The Dietary Guidelines: What’s Next?

Every five years, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) are updated to reflect the latest recommendations on how Americans should eat and drink for optimal health. A joint effort of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, they reinforce the critical link between diet and disease prevention across all life stages—influencing everything from school lunches to eldercare meals.

As a food and nutrition researcher and a former member of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC)—the experts tasked with reviewing the latest nutrition research and providing science-based advice—I’ve closely monitored the guidelines’ content, process, and impact since their inception in 1980. And as we consider the recently released scientific report that will inform the 2025–2030 edition of the Dietary Guidelines, I find myself reflecting on what they accomplish and where they fall short.

One might think that guidelines updated every five years would bring groundbreaking changes. But the foundational recommendations have largely stayed the same over time. Key messages urging Americans to eat a variety of foods, maintain a healthy weight, and limit saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium endure. And the four core “nutrients of concern”—dietary fiber, calcium, vitamin D, and potassium—remain constant. The DGA needle moves slowly, if at all.

Nonetheless, there are some new wrinkles to pay attention to. The proposed update around protein foods is an area that is making waves. The guidelines are expected to emphasize plant-based proteins over animal sources. This is a big change from past recommendations that prioritized meat, eggs, poultry, and seafood over nuts, seeds, and soy products. While plant proteins are hailed as more sustainable and heart healthy, the new emphasis on plants overlooks the essential nutrients that animal proteins provide more readily, such as bioavailable iron and calcium and certain essential amino acids. Don’t get me wrong; as a fiber scientist, I’m all about eating more plants. However, I’m wary of this new positioning, as it could lead us toward nutritional deficiencies—especially for vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women, and the elderly.

Another hot topic that many in the food and nutrition community are curious about is ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Those looking to the upcoming guidelines for a verdict on this complex issue will just have to wait. While UPFs have been linked to an increased risk of health conditions such as heart disease and obesity, the advisory committee concluded that lack of a recognized definition and a dearth of strong scientific evidence prevented them from making definitive recommendations.

I urge that any future warnings about UPFs are balanced with an understanding of their benefits. Let’s remember that processing is what allows for fortification with essential nutrients and gives us the ability to reduce sugar and sodium levels. Evidence shows that UPFs can be part of a healthy dietary pattern, creating foods that are beneficial, accessible, and palatable.

I am heartened to see that the advisory committee made an explicit attempt to look at the Dietary Guidelines through a health equity lens. This ensures that factors like socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and culture are considered as much as possible, and that the guidelines are relevant to a diverse American population. However, this will take some doing to achieve.

The recommendation to make “at least half your grains whole grains,” for example, is sound advice for those who are able. But because whole grains are pricier than refined grains, telling low-income families to buy more of them fails to acknowledge budgets that are already stretched. Similarly, the recommendation urging Americans to choose skim milk over whole because of nutrient density may not fly among certain constituencies. In Minnesota, where I live, we have the nation’s largest Somali population. They strictly use full-fat milk. So, while nutrient density is important, it shouldn’t get in the way of cultural preferences.

The concerns mentioned above are voiced in the very spirit of the Dietary Guidelines themselves. The process is transparent and democratic, unmatched globally in its depth and ambition. The members of the DGAC are experts in their fields who volunteer their time to deliver science-backed recommendations with the greater good in mind. Dialogue and debate are the order of the day, and I am confident it will remain so.

As we look to the future, I urge us to retain a tight focus on essential nutrients, realistic recommendations, and practicality. If we can ground our guidelines in achievable goals that respect difference, they will continue to serve as a vital resource for generations to come.ft

The opinions expressed in Dialogue are those of the author.