What the new dietary guidelines get right—and wrong: insights from Alyssa Moran

This month, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced new dietary guidelines that prioritize protein and caution against highly processed foods and added sugar.

Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH, a CHIBE affiliate, Director of Policy and Research Strategy at the Penn’s Center for Food & Nutrition Policy, and a registered dietician, weighed in.

What’s your general reaction to the new guidelines?

I think the core message is spot-on: Eat Real Food. It’s simple, actionable, and aligns with recommendations to avoid highly processed foods in favor of minimally processed alternatives like fruits, vegetables, dairy, and seafood.

But I’m concerned about the types of foods that are emphasized in the new food pyramid. For example, the new guidelines position red meat, butter, and beef tallow as healthy choices, while downplaying the importance of whole grains and seed oils.

 This advice is not aligned with the scientific evidence, which shows that foods like whole grains, seeds, nuts, and fish are cardioprotective when substituted for foods like red meat.

What do you think about the focus on protein in the new guidelines?

The new protein guidelines are 50% to 100% higher than the previously recommended amount, despite most Americans already consuming enough protein in their diets. There is speculation that this recommendation was driven by beef and dairy interests, however, the new guidelines are still in line with the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) set by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, which allows for a wide range of acceptable protein intake (anywhere from 10% to 35% of total calories is recommended for most people).

I am more concerned about the types of protein than the amount of protein. The guidelines treat all protein equally; however, there is strong evidence that seafood and plant-based proteins, such as beans and legumes, are more health-protective than protein from other sources, including red meat.

It is also important to keep in mind that certain federal programs are legally required to follow the dietary guidelines, so this recommendation will likely affect what is served in places like schools and daycares.

The guidelines tell people to avoid sugar-sweetened beverages. Are you happy to see this call-out to something you’ve championed on a policy level?

Absolutely. High intake of sugary drinks has long been associated with increased risk of chronic diseases, including obesity and type 2 diabetes. Including this recommendation in the dietary guidelines not only sends a clear message to individual consumers but also provides the scientific foundation for policies to limit the marketing and sale of sweetened drinks.

The Philadelphia Beverage Tax, which taxed distributors of sweetened drinks, has been effective in reducing consumption of these harmful products.

The Trump Administration could use the new dietary guidelines as the basis for a national tax and put the revenue toward programs that make safe water and minimally processed, whole foods more accessible to families.

What do you think about the recommendation for children not to consume added sugars until they are 10 years old? 

This isn’t a bad recommendation, but it may be difficult for parents to implement in the current food environment. No amount of added sugar is essential – naturally occurring sources of carbohydrates like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are better choices.

There is growing evidence that foods high in added sugars are addictive, and younger children are more susceptible to sweet tastes. Given the evidence, avoiding them is a good idea, but it is difficult to do when foods with added sugar are aggressively marketed to children and readily available everywhere from hospital vending machines to the checkout line in Home Depot.

Furthermore, schools will be required to adhere to the new dietary guidelines but will need significant funding and technical assistance if we want them to offer viable alternatives. Many schools lack kitchen space, and many food service staff aren’t trained to prepare food from scratch.

The current meal reimbursement is too low to cover the cost of minimally processed ingredients and the labor required to prepare them. So, if we want kids to avoid added sugars and eat more “real food,” we need to prohibit unhealthy food marketing and give schools and families more resources for scratch cooking.

You and two colleagues recently wrote a paper on ultra processed foods, arguing that we should focus on defining non-ultra-processed foods to protect the public’s health. Is there a difference between “highly processed” and “ultra processed,” and do you think it’s clear to people from the guidelines what a highly processed food is? 

First, I think it’s fantastic that the new guidelines explicitly recommend limiting highly processed foods. This is the first set of guidelines to do so, and the evidence is clear that these foods have displaced minimally processed meals at a detriment to our nation’s health.

Recently, the terms “highly processed” and “ultra-processed” have been used interchangeably to capture industrially produced foods that are designed to be cosmetically appealing and contain little whole food.

Common ultra-processed foods include boxed or frozen meals, packaged snacks and cookies, processed meats, and sweetened beverages – examples that are featured in the new dietary guidelines. 

Importantly, it’s most crucial that consumers limit their consumption of common sources of ultra-processed foods, such as those listed above; we don’t necessarily need to avoid all ultra-processed foods to follow a healthful diet.

Policymakers, however, face a different challenge. To pass policies to limit the production, marketing, and sale of ultra-processed foods, as the Trump Administration has pledged to do, regulators must be able to identify all ultra-processed foods currently in the marketplace, as well as new products that are likely to be introduced.

We recently proposed a framework for identifying both ultra-processed and non-ultra-processed foods for policy. We believe the proposal addresses common loopholes in identifying products for regulation that have historically enabled manufacturers to skirt regulations.