. Still, softening the guidance and removing clear limits may reduce clarity rather than improve public understanding.
Debate around alcohol guidance is not new. Historically, the DGA advisory committee reviewed the evidence, but in 2023 congress directed USDA to outsource this review to NASEM and a separate interagency group (ICCPUD). NASEM concluded the evidence on benefits and risks was mixed, while the ICCPUD report argued that no level of alcohol is safe. That ICCPUD report has since been withdrawn (I cannot find it anywhere?) following concerns about methodology and potential bias, adding to confusion rather than resolution.
Alcohol research and guidance is complex and continues to evolve, but I also feel like this topic is quickly creeping outside my professional scope. If there are any experts who can share professional opinions about these two conflicting reports, please drop a comment!
3. Is there industry or political influence in these changes?
Yes, and this cycle makes those concerns more visible, though nuance is important.
Questions about conflicts of interest arise in every DGA cycle, both within the advisory committee and during the period where the Scientific Report is translated into the final DGA. Advisory committee members are researchers who often receive industry grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or conference support, all of which must be disclosed under federal ethics rules.
Transparency is critical in science and research, which is why peer-reviewed publications include conflicts-of-interest disclosures. What’s important to remember is that disclosure alone is not necessarily evidence of bias - especially in nutrition science, where funding is limited (~4% of NIH's budget) and industry or commodity-board support can play a meaningful role in advancing knowledge (for example, research finding early peanut introduction for allergy prevention was funded by the Peanut Board).
That context is why the process matters so much. In prior cycles, a diverse advisory committee and transparent evidence review helped balance these relationship realities. This cycle, however, diverged from the process and instead brought in a select group of scientists, each with their own disclosed relationships. While some are certainly credible experts and respected researchers in their fields, there is concern that their expertise was selected in a way that could support pre-determined objectives. Additionally, the final DGA has no authors, and therefore no conflicts of interest to disclose. Together, these changes may create challenges for transparency and accountability, underscoring the importance of a public, independent process.
Thank you for this take on the new Dietary Guidelines, Ms. Maisano. As acknowledged, you work for the dairy industry, which will benefit from the changes in the Guidelines and associated materials promoting whole milk. Please allow me to take a more negative view of the greatly increased industry influence on these new Guidelines, most obvious in the stated conflicts of interest of the selected substitute scientists contracted to write the new report providing the basis for the DGAs that were issued.
Three of these nine scientists had strong financial ties to the beef industry and three had strong financial ties to the dairy industry.
It must be noted that the new group's fast-tracked report aligns very closely to the nutrition policy advocated by HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, one of the commissioners of the report along with the USDA Secretary Rollins. There is a very strong appearance, counter to true science in which it is key to fight bias at every turn, the outcomes of this supposedly scientific report were predetermined.
The change from a recommendation for reduced-fat milk is an important shift in the DGA, in part because it affects what can be served to school children and Americans in federally-funded settings and in part because it provides a stamp of approval for the industry in their marketing of whole milk to the public.
There is a shifting debate about the significance on health of serving full-fat milk to children, with more nutrition scientists, among them Dariush Mozaffarian, whom you rightly cite as a reliable source, coming to feel that the evidence that full-fat milk is not a better choice than reduced-fat milk needs re-evaluating. You describe the scientific basis for this shift in thinking very well in your answer to the saturated fat question.
In fact, I only wish the two beneficial, and most important, changes in the new DGA, around sugar and ultraprocessed food, had been proposed by the original Scientific Advisory Committee.
I am an epidemiologist trained in nutrition and public health [MS, MPH, MLA] and have studied and written about healthy eating, food access and politics, and addiction.
Thanks for sharing these additional builds. I agree with your concern regarding alignment between the final report and potential pre-determined goals - not quite the order of the Scientific Method.
1. What is the science behind including foods with more saturated fat?
Newer research suggests saturated fat may affect health differently depending on where it comes from. Saturated fat in whole, nutrient-dense foods like dairy, unprocessed meat, and dark chocolate does not appear to raise cardiometabolic risk in the same way as saturated fat from highly processed foods, likely due to food matrix effects that influence how we digest and metabolize foods.
This has led some experts to advocate for dietary guidance that focuses more on foods and overall diet patterns rather than isolated nutrients. At the same time, there is evidence that shows that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat (but not refined carbohydrates) can lower heart disease risk. Taken together, the science supports that there can be fat flexibility from nutrient-dense foods within otherwise healthy and balanced diets.
I'd like to add a little context about saturated fat for a large subset of the population, those who carry one or two copies of APOE4. Most people don't know their APOE status (these come in phenotypes of 2, 3, and 4.) APOE4 is strongly associated with issues with lipid metabolism, and downstream with heart disease and dementia (via "bad cholesterol," inflammation and susceptibility to small vessel disease. This matters because those who carry one or two copies of the APOE4 allele (roughly 27% of the population) have a hyper-response to saturated fat in the diet and must be especially mindful to control intake (among other lifestyle and medical approaches) in order to reduce disease risk. That these guidelines keep the "limit to 10%" approach to saturated fat but also promote a diet rich in meat and full-fat dairy that would almost certainly well exceed that limit makes the guidelines particularly dangerous for about 1/4 of the population.
Yes, thank you for adding this! I wasn't aware of how high the prevalence was. It's a good example of why nutrition and health are so unique to the individual. I am hopeful that personalized nutrition will advance in coming years in a way that makes insights like this accessible to most people.
All very good info particularly about saturated fats in things like filet mignon with I love.
Will you be commenting on something I read about just today… the FDA refused to consider Moderna's application for review of the mRNA flu vaccine. This vaccine was tested on nearly 41,000 people. According to the story I read on CNN this is nearly unprecedented. According to the story the current FDA heffé is an anti–mRNA person who has blamed the mRNA covid shots for killing 10 children. Never mind covid likely killed many more children. The MAHA sheriff to the rescue.
My response to the new recommendations is to ignore them completely. The way they were created and the hype that surrounds them has nothing whatever to do with sound science and nutrition.
That they may in some instances "land" on an OK result doesn't help. It's not "good in parts," like the curate's egg. Instead, as the whole process has been politicized—moreover by people with no expertise and malign intent—the totality of the advice has to be considered suspect.
I'll stick with the old pyramid until someone sensible is back in charge. Meanwhile, I'm grateful Team YLE is here to offer information that IS well informed and trustworthy.🙏❤️🙏
What seems to be overlooked is that the "old" pyramid was replaced by My Plate way back in 2011, and there were two versions of that older pyramid. I appreciated this article including a graphic of the history of government Dietary Guideline graphics.
Good catch. Yes, I do recall past permutations, and it's to be expected/hoped for that as the science changes, so should the advice. In the current case, of course, the science is not guiding the effort.
Me too! I looked at the new pyramid before reading anything. My first impression was, "I see the meat and dairy industry were involved." Seriously, eat more butter than grains? There is a good reason the American public ignores all this stuff. I understand the science changes and that's fine. I thought the plate was a little too simplistic and should have been offered along with the pyramid. But this one is ridiculous and I can't see any Dr going along with it. I feel sorry for the dieticians trying to explain it to their patients.
Putting a rather large serving of a red steak at the top left of the pyramid was an interesting decision which I suspect has more to do with shoring up midwestern votes than adhering to any science. In my area of expertise, kidney disease, there is a modest signal that one way to slow the progression of chronic kidney disease to dialysis is to limit the intake of red meat. This is a recommendation fairly far down the list in the category of "Is there anything else I can do besides controlling blood pressure, blood sugar, weight, taking my ACE-I, taking my GLP-1, and taking my SGLT-2 inhibitor?"
Of course the other issue is that red meat is accelerating the Thwaites Glacier falling into the ocean and raising sea levels by about 2 feet. That event will provide us with an ample dataset to study the social determinants of disease.
Going somewhat off-topic, but you are one of the rare people who might actually have an answer. I have damaged vision but like many others with impaired eyes or with blindness I need to be able to better track my diet for health and weight reasons. I have not found any resources for diet tracking on-line or off which are eye friendly for anyone with less than near perfect vision. One made part acceptable but not the function portions so a person would have to have someone else enter all the data which is untenable and infantilizing.
Do you or anyone else here know of any diet trackers which take vision into account? Those who are fully blind would need other alternatives but there are a great many of us with impaired vision who do need to control our weight. I need a resource I can see clearly. (Offline, the books listing caloric amounts have too small and fine print, and so far none of those have easily and quickly searchable electronic versions.)
Thank you for asking. This is is the first time I have been asked something like this and it's a good reminder about the value and importance of accessibility in health-related information and technologies. Below are just a few ideas and thoughts, but if you have the ability to work with a registered dietitian who can assist with finding the best tool for you, I highly recommend that.
- Using digital tools to increase text size on your phone or computer via accessibility settings or magnification apps
- There are some AI-based nutrition tools like Meal Scan, Cal AI or Snap Calorie where you take pictures of your food and get its nutritional information for tracking
This sounds like a software problem. I know that many operating systems cannot increase print size in many apps, but that is exactly what you are asking for:scalable print and graphics within a dietary tracker.
The types of diet tracking software we have looked at are not fully enlargeable so the function aspects tend to not be written with that capability.
I had not thought of asking a reference librarian (despite often recommending them to others), nor asking the state offices or Lighthouse, nor having an appointment with an RD. I highly respect all of those but for some reason did not think of them
I also did not know those image tools exist. Phones are difficult for me to see, but many phone apps work on pads, which i do use.
Have you contacted your state talking book and braille library? Your local public librarian should be able to help connect you with them if yo haven't. If you can get in person help to find an online, editable, and printable template for your needs it could be made with a bigger font and graphics, and reformatted? Or are you looking for a tech based tracker?
Thanks for your analysis, Megan. A specific question: when given a choice of sweetener (e.g., to add to lemon juice and water), what are the relative health advantages and disadvantages of sugar vs. sweeteners such as Splenda, Truvia, etc.? Thanks
Oh would love to do a deeper dive into this. I wrote about this a few years ago and will share the link below, but to be brief - when consumed at typical amounts, they are safe and better than added sugar. We can get into nitty gritty data on potential effects on gut microbiota diversity, but based on the evidence right now, those don't seem to have clinical significance in health outcomes. I think, for most folks, they offer a beneficial replacement to sugar-sweetened beverages. I'll also share a few additional studies below if you're interested in reading more into this. Personally, I love an occasional Coke Zero, or if I'm feeling really fancy, a Diet Dr. Pepper, knowing it's not meant to be a replacement for water ( :
You are probably aware that Wired has found that RFK's own Grok-based food website Realfood.gov) contradicts his government dietary and nutrition guidelines, especially his claim that there has been a 'war on protein'.
I agree with your concerns about politicization of the process in the new dietary guidelines, but I have a lot of ongoing concern about the 21st century American lifestyle which severely limits exercise together with the traditional whole foods for which our bodies were evolved. It's like convenience overcoming survival, with lifespans limited by our reluctance to do any hard work. That said, I agree that it's easier for upper-crust folks to select and preserve and prepare whole foods than those with more limited resources. I think school lunches should reflect the best nutritional science, however, and not be limited to what's cheap and easy and appetizing (if not addictive). The bottom line for me is my history of addiction to simple carbs which led me to needing CABG at age 60, contrasted with my improved health and survival odds when I went on the wagon (relatively speaking).
Curious about your thoughts, Megan, about the sugar substitute, Allulose, that tastes strikingly like real sugar, but does not spike insulin levels or (supposedly) contribute to the development metabolic syndrome.
Hi Ira, thanks for the question. I briefly responded to a question above from Jonathan about non-nutritive sweeteners with some resources if interested in the general topic area. Allulose is a relatively newer option that offers a naturally-derived low-cal sweetener. I have not seen any evidence of harm, but instead mostly neutral to beneficial effects as you mentioned (see links below). I would be more concerned about high doses and GI discomfort.
Generally, for most folks, I see these options as a tool to reduce added sugar in the diet which should come with cardiometabolic benefits - that being said, we should also aim for the foundation of our diet to be minimally processed foods anyways (which don't have these types of sweeteners).
Thanks for your reply, Megan. I read through the article. It seems the only downside of Allulose as a sugar substitute (based on current scientific evidence) is that we cannot say much about the effects of long term use.
For now, I will continue using it as a great-tasting substitute for sugar (without sugar’s negative metabolic and inflammatory effects) in my unsweetened protein shakes!
It is high time that YLE addressed the public health consequences of legalising cannabis I refer to the meta-analysis by Marconi (2016) (DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbw003) of data from over 66000 people showing that the risk for developing psychosis or mania is quadrupled among users, with early (teenage) use increasing the risk and a confirmed dose-response relationship, i.e., the more that is consumed or for longer, the worse the risk. Road safety is being compromised by the increasing number of drivers whose judgement is impaired and whose reactions are slowed by recent cannabis consumption. In addition to these public health risks, an increasingly stoned USA is losing the ability to compete scientifically, technically and commercially with countries like China where all forms of recreational drug use are strictly prohibited, or with Muslim countries where recreational drug use, along with alcohol, are "haram" (prohibited for religious reasons). Millenia of experience are behind these prohibitions. Discarding them in the cause of increasing personal freedom is surely reckless, uninformed and unwise?
2. Doesn’t this contradict Mediterranean Diet recommendations?
Yes and no. The Mediterranean Diet is typically described as emphasizing minimally processed foods, particularly vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and unsaturated fats, with moderate intake of seafood, dairy, and poultry and limited red meat. In that sense, there is some overlap with the DGA. Where the two diverge is in emphasis: the new DGA places greater focus on protein foods, particularly from animal sources.
While the Mediterranean Diet is certainly a nutritious way of eating, it’s important to recognize that there are many healthy foodways around the world. The “Mediterranean Diet” often carries a health halo and reflects a narrow interpretation of eating patterns from select regions like Italy and Greece, while overlooking others across the Mediterranean, such as North Africa and the Levant, where staple foods and cultural practices differ. This broader context helps explain why the previous DGA included multiple dietary patterns (Healthy U.S., Healthy Vegetarian, and Healthy Mediterranean-Style) rather than promoting a single model.
4. Is there more emphasis on reducing carbohydrates, and is there science to this?
The new DGA emphasizes limiting refined carbohydrates, not necessarily total carbohydrates, but there are some notable shifts. Fruit and vegetable recommendations remain similar (2 and 2.5 cups in the prior DGA versus 2 and 3 cups in the new DGA, respectively). The biggest change is in grains: the new DGA recommends 2-4 servings per day, down from 6 previously (one serving = ½ cup cooked rice or oats, or one slice of bread or tortilla). In addition, while earlier guidelines recommended that at least half of grains be whole, the new DGA recommends that all grains be whole.
Most experts agree that reducing low-quality carbohydrates - such as added sugars and refined grains - in favor of higher-quality sources like fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains is beneficial. Importantly, research consistently shows that diet *quality* matters more than macronutrient ratios. Some healthy dietary patterns are relatively higher in carbohydrates (e.g., plant-forward diets or for endurance athletes), while others may be lower in carbohydrates, such as for people with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes.
Lastly, it’s important to recognize that refined grains can still play a valuable role in healthy diets, often serving as a vehicle for other nutrient-dense foods. Additionally, many are fortified or enriched, contributing important micronutrients like folic acid - which is especially critical during pregnancy and has significantly reduced the prevalence of neural tube defects since fortification began.
References:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150
https://www.cdc.gov/folic-acid/about/intake-and-sources.html
I have issues with whole grains because they tend to raise my HbA1c levels and they cause me to gain weight, even when eating reasonable amounts of them. I am not sure how to include most of them, other than very occasionally, to prevent those problems.
I had to switch to a grain-free diet due to allergies and food sensitivity. So far I have worked with three different nutritionists and they all agreed that the diet that is healthiest for me does not need to include grains.
I happen to live in a region with a high rate of genuine celiac disease, so nutritionists here are accustomed to advising on gluten or grain-free diets. The vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, and protein found in whole grains are also in other foods. Legumes provide most of these, especially fiber. Ask your doctor for a referral to a nutritionist. They are often covered by insurance if you have a health justification.
Thank you, Joan. The main grains I have been eating are oats and teff. Once in a while I will do kamut, but apart from that I stay away from wheat and most other grains. I have done a little research and discovered that several types of beans, and lentils, are excellent sources of fiber. I discovered black soy beans through a food blog; they aren't the best for fiber but are very low carb. I did ask my doctor for a referral to a nutritionist, about a month ago and nothing has happened. My insurance covers them for diabetics, but since I am pre-diabetic and want to stay that way, I would love for insurance to cover what I need. But the most important care I've received over my lifetime (psychotherapy) I always had to pay out of pocket, so I'm used to that. My gastroenterologist referred me to one that won't be covered by insurance, but I think I only need a couple of visits to get things straight. The main reason I stay with oats is because I love overnight oats. Teff makes a nice porridge. I just got a bunch of chia pudding recipes which should help with my fiber intake.
Mmm. I miss oatmeal and teff porridge. You might try buckwheat, amaranth, and quinoa. Kamut is a wheat hybrid, but spelt and farro are a little more distantly related. Quinoa and red lentils have nearly identical cooking requirements so I cook them together. There are many, many options, some more accessible than others. Enjoy teff for me!
I will enjoy the teff for you - it would be my pleasure, even though I'm sad you can't have it. I may have to try farro - it's higher fiber than spelt. I'm not the biggest fan of quinoa, and it's not as great in the fiber department as some things. I will also check out buckwheat; amaranth is too earthy flavored for me, but who knows I might try it again. It's good to have variety.
5. What is the deal around the change in alcohol language?
The prior DGA recommended we limit alcohol, if at all consumed, to up to 2 drinks per day for men and 1 for women. The new DGA removed concrete limitations and instead offered a more general recommendation to “consume less alcohol for better overall health.” Experts agree alcohol is *not* healthy, though there is ongoing debate about dose-dependent effects. Still, softening the guidance and removing clear limits may reduce clarity rather than improve public understanding.
Debate around alcohol guidance is not new. Historically, the DGA advisory committee reviewed the evidence, but in 2023 congress directed USDA to outsource this review to NASEM and a separate interagency group (ICCPUD). NASEM concluded the evidence on benefits and risks was mixed, while the ICCPUD report argued that no level of alcohol is safe. That ICCPUD report has since been withdrawn (I cannot find it anywhere?) following concerns about methodology and potential bias, adding to confusion rather than resolution.
Alcohol research and guidance is complex and continues to evolve, but I also feel like this topic is quickly creeping outside my professional scope. If there are any experts who can share professional opinions about these two conflicting reports, please drop a comment!
References:
https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/28582/chapter/2#5
https://www.phi.org/thought-leadership/draft-report-scientific-findings-of-the-alcohol-intake-and-health-study-for-public-comment/
https://share.google/LRjKhmqqIktEfSlGk
It’s a draft, but would this be of any help?
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-draft-public-comment-alcohol-intake-health-study.pdf
Thank you for sharing!
3. Is there industry or political influence in these changes?
Yes, and this cycle makes those concerns more visible, though nuance is important.
Questions about conflicts of interest arise in every DGA cycle, both within the advisory committee and during the period where the Scientific Report is translated into the final DGA. Advisory committee members are researchers who often receive industry grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or conference support, all of which must be disclosed under federal ethics rules.
Transparency is critical in science and research, which is why peer-reviewed publications include conflicts-of-interest disclosures. What’s important to remember is that disclosure alone is not necessarily evidence of bias - especially in nutrition science, where funding is limited (~4% of NIH's budget) and industry or commodity-board support can play a meaningful role in advancing knowledge (for example, research finding early peanut introduction for allergy prevention was funded by the Peanut Board).
That context is why the process matters so much. In prior cycles, a diverse advisory committee and transparent evidence review helped balance these relationship realities. This cycle, however, diverged from the process and instead brought in a select group of scientists, each with their own disclosed relationships. While some are certainly credible experts and respected researchers in their fields, there is concern that their expertise was selected in a way that could support pre-determined objectives. Additionally, the final DGA has no authors, and therefore no conflicts of interest to disclose. Together, these changes may create challenges for transparency and accountability, underscoring the importance of a public, independent process.
References:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/2025_DGAC_Disclosures_508c.pdf
https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/sites/g/files/mnhszr346/files/2024-11/NIH-Nutrition-Report-Executive-Summary-Final-508.pdf
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/special-ep-on-new-dietary-guidelines-conflicts-of/id1788335471?i=1000745531233
Thank you for this take on the new Dietary Guidelines, Ms. Maisano. As acknowledged, you work for the dairy industry, which will benefit from the changes in the Guidelines and associated materials promoting whole milk. Please allow me to take a more negative view of the greatly increased industry influence on these new Guidelines, most obvious in the stated conflicts of interest of the selected substitute scientists contracted to write the new report providing the basis for the DGAs that were issued.
Three of these nine scientists had strong financial ties to the beef industry and three had strong financial ties to the dairy industry.
It must be noted that the new group's fast-tracked report aligns very closely to the nutrition policy advocated by HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, one of the commissioners of the report along with the USDA Secretary Rollins. There is a very strong appearance, counter to true science in which it is key to fight bias at every turn, the outcomes of this supposedly scientific report were predetermined.
The change from a recommendation for reduced-fat milk is an important shift in the DGA, in part because it affects what can be served to school children and Americans in federally-funded settings and in part because it provides a stamp of approval for the industry in their marketing of whole milk to the public.
There is a shifting debate about the significance on health of serving full-fat milk to children, with more nutrition scientists, among them Dariush Mozaffarian, whom you rightly cite as a reliable source, coming to feel that the evidence that full-fat milk is not a better choice than reduced-fat milk needs re-evaluating. You describe the scientific basis for this shift in thinking very well in your answer to the saturated fat question.
In fact, I only wish the two beneficial, and most important, changes in the new DGA, around sugar and ultraprocessed food, had been proposed by the original Scientific Advisory Committee.
I am an epidemiologist trained in nutrition and public health [MS, MPH, MLA] and have studied and written about healthy eating, food access and politics, and addiction.
Thanks for sharing these additional builds. I agree with your concern regarding alignment between the final report and potential pre-determined goals - not quite the order of the Scientific Method.
1. What is the science behind including foods with more saturated fat?
Newer research suggests saturated fat may affect health differently depending on where it comes from. Saturated fat in whole, nutrient-dense foods like dairy, unprocessed meat, and dark chocolate does not appear to raise cardiometabolic risk in the same way as saturated fat from highly processed foods, likely due to food matrix effects that influence how we digest and metabolize foods.
This has led some experts to advocate for dietary guidance that focuses more on foods and overall diet patterns rather than isolated nutrients. At the same time, there is evidence that shows that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat (but not refined carbohydrates) can lower heart disease risk. Taken together, the science supports that there can be fat flexibility from nutrient-dense foods within otherwise healthy and balanced diets.
References:
https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2025.2453074
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10201811/
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/cir.0000000000000510
I'd like to add a little context about saturated fat for a large subset of the population, those who carry one or two copies of APOE4. Most people don't know their APOE status (these come in phenotypes of 2, 3, and 4.) APOE4 is strongly associated with issues with lipid metabolism, and downstream with heart disease and dementia (via "bad cholesterol," inflammation and susceptibility to small vessel disease. This matters because those who carry one or two copies of the APOE4 allele (roughly 27% of the population) have a hyper-response to saturated fat in the diet and must be especially mindful to control intake (among other lifestyle and medical approaches) in order to reduce disease risk. That these guidelines keep the "limit to 10%" approach to saturated fat but also promote a diet rich in meat and full-fat dairy that would almost certainly well exceed that limit makes the guidelines particularly dangerous for about 1/4 of the population.
Yes, thank you for adding this! I wasn't aware of how high the prevalence was. It's a good example of why nutrition and health are so unique to the individual. I am hopeful that personalized nutrition will advance in coming years in a way that makes insights like this accessible to most people.
All very good info particularly about saturated fats in things like filet mignon with I love.
Will you be commenting on something I read about just today… the FDA refused to consider Moderna's application for review of the mRNA flu vaccine. This vaccine was tested on nearly 41,000 people. According to the story I read on CNN this is nearly unprecedented. According to the story the current FDA heffé is an anti–mRNA person who has blamed the mRNA covid shots for killing 10 children. Never mind covid likely killed many more children. The MAHA sheriff to the rescue.
My response to the new recommendations is to ignore them completely. The way they were created and the hype that surrounds them has nothing whatever to do with sound science and nutrition.
That they may in some instances "land" on an OK result doesn't help. It's not "good in parts," like the curate's egg. Instead, as the whole process has been politicized—moreover by people with no expertise and malign intent—the totality of the advice has to be considered suspect.
I'll stick with the old pyramid until someone sensible is back in charge. Meanwhile, I'm grateful Team YLE is here to offer information that IS well informed and trustworthy.🙏❤️🙏
What seems to be overlooked is that the "old" pyramid was replaced by My Plate way back in 2011, and there were two versions of that older pyramid. I appreciated this article including a graphic of the history of government Dietary Guideline graphics.
Good catch. Yes, I do recall past permutations, and it's to be expected/hoped for that as the science changes, so should the advice. In the current case, of course, the science is not guiding the effort.
Me too! I looked at the new pyramid before reading anything. My first impression was, "I see the meat and dairy industry were involved." Seriously, eat more butter than grains? There is a good reason the American public ignores all this stuff. I understand the science changes and that's fine. I thought the plate was a little too simplistic and should have been offered along with the pyramid. But this one is ridiculous and I can't see any Dr going along with it. I feel sorry for the dieticians trying to explain it to their patients.
Putting a rather large serving of a red steak at the top left of the pyramid was an interesting decision which I suspect has more to do with shoring up midwestern votes than adhering to any science. In my area of expertise, kidney disease, there is a modest signal that one way to slow the progression of chronic kidney disease to dialysis is to limit the intake of red meat. This is a recommendation fairly far down the list in the category of "Is there anything else I can do besides controlling blood pressure, blood sugar, weight, taking my ACE-I, taking my GLP-1, and taking my SGLT-2 inhibitor?"
Of course the other issue is that red meat is accelerating the Thwaites Glacier falling into the ocean and raising sea levels by about 2 feet. That event will provide us with an ample dataset to study the social determinants of disease.
Going somewhat off-topic, but you are one of the rare people who might actually have an answer. I have damaged vision but like many others with impaired eyes or with blindness I need to be able to better track my diet for health and weight reasons. I have not found any resources for diet tracking on-line or off which are eye friendly for anyone with less than near perfect vision. One made part acceptable but not the function portions so a person would have to have someone else enter all the data which is untenable and infantilizing.
Do you or anyone else here know of any diet trackers which take vision into account? Those who are fully blind would need other alternatives but there are a great many of us with impaired vision who do need to control our weight. I need a resource I can see clearly. (Offline, the books listing caloric amounts have too small and fine print, and so far none of those have easily and quickly searchable electronic versions.)
Thank you for asking. This is is the first time I have been asked something like this and it's a good reminder about the value and importance of accessibility in health-related information and technologies. Below are just a few ideas and thoughts, but if you have the ability to work with a registered dietitian who can assist with finding the best tool for you, I highly recommend that.
- Using digital tools to increase text size on your phone or computer via accessibility settings or magnification apps
- There are some AI-based nutrition tools like Meal Scan, Cal AI or Snap Calorie where you take pictures of your food and get its nutritional information for tracking
This sounds like a software problem. I know that many operating systems cannot increase print size in many apps, but that is exactly what you are asking for:scalable print and graphics within a dietary tracker.
Many thanks!
The types of diet tracking software we have looked at are not fully enlargeable so the function aspects tend to not be written with that capability.
I had not thought of asking a reference librarian (despite often recommending them to others), nor asking the state offices or Lighthouse, nor having an appointment with an RD. I highly respect all of those but for some reason did not think of them
I also did not know those image tools exist. Phones are difficult for me to see, but many phone apps work on pads, which i do use.
Wonderful comments! Many thanks again.
Have you contacted your state talking book and braille library? Your local public librarian should be able to help connect you with them if yo haven't. If you can get in person help to find an online, editable, and printable template for your needs it could be made with a bigger font and graphics, and reformatted? Or are you looking for a tech based tracker?
...so is this regime going to start calling ketchup a vegetable- as Reagan did? They just want to skip the science.😩
Thanks for your analysis, Megan. A specific question: when given a choice of sweetener (e.g., to add to lemon juice and water), what are the relative health advantages and disadvantages of sugar vs. sweeteners such as Splenda, Truvia, etc.? Thanks
Oh would love to do a deeper dive into this. I wrote about this a few years ago and will share the link below, but to be brief - when consumed at typical amounts, they are safe and better than added sugar. We can get into nitty gritty data on potential effects on gut microbiota diversity, but based on the evidence right now, those don't seem to have clinical significance in health outcomes. I think, for most folks, they offer a beneficial replacement to sugar-sweetened beverages. I'll also share a few additional studies below if you're interested in reading more into this. Personally, I love an occasional Coke Zero, or if I'm feeling really fancy, a Diet Dr. Pepper, knowing it's not meant to be a replacement for water ( :
https://wellnessbymegan.com/2023/07/18/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790045
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/2/239/164033/The-Effect-of-Substituting-Water-for-Artificially
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900723002654
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429
You are probably aware that Wired has found that RFK's own Grok-based food website Realfood.gov) contradicts his government dietary and nutrition guidelines, especially his claim that there has been a 'war on protein'.
https://www.wired.com/story/rfk-jr-says-americans-need-more-protein-his-grok-powered-food-website-disagrees/
Yes and also feel a bit concerned around the idea of privately-owned AI software on a government public health site.
I agree with your concerns about politicization of the process in the new dietary guidelines, but I have a lot of ongoing concern about the 21st century American lifestyle which severely limits exercise together with the traditional whole foods for which our bodies were evolved. It's like convenience overcoming survival, with lifespans limited by our reluctance to do any hard work. That said, I agree that it's easier for upper-crust folks to select and preserve and prepare whole foods than those with more limited resources. I think school lunches should reflect the best nutritional science, however, and not be limited to what's cheap and easy and appetizing (if not addictive). The bottom line for me is my history of addiction to simple carbs which led me to needing CABG at age 60, contrasted with my improved health and survival odds when I went on the wagon (relatively speaking).
Thank you for the fascinating article! I was not aware of the food matrix and enjoyed the link to BBC Food.
Thanks! I find it such a fascinating research area. I love the example they use of how we absorb fewer calories in whole nuts compared to ground nuts.
Curious about your thoughts, Megan, about the sugar substitute, Allulose, that tastes strikingly like real sugar, but does not spike insulin levels or (supposedly) contribute to the development metabolic syndrome.
Hi Ira, thanks for the question. I briefly responded to a question above from Jonathan about non-nutritive sweeteners with some resources if interested in the general topic area. Allulose is a relatively newer option that offers a naturally-derived low-cal sweetener. I have not seen any evidence of harm, but instead mostly neutral to beneficial effects as you mentioned (see links below). I would be more concerned about high doses and GI discomfort.
Generally, for most folks, I see these options as a tool to reduce added sugar in the diet which should come with cardiometabolic benefits - that being said, we should also aim for the foundation of our diet to be minimally processed foods anyways (which don't have these types of sweeteners).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000616
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/2/458
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281150
Thanks for your reply, Megan. I read through the article. It seems the only downside of Allulose as a sugar substitute (based on current scientific evidence) is that we cannot say much about the effects of long term use.
For now, I will continue using it as a great-tasting substitute for sugar (without sugar’s negative metabolic and inflammatory effects) in my unsweetened protein shakes!
It is high time that YLE addressed the public health consequences of legalising cannabis I refer to the meta-analysis by Marconi (2016) (DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbw003) of data from over 66000 people showing that the risk for developing psychosis or mania is quadrupled among users, with early (teenage) use increasing the risk and a confirmed dose-response relationship, i.e., the more that is consumed or for longer, the worse the risk. Road safety is being compromised by the increasing number of drivers whose judgement is impaired and whose reactions are slowed by recent cannabis consumption. In addition to these public health risks, an increasingly stoned USA is losing the ability to compete scientifically, technically and commercially with countries like China where all forms of recreational drug use are strictly prohibited, or with Muslim countries where recreational drug use, along with alcohol, are "haram" (prohibited for religious reasons). Millenia of experience are behind these prohibitions. Discarding them in the cause of increasing personal freedom is surely reckless, uninformed and unwise?