The new U.S. national nutrition guidelines (2025–2030) have just been released.

It states that they aim to place real, nourishing food back at the center of the American diet—supporting farmers and ranchers while shifting the food system away from chronic disease and toward long-term health.

On the surface, this sounds promising.

And there are parts of the document I agree with.

Encouraging people to eat real food is a positive step.
Discouraging ultra-processed foods is essential.
Calling attention to excess sugar intake is long overdue.

Those messages matter.

But as the guidelines unfold, the recommendations do not consistently reflect that stated vision.

Instead, they drift away from the full body of evidence and back toward familiar, industry-friendly nutrition policy.

And that’s where the concern begins.

Because these guidelines don’t just live on paper.

They shape how millions of families make daily food choices.

Why National Nutrition Guidelines Matter

National dietary guidelines are not just educational documents.

They become the foundation for:

• What food is served to children in schools

• What food is offered in hospitals

• What food is served in long-term care and senior homes

• What foods are subsidized, normalized, and promoted

• What many families rely on when deciding how to shop and cook

In other words, these guidelines shape the food environment, not just individual choices.

Because of that, clarity matters.

When guidelines avoid clear direction about dietary patterns—especially around meat and dairy—the most common outcome is simple:

👉 The status quo continues.

1. What the Guidelines Get Right

Let’s start with where there is agreement.

The document clearly calls out:

• Ultra-processed foods

• Excess added sugars

• Sugar-sweetened beverages

• Refined carbohydrates

There is strong, consistent evidence that diets high in ultra-processed foods increase the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality. Calling for a reduction in these foods is appropriate and evidence-aligned.

References
Monteiro CA et al. Public Health Nutrition. 2019.
Srour B et al. BMJ. 2019.
Lane MM et al. Nutrients. 2021.

2. The Saturated Fat Disconnect

The guidelines state that saturated fat consumption should not exceed 10% of total daily calories.

At the same time, they encourage people to include foods like full-fat dairy, butter, beef tallow, and certain cuts of red meat—foods that are naturally high in saturated fat.

When you look more closely, the numbers don’t align.

This raises a fundamental question:

How are people expected to meaningfully follow a <10% saturated fat target while being advised to include these foods as part of a healthy dietary pattern?

This message risks creating confusion rather than clarity—and reinforces the very nutritional whiplash many Americans are already experiencing.

3. Meat & Dairy at the Center: Ignoring the Totality of Evidence

The guidelines explicitly promote:

• Red meat as a regular protein source

• Full-fat dairy as a default

• Animal foods as foundational

What’s missing is equally important:

• No meaningful discussion of long-term cardiovascular risk

• No acknowledgment of cancer associations

• No discussion of gut microbiome effects

• No planetary health context

Decades of data link red and processed meat consumption to increased risk of:

• Colorectal cancer

• Cardiovascular disease

• Type 2 diabetes

These are not fringe findings. They come from large prospective cohorts and meta-analyses.

References
Micha R et al. Circulation. 2017.
Bouvard V et al. Lancet Oncology. 2015.
Satija A et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017.

Excess animal protein intake has been associated with:

• Increased IGF-1 signaling

• Higher all-cause mortality in middle-aged adults consuming high animal protein

• Increased renal stress in susceptible populations

Protein adequacy matters.
Protein excess is another conversation entirely.

References
Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes. 2005.
Levine ME et al. Cell Metabolism. 2014.
Longo VD, Anderson RM. Cell. 2022.

4. Plant-Based Diets Framed as “Deficient”

One of the most telling aspects of the document is the way it discusses vegetarian and vegan diets.

The framing is almost entirely deficit-based:

• Long lists of potential nutrient shortfalls

• Emphasis on supplementation

• Subtle discouragement of plant-predominant eating

What’s missing is context.

Well-planned plant-based diets are consistently associated with:

• Lower cardiovascular risk

• Improved insulin sensitivity

• Lower inflammatory markers

• Healthier gut microbiota

Nutrient adequacy is not the same as nutrient deficiency. Any dietary pattern—including omnivorous ones—requires attention to quality.

References
Dinu M et al. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2017.
Melina V et al. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2016.
Kim H et al. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019.

5. Chronic Disease Claims: Assertions Without Evidence—and What the Science Actually Shows

One section of the Guidelines deserves particular scrutiny—the portion addressing individuals with chronic disease.

The document states that following these Dietary Guidelines can help prevent the onset or slow the progression of chronic disease, especially cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. It also suggests that some individuals may experience improved outcomes with a lower-carbohydrate diet.

These are strong clinical claims. And yet, no supporting references are provided.

This raises an obvious question:

Where is the evidence?

There is no citation demonstrating that a dietary pattern centered on meat, dairy, and higher protein intake prevents or slows cardiovascular disease or diabetes. These are not minor outcomes—they are the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.

What’s more concerning is what is omitted.

What the Guidelines Ignore

We are not lacking data on the dietary reversal of chronic disease.

Coronary artery disease reversal has been repeatedly demonstrated with a low-fat, whole-food, plant-based diet.

Similarly, type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance have been shown to improve—and often reverse—on high-carbohydrate, low-fat, plant-based diets.

These findings are peer-reviewed, published, and reproducible.

Inflammatory and Digestive Disease: Another Blind Spot

The Guidelines also overlook growing evidence related to inflammatory bowel disease and gut health.

Studies—particularly from Japan—have shown that plant-based dietary patterns are associated with:

• Reduced relapse rates in Crohn’s disease

• Improved inflammatory markers

• Better long-term remission

In contrast, diets high in animal protein and saturated fat are associated with dysbiosis, increased bile acid secretion, and intestinal inflammation.

Clinical Reality

From a real-world clinical standpoint, diets centered on meat and dairy—especially when fiber intake is low—are associated with increased risk of:

• Gallstone disease

• Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)

• Constipation and diverticular disease

• Worsening insulin resistance over time

Short-term glycemic improvements seen with low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets do not equate to long-term disease reversal or cardiovascular risk reduction—particularly when carbohydrate restriction is achieved by increasing animal fat and protein intake.

By contrast, whole-food, plant-based diets consistently improve insulin sensitivity, endothelial function, inflammatory markers, and cardiovascular outcomes—without increasing long-term risk.

References
Esselstyn CB et al. The Journal of Family Practice. 2014.
Ornish D et al. Lancet. 1990.
Ornish D et al. JAMA. 1998.
Barnard ND et al. Diabetes Care. 2006.
Barnard ND et al. American Journal of Medicine. 2009.
Chiba M et al. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2010.
Chiba M et al. Nutrients. 2019.
David LA et al. Nature. 2014.

So, If the Evidence Is Clear—Why Does the Confusion Persist?

If the evidence around diet and chronic disease is as strong as it appears, a reasonable question follows:

Why is there still so much confusion?

There isn’t a single answer. But a few recurring themes come up again and again.

1. Treating Nutrition Like Drug Research

A major source of confusion is the way nutrition science is studied and interpreted.

Much of modern medical research relies on a reductionistic model:

• Isolate one nutrient

• Study one mechanism

• Measure one outcome

This approach works well for drugs.

But food is not a drug.
And diet is not a single variable.

When nutrients like saturated fat or protein are studied outside the context of whole dietary patterns, results can appear conflicting. However, when we step back and look at long-term outcomes and overall eating patterns, a clearer picture emerges.

Across large cohorts and long follow-up periods, plant-predominant dietary patterns consistently outperform meat- and dairy-heavy diets for cardiovascular health and metabolic outcomes.

References
Hu FB et al. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2001.
Willett W et al. Lancet. 2012.

2. Reductionism Misses How Food Works as a System

Health outcomes don’t reflect isolated nutrients—they reflect food systems.

Fiber, antioxidants, phytonutrients, calorie density, gut microbiota, and inflammatory signaling do not act independently. They work together.

Studying nutrients in isolation misses how food actually interacts with human biology over time. This is one reason why dietary patterns—not single nutrients—are far more predictive of long-term health.

3. Industry Influence Cannot Be Ignored

Another layer of confusion comes from industry-funded research.

Studies that minimize the risks of saturated fat or red meat are disproportionately funded by meat and dairy interests. That does not automatically invalidate the findings—but it does require caution, transparency, and independent replication.

Reference
Lesser LI et al. PLoS Medicine. 2007.

4. This Debate Has Been Ongoing for Decades

As far back as the early 1990s, concerns were raised that advisory committee members had ties to the meat and dairy industries and that strong evidence supporting plant-predominant diets was being downplayed.

That tension—between science, industry, and public policy—has never fully gone away.

Reference
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Nutrition Policy Report. 1993.

5. Population Guidelines vs. Therapeutic Nutrition

National dietary guidelines are designed to address population-level eating patterns while balancing political, economic, cultural, and industry pressures.

Therapeutic nutrition asks a different question:

What works best for preventing, treating, and reversing disease?

When assessed through that lens, whole-food, plant-predominant dietary patterns consistently rise to the top.

6. Conflict of Interest: A Structural Problem

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is tasked with promoting American agricultural industries—including meat and dairy—while simultaneously co-authoring national health guidelines.

That dual mandate creates an inherent conflict of interest.

This is not about conspiracy.
It’s about structure.

7. Canada vs. the U.S.: A Telling Contrast

When compared to Canada’s Food Guide, the philosophical difference is striking.

Canada:

• Removed dairy as a standalone food group

• Encourages plant-based proteins more often

• Emphasizes fruits, vegetables, and whole grains

• Integrates sustainability and population health

The U.S. guidelines move in the opposite direction—re-centering animal foods without adequately addressing long-term outcomes.

References
Health Canada. Canada’s Food Guide. 2019.
Springmann M et al. Lancet. 2019.

8. Why This Matters

When national policy minimizes evidence and amplifies selective narratives, the downstream effects are measured in disease burden, healthcare costs, and preventable suffering.

At best, these guidelines are incomplete.
At worst, they risk prolonging the very chronic disease crisis they claim to address.

9. What Evidence-Aligned Guidelines Should Look Like

A science-driven approach would:

• Emphasize plant-predominant eating by default

• Focus on protein adequacy, not excess

• Treat fiber, phytonutrients, and gut health as foundational

• Provide transparent citations for all major claims

• Address planetary health alongside human health

Nutrition policy should serve people—not industries.

Final Reflection

When you zoom out and look at the totality of evidence, doubling down on meat and dairy as foundational foods is not just questionable—it’s irresponsible.

These guidelines influence real lives. That responsibility demands better science, greater transparency, and independence from economic interests.

We can—and should—do better.

Drs. Arjun & Shobha Rayapudi

Gift of Health