I'll Have What They're Having

Just a few days ago, on January 7, 2026, the USDA and HHS released their new Dietary Guidelines, which literally flipped the traditional “food pyramid” upside down. This new nutritional guidance has been all over the news, largely due to how significantly it departs from previous federal guidance and how closely entwined it is with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement.

The question everyone’s been asking is: Are the new Dietary Guidelines good?

The answer, of course, is nuanced. Generally, these Dietary Guidelines are a massive step in the right direction. The general messaging has been vastly improved, with an emphasis on whole foods and a clear rebuke of the worst aspects of the American diet. Nevertheless, the guidelines contain an excessive endorsement of red meat, fatty dairy, and other animal foods that most science suggests people should be moderating. In this article, I’ll be diving into what I believe the guidelines get right and wrong.

Let’s start with the good. The new Dietary Guidelines are firmly, unapologetically opposed to highly processed foods. This is, in my opinion, an excellent and powerful change. Over-reliance on highly processed foods is, by far, the most significant problem in the American food system today. Just to paint a picture of how harmful these foods can be: a review of 45 metanalyses in 2024 found that diets high in ultra-processed foods increase the risk of heart disease by 50%, type 2 diabetes by 40%, obesity by 55%, sleep disorders by 41%, death from cardiovascular disease by 66%, and early death from all causes by 21%. There may even be psychological effects; consumption of ultra-processed foods was found to increase the risk of anxiety by 48% and depression by 20%. How much of these foods are Americans eating, you may ask? Ultra-processed foods are estimated to contribute a whopping 60% of calories consumed by American adults.

Given that prior Dietary Guidelines used unclear language and made virtually no distinction between processed and whole foods, this new rendition—which has the slogan “eat real food,” states that Americans “must prioritize diets built on whole, nutrient-dense foods,” and only shows images of minimally processed foods in the food pyramid—marks a drastic shift in the right direction. Furthermore, on realfood.gov, which was launched in tandem with the new guidelines, the government makes several clear statements regarding processed foods, including:

• “For decades we’ve been misled by guidance that prioritized highly processed food, and are now facing rates of unprecedented chronic disease”
• “For the first time, we’re calling out the dangers of highly processed foods”
• “Eat a wide variety of whole, colorful, nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits in their original form, prioritizing freshness and minimal processing”
• “Whole grains are encouraged. Refined carbohydrates are not”
• “Significantly reduce the consumption of highly processed, refined carbohydrates that displace real nourishment”
• “Eating real food means choosing foods that are whole or minimally processed and recognizable as food. These foods are prepared with few ingredients and without added sugars, industrial oils, artificial flavors, or preservatives”
• “Eat real foods most of the time”

This is straightforward, powerful messaging that has the potential to meaningfully change American nutrition—and in my opinion, this is the most significant aspect of the new guidelines.

As for the other things the guidelines improve upon:

• They say to “pay attention to portion sizes,” and discourage overconsumption of calorie-dense foods.
• They instruct Americans to choose water and unsweetened beverages rather than unhealthy beverages like soda.
• They endorse plant-based protein foods such as beans, nuts, and lentils, all of which are very beneficial for health.
• They acknowledge the importance of the microbiome and encourage consumption of probiotic foods like kimchi and miso.
• They state that fruit and vegetable juices should be limited and are not equivalent to whole fruits.
• They finally say that “no amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended.”
• For the first time, the guidelines are full of language discouraging the consumption of certain food groups, using words like “limit” and “avoid.” Previous iterations of the Dietary Guidelines used vague language and refused to make negative statements, likely due to food industry lobbying.

Across the board, these guidelines are more honest, clear, useful, and rooted in science than any prior iteration, by a long shot.

Now, for the bad. In my opinion, there is one primary flaw in these dietary guidelines, and that is the excessive embrace of full-fat dairy, red meat, and other animal foods high in saturated fat. While the recommendation that saturated fat make up no more than 10% of Americans’ daily calories is unchanged from previous guidance, the language of the new guidelines is extremely favorable towards the same animal-based foods that are highest in saturated fat, in a way that does not align with current science.

While a small minority of studies dispute the dangers of saturated fat, the vast majority of high-quality research over previous decades has revealed that saturated fats play a major role in causing heart disease by raising levels of LDL cholesterol. High consumption of animal-based foods has been clearly tied with cardiovascular disease, inflammation, and oxidative damage.

Red meat in particular is strongly associated with a greater risk of all-cause death, death from heart disease, death from cancer, and type 2 diabetes. The American Cancer Society considers red meat to be a “probable carcinogen.” While protein is a healthy, critical macronutrient that should be consumed in abundance, there are serious risks to consuming high amounts of animal foods and saturated fat—and most Americans already eat more than enough, consuming an average of 227 pounds of meat and poultry per year. On the other hand, Americans do not consume nearly enough of vegetables, fruits, beans, and other plant foods that are extremely beneficial for health. Despite these facts, the new version of the guidelines:

• Places red meat and dairy in the very top left corner of the new food pyramid, in the most prominent position.
• Discusses protein and dairy before any other food groups, and names them first in every list of food categories throughout the guidelines.
• Instructs Americans to “prioritize protein foods at every meal”—not bad in theory, but excessive when paired with an emphasis on meat.
• Explicitly encourages the consumption of red meat.
• Names meats and poultry first, and olives and avocados last, when discussing foods high in healthy fats.

This kind of messaging may lead to a meaningful increase in the consumption of red meat and other high-fat animal foods, many of which bring more harm than benefits to Americans’ health.

This problem is not new; the Dietary Guidelines have long been characterized by a bias in favor of red meat and other animal products. This is due to an inherent conflict of interest—the guidelines are a joint product of the HHS and USDA, and the USDA’s primary responsibility is to agricultural interests, for which meat is a highly profitable product. While the new guidelines improve upon many things, they actually take this harmful bias even farther than before.

All that being said—a diet too high in minimally-processed animal proteins is still far healthier than a diet too high in ultra-processed foods. Thus, even with its flaws, this new version of the Dietary Guidelines has the potential to bring about significant positive change in the American food system. Compared to previous versions, they are more deeply rooted in science, less beholden to food industry preferences, and are generally a much more valuable and accurate source of nutrition guidance for most people. They just need to be taken with a grain of salt.

References:

American Cancer Society. “Red Meat and Cancer.” Accessed January 19, 2026.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/diet-physical-activity/how-diet-and-physical-activity-impact-cancer-risk/red-meat-and-cancer.html

Dietary Guidelines for Americans. “DietaryGuidelines.gov.”
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/

Juul, Filippa, et al. “Ultra-processed Food Consumption among US Adults from 2001 to 2018.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 115, no. 1 (2022): 211–221.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab305

Lane, M. M., et al. “Ultra-processed Food Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes: Umbrella Review of Epidemiological Meta-analyses.” BMJ 384 (2024): e077310.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310

Najjar, Rami S. “The Impacts of Animal-Based Diets in Cardiovascular Disease Development: A Cellular and Physiological Overview.” Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 10, no. 7 (2023): 282.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd10070282

National Chicken Council. “Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1965 to Estimated 2012.” Accessed January 19, 2026.
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

Pan, An, et al. “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results from 2 Prospective Cohort Studies.” Archives of Internal Medicine 172, no. 7 (2012): 555–563.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287

Sacks, Frank M., et al. “Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: A Presidential Advisory from the American Heart Association.” Circulation 138, no. 12 (2017): e460–e492.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/cir.0000000000000510

Sinha, Rashmi, et al. “Meat Intake and Mortality: A Prospective Study of Over Half a Million People.” Archives of Internal Medicine 169, no. 6 (2009): 562–571.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.6