Telling Americans what to eat can get messy. Federal dietary guidelines are shaped by a clash of science, politics, and industry money—all against the backdrop of rising obesity, chronic disease, and skyrocketing health care costs.

Last week, those tensions came to a head during a public comment meeting on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s (DGAC) latest recommendations. Stakeholders—ranging from health providers to advocacy groups and industry leaders—voiced their concerns over the committee’s newly released 421-page report.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. These guidelines shape what millions of kids eat in school cafeterias, what low-income families can buy through food assistance, what hospitals serve, and the public health messages Americans hear every day.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have the final say on the guidelines, updated every five years, but the DGAC lays the groundwork. While its members are chosen for their expertise, critics argue that financial ties to food and pharmaceutical companies raise questions about the panel’s independence.

The DGAC’s report urges Americans to eat less meat, prioritize plant-based proteins, and stick to low-fat dairy. Notably absent, however, is any mention of ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

The public still has time to weigh in. Commenting on the report remains open until Feb. 10, giving individuals a chance to shape America’s dietary blueprint for the next five years.

The Battle Over Protein

The debate over protein heated up after the DGAC recommended prioritizing plant-based options like beans, lentils, and legumes while reducing red meat. The proposed guidelines now place plant-based proteins at the top of the protein group, followed by seafood, with red meat, poultry, and eggs lower on the list. The shift from previous guidelines has drawn both praise and criticism.

“The scientific report repeatedly recognizes the health power of plant-based foods,” said Jonathan Nez, former president of the Navajo Nation. He pointed out that beans, a key part of the Navajo Nation’s traditional “Three Sisters” crops—corn, beans, and squash—sustained Indigenous communities for generations. Nez linked disrupted Indigenous food systems to high rates of diet-related diseases in Native populations.

Meat advocates countered by highlighting the unique benefits of animal proteins. They noted that animal foods provide nutrients like bioavailable iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, which are harder, if not impossible, to get from plants.

Gabrielle Lyon, a doctor of osteopathic medicine and a muscle health specialist, stressed the importance of animal proteins. “Without adequate high-quality dietary proteins, there is no healthy skeletal muscle,“ she said. ”Without healthy muscle, there is metabolic dysfunction, weakness, and premature death.”

In an email to The Epoch Times, Lyon criticized the DGAC’s approach, calling for clearer targets and more consumer choice.

“We must tackle that red meat is not unhealthy and that saturated fat is not the issue,” she said. “We must demand high-quality evidence before we make sweeping recommendations.” She also emphasized that animal foods outperform ultra-processed foods in both nutrient density and natural satiety.

Lyon warned that cutting red meat further could harm vulnerable groups, like aging adults and postmenopausal women, and pointed out that “43% of Americans are already eating below the DGA recommendation for protein foods.”

Donald Layman, a protein metabolism expert, criticized the proposed guidelines. “The DGAC implies the way to eat more broccoli and beans is to eat less red meat,“ he told The Epoch Times. ”The substitution should be eating less grains.”

Layman added that plant-based alternatives can’t match the nutrient density and bioavailability of animal proteins.

“Animal foods have much higher natural satiety and nutrient density than ultra-processed foods,” he said. “Without them, the guidelines risk promoting nutrient gaps and metabolic dysfunction.”

Other experts stressed that sustainability must be part of the conversation. Dr. David Katz, founder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, said health and environmental goals are inseparable.

“We have some hope of being healthy, vital people on a healthy, vital planet—or we have no hope of being healthy, vital people,” he said.

Katz advocated for the “planetary health diet,” a framework designed to promote sustainable eating and reduce the environmental toll of food production.

“People should be guided toward the overlap of a diet optimal for their health and taste and one optimal for the health of the planet,“ he told The Epoch Times in an email. ”These line up very well, so it’s really not a tall order.”

This view aligns with research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which found that fruits, vegetables, legumes, and olive oil reduce disease risk and have minimal environmental impact. In contrast, red and processed meats were linked to higher rates of chronic disease and greater environmental harm.

As the debate continues, the challenge lies in balancing these priorities while ensuring flexibility for diverse dietary needs and preferences.

The Missing Guidance on Ultra-Processed Foods

While passionate advocates fight over which protein source is better for the body and planet, critics have noted weak guidance on ultra-processed foods. These products, often high in added sugars, fats, and artificial additives, are increasingly linked to chronic conditions like obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. Yet, the DGAC has again side-stepped issuing any firm recommendations.

“To set national policy, you need robust evidence,” Richard Mattes, a nutrition scientist and former DGAC member, told The Epoch Times in a previous interview. “Right now, there’s only one small randomized controlled trial on this issue; it’s just not enough.”

A 2019 study in Cell Metabolism found that participants ate 500 more calories a day and gained weight when following an ultra-processed diet compared to an unprocessed one.

While there are more than 200 clinical trials on ultra-processed foods in PubMed, Mattes said that most are observational studies, which can only suggest associations, not prove cause and effect. He highlighted the need for robust randomized controlled trials and studies that uncover how UPFs might contribute to health risks. Without this stronger evidence, he cautioned, it’s difficult to craft reliable national policy.

Katz said that waiting for perfect evidence could come at a cost.

“When you perceive a signal of danger in medicine, in public health, you guide people away from it—even as you continue to assess the nature of the risk,” Katz said. He urged the DGAC to adopt the precautionary principle and caution Americans against UPFs where healthier alternatives exist.

Some worry that stricter UPF guidelines could burden low-income families. However, a Public Health Nutrition study found healthier options aren’t always pricier. While nutritious breads cost slightly more, healthier cereals and cookies were often cheaper. The study concluded, “Small improvements in dietary choices don’t invariably cost more.

Not all processed foods are harmful, some experts argue.

“While it is fashionable nowadays to beat up on processed foods, the issues are more complicated than that,” Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, told The Epoch Times in an email. He pointed out that while items like hot dogs and bacon are linked to higher diabetes risk, fortified breakfast cereals, which are ultra-processed foods, can provide health benefits due to added vitamins. Barnard praised the committee’s balanced approach, calling for “more research and a nuanced understanding” of UPFs.

One challenge is defining what counts as ultra-processed food—a broad category that spans from frozen vegetables to sugary snacks. Tools like GroceryDB, a machine-learning database, are helping simplify the landscape by rating over 50,000 food items on a 0–100 scale. Fresh produce scores low, while ultra-processed items like snack cakes rank high, giving consumers a clearer picture of food processing levels.

“Better choices are available to most Americans without inconvenience or added cost,” Katz said. However, without stronger guidance from the DGAC, experts warn that the risks tied to UPFs may continue to grow unchecked.

Dairy Under Fire

The DGAC stuck to its recommendation of three daily servings of low-fat or fat-free dairy, recognizing fortified soy milk as a nutritionally equivalent alternative. Supporters emphasized the calcium, vitamin D, and protein dairy provides.

Christopher Cifelli of the National Dairy Council highlighted milk’s affordability and nutritional value, stating, “At under 25 cents a cup, dairy milk is a good or excellent source of 13 essential nutrients that can help close many nutrient gaps experienced by Americans. This includes calcium, vitamin D, and potassium—three of the four nutrients of public health concern.”

Not everyone agreed with dairy’s inclusion. Dr. Ted Barnett of the Rochester Lifestyle Medicine Institute suggested removing it as a category altogether, urging the United States to follow Canada’s lead by prioritizing water and plant-based options instead.

Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of Tufts University challenged the focus on low-fat dairy, pointing out that the DGAC found “no meaningful evidence” linking dairy fat to poor health outcomes.

“Whole milk is still banned in schools,” he said. “It’s time for the guidelines to be agnostic on dairy fat content.”

Equity concerns were also raised, with Yen Ang, an Asian American and Pacific Islander dietitian, noting that lactose intolerance disproportionately affects black, Asian, and Latino populations.

“Dairy is a cultural food that doesn’t represent all Americans, yet it has been a MyPlate staple for over 40 years,” she said. “Such a mandate challenges the reality of millions who thrive without milk in their diets yet maintain strong bone health.”

Industry Influence Under Scrutiny

Concerns about the role of industry in shaping dietary guidelines were a recurring theme during the hearing. Several commenters urged the government to prioritize science over lobbying from powerful food sectors.

“Ten years ago, the Scientific Advisory Committee suggested reducing intake of red and processed meat, yet backlash from the meat industry led the writing committee to only include limiting saturated fat,” said Dotsie Bausch, an Olympic medalist and executive director of Switch4Good. “Please keep industry influence out of the guidelines and stick to the recommendations from the scientific committee who are the true experts in nutrition science.”

Critics highlighted the influence of industry, which has historically shaped dietary guidelines. A report from U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) revealed that nine of the 20 DGAC members have financial ties to major corporations, including Abbott, Novo Nordisk, and the National Dairy Council.

Industry interference isn’t new. A 2022 study concluded that 19 out of 20 of the 2020 DGAC members had financial conflicts of interest.

“Americans are awash in sales pitches from the food and drug industries,” Gary Ruskin, executive director of USRTK, told The Epoch Times in a previous interview.  “We don’t want our dietary guidelines to be one more of those.”

Plant-based nutrition advocate Rachel Bordoli described the challenge of countering entrenched corporate interests. “Fast food companies and sugar-sweetened beverage companies will fight the recommendations on sodium and drinking water,” she said. “Please do not allow them to perpetuate the status quo that is destroying American lives.”

Water Wins the Day

Despite differences over protein, dairy, and ultra-processed foods, one recommendation found broad support: prioritizing water as the primary beverage. Experts praised this shift away from sugary drinks, highlighting its potential to address obesity, diabetes, and hydration challenges.

“The committee’s recommendation that water be the preferred beverage is important,” said Barnard. “It reflects actual human requirements.”

Opportunity for Input

There’s still time to influence the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Submitting a comment is easy. Visit the website or mail your comments to Janet M. de Jesus at the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, HHS, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 420, Rockville, MD 20852.

The guidelines will shape billions of school meals, public health campaigns, and federal nutrition policies. Your voice could help influence these critical decisions for the next five years.

“Decisions made in this process will impact over 7 billion individual school meals per year,” said Amy Hamlin, executive director of the Coalition for Healthy School Food.

What kind of future do you want to build for the next generation—and what will you do to ensure it starts at the table?