How the Coming U.S. Dietary Guidelines Will Shape Our Health (the short version)
Will ultraprocessed food, science, or RFK, Jr. win behind the scenes?
A leaked draft of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Strategy report has stirred disappointment among advocates of stronger nutrition policy. Instead of taking firm action on ultraprocessed food (UPF) or pesticides, the report merely calls for more research, mentioning UPF just once—and only to suggest a definition is needed.
This matters because the 2025–2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines, also overdue, are being written now. In July, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. delayed their release from July to October, giving the food industry more time to press its case. And press it they do: from 1998–2020, UPF makers spent $1.15 billion lobbying Washington, outpacing tobacco and alcohol
These guidelines are no small matter. They set the nutrition standard for programs like School Lunches, SNAP, and WIC, and shape food labeling, public health campaigns, and even what doctors tell patients. With so much money and policy at stake, corporate influence is immense.
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), whose scientific report guides the process, has its own conflicts: nine of its 20 members have ties to food, agriculture, weight-control, or pharmaceutical industries. Unsurprisingly, the committee avoided bold recommendations.
Two failures stand out. First, while acknowledging America’s weight crisis, the DGAC ignored evidence that most people cannot permanently lose weight by dieting—a biological reality that shifts responsibility from individuals to the unhealthy food system. Instead of calling for systemic change, the report leaves blame with consumers.
Second, though the DGAC’s own review found that all 16 studies examined showed higher UPF intake leads to higher obesity, the committee declined to recommend limits, citing inconsistent definitions. This let the MAHA draft off the hook with a single line promising to “develop a definition” of UPF for future research.
On the positive side, the DGAC emphasized plant-based proteins, moving legumes like beans and lentils into the protein category above meat. Whether this survives USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins’ defense of beef interests is unclear.
So when the Guidelines land, will science, corporate influence, or RFK, Jr.’s pro-meat and anti-plant-oil opinions win out? No one will win entirely, but no one will lose entirely. That’s the problem. The Guidelines should serve only the health of the people, free from lobbying or personal bias. Instead, commercial interests and political agendas are once again at the table—deciding what ends up on ours.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.