The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: A Tale of Shadows and Science
The U.S. government's dietary guidelines are a cornerstone of nutrition policy, influencing everything from school lunches to eldercare. But a recent controversy has cast a shadow over the latest update, raising questions about the science behind it.
As a nutrition scientist, I served on the scientific advisory committee tasked with assessing the best available evidence on nutrition. Yet, most of our recommendations were ignored in developing the 2025-2030 guidelines.
On the surface, the new guidelines share similarities with the previous version, but they also introduce some significant changes. These changes, however, have sparked concerns about the process and the final conclusions.
The Shadow Process
The 2025-2030 guidelines were developed through a shadow process that bypassed the established methodology used for many years. This process involved a group of people who were not vetted in the usual way, exploring topics chosen without input from the wider community of nutrition researchers or the public.
Protein and Dairy Recommendations
One of the most notable changes is the recommendation for higher protein intake, up to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day. This goes beyond the mission of the dietary guidelines and raises concerns about the scientific rigor applied.
Additionally, the guidelines now recommend full-fat dairy products, which contradicts the previous recommendations. This inconsistency highlights the need for a systematic and transparent process to evaluate research and prevent bias.
Ultraprocessed Foods: A New Target
The guidelines also introduce a specific focus on ultraprocessed foods, recommending their avoidance. While this change is beneficial, the lack of a solid definition of ultraprocessed foods and limited research on their effects make it challenging to determine the scientific basis for this recommendation.
Trusting the Science
The controversy surrounding the 2025-2030 guidelines raises important questions about the trustworthiness of the science behind them. It emphasizes the need for a robust and transparent process in evaluating nutritional research to ensure the guidelines are based on the best available evidence.
