The 2025-2030 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) was released Jan. 7. Updated by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) every five years, the DGAs are used by federal agencies, nutrition policymakers, and health professionals, and inform nutrition resources developed for the general public.
Three Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health faculty members served on the DGA Advisory Committee, the scientific panel that informed the development of the new guidelines. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition; Edward Giovannucci, professor of nutrition and epidemiology; and Deirdre Tobias, assistant professor in the Department of Nutrition and colleagues submitted a report last December after spending two years poring over the latest nutrition research. The Trump administration appointed an additional panel last year to review the report.
Fung, Giovannucci, and Tobias recently shared their thoughts about the DGAs and the work of their committee.
Q: What stood out for you in the new DGAs? Did anything surprise you? What do you like/dislike?
Tobias: With some key exceptions, I was appreciative that the quantitative recommendations outlined in the new DGAs are actually quite consistent with previous DGAs, carrying forward the recommended servings for the foundational food groups of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, and oils. Long-standing limits for saturated fat (less than 10% of calories), added sugars (less than 10% of calories), and sodium, were kept the same. The new DGAs also continue to emphasize whole foods.
Even the total amount of daily servings for the protein foods group is on par with the recommendations in our scientific report; however, the biggest deviation from the science is a new prioritization of animal sources within the protein food group, instead of a plant-forward pattern.
Other critical deviations from science include the recommendation for full-fat dairy. Although vegetable oils were not forbidden, they were notably absent from being listed among healthy oils, despite being primary sources of essential unsaturated fatty acids.
Fung: The emphasis on animal protein, especially red meats, stood out. In general, protein intake among Americans is adequate. Maybe some older adults have marginal intake, but the tone of the new DGAs sounded like we have widespread inadequate protein intake.
Full-fat dairy was highly promoted. The recommendation of three daily servings is a concern because of saturated fat content, and there are many people who are lactose intolerant, or who do not consume much dairy due to cultural or personal preference. I don’t see the need for those individuals to increase dairy intake as long as all the nutrients in dairy are obtained elsewhere, which is certainly feasible.
While the new DGAs did mention plant proteins (beans, peas, and lentils), meat was recommended first and plant protein last. With the high emphasis on meat, direct mention of butter and beef tallow, and emphasis of full-fat dairy, it would be difficult to stick to the DGAs’ recommendation to consume no more than 10% calories from saturated fat.
Giovannucci: There are some positive aspects of the guidelines, such as the call to “avoid highly processed packaged, prepared, ready-to-eat, or other foods that are salty or sweet” and avoid sugar-sweetened beverages. The guidelines are hard on added sugar, especially for children. Prioritizing fiber-rich whole grains and reducing refined grains is appropriate. These are good starting points.
As the guidelines indicate, essential fatty acids are important, though a large body of evidence supports greater emphasis on polyunsaturated fats, which are mostly from plant-based foods and fatty fish. Technically speaking, saturated fats from diet are not essential because the body can make them, but the body cannot make some essential polyunsaturated fats. Thus, in general, it is important to consume more polyunsaturated fats than saturated fats.
Q: How are the DGAs used?
Fung: Clinicians, nutritionists, and others use it to teach healthy eating. There also are a number of federal nutrition programs that follow its standards, including the National School Lunch Program and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). Changes in the new DGAs may affect the food and nutrient requirements of these programs.
Q: What should people know about the DGA Advisory Committee and its role?
Giovannucci: The Committee is an independent group of nutrition science experts that summarizes the current state of nutrition science, and provides independent, evidence-based advice to HHS and USDA.
The Committee’s Scientific Report is a key resource used in updating each edition of the DGAs, but it is not a draft of the final document. Other sources also provide input.
Fung: It’s important for people to know that the Advisory Committee’s Report had no interference or influence from the government or the food industry. Members went through extensive background checks on financial, ethical, legal, and criminal conflicts of interest. We had ethics training yearly. During the review of the scientific evidence and development of the report, committee meetings were livestreamed. The public were also given opportunities to provide comments, which we read.
Q: What concerns do you have about non-scientific influences on the DGAs?
Tobias: Ideally, the DGAs reflect the rigorous and latest science that the Advisory Committee spent two years reviewing and synthesizing. I would be concerned about politically driven deviations from the report’s recommendations that are made without transparency or scientific rationale.
I know that all sectors of the food industry have a lot to win or lose every five years when the DGAs are made public, but the health of the American people should mean so much more.
As of today, there has not been transparency in who wrote the new DGAs. Although there are documents included in the appendices by named scientists, there is no transparency in the methodology and rigor that was employed, or why certain topics were selected to be relitigated. The reviews themselves, as well as their overall presentation and integration, deviate significantly from the rigorous process that the HHS developed for the DGAs to ensure the evidence base and its committees’ conclusions were replicable, unbiased, transparent, and free from non-scientific influences.
Q: Previous DGAs have been written as policy documents, not guides to help individuals eat healthy diets (although they were used to create resources for the public). This edition is much shorter and is presented in a more consumer-friendly manner, including a new food pyramid and website. Do you think this approach is useful? What other resources would you recommend for people looking for guidance around eating a healthier diet?
Fung: Because the new guidelines are brief, it seems like they would be easier to use by the public. However, there are areas that are really quite vague, such as the recommendations around drinking less alcohol. For people who need more specific guidance, the new DGAs may be difficult to use.
A resource I’d recommend is the Healthy Eating Plate developed by Harvard Chan School. People looking for more individualized guidance may want to consult a registered dietician.
About The Author
Amy Roeder
Senior Editor, Harvard Chan Magazine; Senior Writer in the Office of Communications
