The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) serve as the nation’s primary framework for nutrition guidance, shaping policies, materials, and public-facing health messages that reach millions of people each year. The clarity, consistency, and scientific alignment of the guidelines directly affect how public health nutrition professionals support public health outcomes.

Why the Guidelines Matter

The DGA direct the development of nutrition education materials, meal standards, and program curricula across federal, state, and local levels. This includes nutrition programming in early care and education and school settings, community health outreach efforts by public and nonprofit partners, and clinical nutrition services. When the guidelines are compromised, the resulting issues cascade across systems, making it harder for professionals to deliver coherent education and to support evidence-informed rulemaking. Ensuring that the DGA are scientifically grounded, actionable, and transparent is essential for effective implementation and for maintaining public trust in nutrition recommendations.

About the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior

The Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior (SNEB) is a professional organization committed to advancing food and nutrition policies and practices that promote healthy behaviors, reduce health disparities, and strengthen public health. Our members include nutrition educators, researchers, practitioners, and public health professionals who rely on the DGA as a foundational resource for education, program design, and policy implementation.

SNEB’s work is enriched by its member-driven Divisions, which create communities of practice around shared areas of interest. These Divisions provide opportunities for networking, collaboration, and professional learning through conference sessions, webinars, newsletters, and other engagement activities throughout the year.

Purpose of This Statement

SNEB submits this statement to express critical concerns regarding the recently publicized 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. As the national standards guiding nutrition education, public health programming, and federal nutrition assistance efforts, the DGA must remain scientifically rigorous, transparent, and accessible to all communities. We offer this feedback in the spirit of supporting guidance that is scientifically rigorous, transparent, and equitable in its impact. This statement outlines areas where the new guidelines reflect inconsistent application of evidence, may generate consumer confusion, or may create undue implementation challenges for educators and practitioners.

Concerns Regarding the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

The 2025–2030 DGA introduce several updates intended to inform national nutrition policy and public health practice. From the perspective of nutrition educators, practitioners, and researchers, certain elements of the new guidelines warrant clarification or further consideration to support consistent interpretation and effective implementation. While the DGA include several positive elements consistent with longstanding public health recommendations, such as an emphasis on chronic disease prevention and the encouragement to reduce refined grains, added sugars, and highly processed foods while increasing vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, other aspects of the guidance may present challenges for health communication and application in practice. With longstanding gaps between dietary guidance and population dietary intake patterns, implementation should be supported by coordinated behavioral, communication, and implementation science. We encourage interdisciplinary partnerships (across education, public health, clinical care, food retail, community organizations, and federal nutrition programs) to develop, test, and scale practical tools that translate the DGA into actionable routines. Continued investment in nutrition education and research infrastructure is imperative for evaluation and continuous improvement.

Given the DGA’s role as a foundational national framework for nutrition policy, it is important that the guidance remain clearly grounded in the preponderance of available scientific evidence and presented in a manner that supports accurate translation across diverse settings. In this edition, opportunities exist to strengthen clarity, alignment between text and visual materials, and the completeness of context in ways that could enhance usability for professionals and understanding for consumers. The following section outlines areas where further refinement could improve coherence, transparency, and practical implementation, including visualization and communication tools, guidance on specific foods, alcohol messaging, and implications for school nutrition and federal food assistance programs.

1. Improve Visualization and Educational Clarity

Visual nutrition education tools have been widely adopted because of their clarity and consumer-friendly design. Research consistently shows that visual nutrition tools strongly influence consumers’ interpretation of dietary guidance (Truman, 2018). Implementing the new DGA will require the development of accessible, evidence-based resources that account for social drivers of health, differences in food access, and availability of nutrition education. The new guideline materials present several issues that may hinder effective visualization and public understanding, including:

    • Inconsistent use of portion and serving terminology compared with previous DGA editions, which unjustifiably limits continuity across guideline cycles and creates challenges for practitioners for whom continuity of language supports their work.
    • Visual emphasis on higher-fat animal-based foods, with comparatively less representation of plant-based protein sources, which complicates efforts to communicate balanced dietary patterns aligned with the broader evidence base.
    • Reintroduction of a pyramid-style graphic, an approach not used since 2011, featuring an inverted design that visually elevates foods such as fatty cuts of meat and implies that their dietary importance is on par with fruits and vegetables. Without additional context and a close read of the accompanying text, this presentation may be misinterpreted as signaling higher recommended frequency or prominence of these foods in an overall health dietary pattern.

2. Resolve Misleading Recommendations on Specific Foods

Certain foods highlighted in the 2025-2030 DGA may benefit from clearer contextualization to ensure alignment with the body of evidence reviewed by the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). Even if deemed less harmful than previously believed, this does not equate to evidence of their role as health-promoting options.

    • Clarify the Role of Foods High in Saturated Fat: While beef tallow and butter contain monounsaturated fats, they also include high levels of saturated fats (e.g., palmitic acid) associated with adverse cardiometabolic outcomes. Although the 2025–2030 DGA retains the recommendation to limit saturated fat intake to less than 10% of total daily calories, the prominent visual inclusion of foods high in saturated fat (such as red meat and full-fat dairy) may complicate educators’ and practitioners’ efforts to convey consistent, evidence-based messages. Providing additional clarification on the intended role, frequency, and portion size of these foods within recommended dietary patterns could improve coherence among the narrative guidance, visual materials, and the underlying evidence base.
    • Develop a Practical Operational Definition of Ultra-Processed Foods: To promote consistent implementation across federal nutrition programs, clinical care, and nutrition education, we recommend that the Departments publish an operational definition of ultra-processed foods. This should include clear examples and guidance that distinguish between degrees of processing within common categories (e.g., staple foods and mixed dishes) so that educators, institutions, and households can apply the recommendations consistently. Such a definition would also support aligned communication, labeling, and evaluation efforts.
    • Provide Equivalent Alternatives for Individuals Who Do Not Consume Dairy: Because dairy is emphasized in the DGA across multiple life stages, accompanying materials should more clearly address nutritionally comparable options for individuals who cannot consume dairy (e.g., lactose intolerance, allergy) or who choose not to. Clear, culturally responsive guidance on fortified alternatives and nutrient equivalence can improve real-world adherence while maintaining nutrient-adequacy goals.

3. Solve for Discrepancies in Alcohol Guidance

The 2025-2030 DGA recommend complete abstention from alcohol during pregnancy but otherwise offer only general advice to “drink less.” This reverses earlier, clearer recommendations that set daily limits of one drink for women and two for men. Emerging research indicates that no level of alcohol consumption is risk-free. The vague “drink less” guidance may confuse consumers, condone a level of consumption adverse to health, and complicate the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorder.

4. Consider Implications for School Nutrition and Federal Nutrition Programs

The DGA guide nutritional standards in federal food assistance programs, public health interventions that include the National School Lunch Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, and community-based initiatives. Implementation guidance should explicitly address sodium as a key feasibility constraint in both household and institutional settings.

While encouraging the use of seasonings, federal messaging should more clearly guard against unintended increases in sodium intake and provide practical strategies that help populations remain within recommended sodium ranges. We also encourage continued efforts to reduce excess sodium in the food supply, given evidence that meeting sodium goals is challenging even under modeled scenarios.

Effective translation of the updated guidance will require:

    • Enhanced implementation support at federal, state, and local levels
    • Clear alignment between nutrition guidance and food marketing environments, particularly policies that limit child-directed advertising of unhealthy foods
    • Resources enabling school meal programs to increase use of whole foods and minimally processed foods and reduce reliance on highly processed food items

In short, the new guidelines will necessitate increased infrastructure, technical assistance, and federal funding for the implementation of these pivotal programs. Evidence from national evaluations of school meal programs indicates that cost, procurement, labor, and infrastructure constraints significantly influence the feasibility of implementing updated nutrition standards. (USDA, 2019). Placing the burden of implementation solely on school districts or state agencies without federal infrastructure support risks widespread disregard for the policy and its intended public health impact.

Perspectives from SNEB Divisions

In addition to the concerns outlined above, several SNEB Divisions provided input reflecting their specialized expertise and core values. These perspectives illustrate how the 2025–2030 DGA may affect diverse sectors of nutrition education and practice.

The Higher Education Division highlights how the 2025–2030 DGA will affect nutrition teaching, learning, and the systems in which future nutrition professionals are trained. Faculty emphasize that the DGA serve not only as public guidance, but also as a critical educational tool used to teach evidence evaluation, policy translation, and professional practice. Their key concerns and priorities include:

  • Tension Between Guidance and Feasibility: The Division notes that some recommendations, such as limiting saturated fats to 10% of total calories while simultaneously highlighting foods that are naturally high in saturated fat, may be difficult for consumers to interpret or apply. Faculty emphasize that unclear or conflicting recommendations can reduce public understanding and erode trust in evidence-based nutrition policy.
  • Disconnection Between Recommendations and Food System Realities: Several recommendations appear aspirational without accompanying policy measures to address affordability, accessibility, and structural inequities in the food system. The Division stresses that guidance must reflect the lived experiences of diverse communities to avoid widening disparities in nutrition security and health outcomes.
  • Educational Implications for Teaching Federal Nutrition Policy: Faculty rely on the DGA to help students understand the link between scientific evidence, policy, and public health impact. The Division encourages instructors to continue teaching students to think critically about how evidence is incorporated, or omitted, in the guideline development process. Resources such as the table “Overview of Evidence Accepted and Rejected from the DGAC Report” (pp. 4–5 of The Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030) and comparisons with global food guides are recommended for classroom use to support deeper learning and transparency.
  • Concerns About Insufficient Consumer Testing: The Division raises questions about whether the slogan “Eat Real Food” and the upside-down pyramid graphic underwent adequate consumer testing. Because effective nutrition education relies on messaging that is understandable, actionable, and relevant, they emphasize the importance of evaluating public interpretation of these materials before full implementation.
  • Lack of Transparency in the Development Process: Faculty express concern about the limited number of individuals involved in producing The Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the absence of opportunities for public review or comment. This contrasts with previous processes, such as the Scientific Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which incorporated public comment periods, posted key data online, and promoted transparency, elements the Division views as essential for maintaining scientific integrity and public trust.

Features and Impact of the DGAs

DINE recognizes that the DGAs are designed primarily to guide nutrition policy and practice in the United States of America (USA). From an international perspective, these DGAs can directly or indirectly influence global and national dialogue on nutrition education best practices and inform policy discussions, even though they do not have formal authority outside the United States. As noted in the SNEB position statement, dietary guidance must remain scientifically rigorous, culturally relevant, and practical for practitioners responsible for translating recommendations into real-world settings. 

  • Global Exchange Consideration in Dietary Guideline Development. While countries will often review USA guidance when developing their own national dietary guidelines, leadership in evidence-based nutrition policy is increasingly shared across regions. For example, countries in Latin America have played an important role in advancing research and policy discussions on ultra-processed foods, demonstrating that innovation in dietary guidance often emerges through cross-country collaboration.  Similarly, countries in Northern Europe and the Mediterranean have been active in including a sustainability focus in their national dietary guidelines and related graphics. The USA DGA process could benefit from recognizing international nutrition research advances when updating its evidence base and recommendations.
  • Cultural Relevance and Diverse Food Systems. Guidance that emphasizes “whole” or minimally processed foods must be adaptable to diverse culinary traditions and agricultural systems. Nutrition educators in the USA frequently work with multicultural populations, requiring guidance that references and respects these diverse food systems when translating recommendations into education for culturally meaningful dietary patterns.
  • Clarity of Educational Tools and Visual Messaging. Educational graphics and food guides are widely used in teaching and training. Ensuring that these tools are clearly aligned with the underlying scientific evidence is essential to support effective nutrition communication. The current inverted DGA pyramid lacks key educational components like the defined proportions from the earlier versions. For example, placing whole grains at the tip of the pyramid is contradictory, as we advocate for higher whole-grain food consumption to increase fiber intake. Educators will need to use this graphic carefully and augment it with complementary teaching materials to include unrepresented foods (e.g. legumes) and improve clarity regarding recommended intakes.

The Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee offers reflections on how the 2025–2030 DGA may influence equity, inclusion, and culturally responsive practice across nutrition education and public health. The Committee emphasizes that the DGA should promote equitable health outcomes by acknowledging diverse cultural foodways, lived experiences, and structural determinants of nutrition security. Key concerns include:

  • Concerns About How Health Equity Is Framed: The report suggests that applying a health equity lens may “constrain” scientific rigor, but does not provide evidence supporting this claim. Framing plant-based dietary recommendations as a byproduct of “health equity ideology” obscures the long-standing scientific evidence supporting plant-forward patterns for health. Positioning equity considerations as a threat to rigor risks undermining efforts to address disparities and support diverse communities.
  • Issues With Reintroducing a Food Hierarchy Visual: The pyramid-style visual implies an order or rank of foods not reflected in the scientific report. The lack of clarity on implementation may lead to misinterpretation among both professionals and the public. Food hierarchies can encourage moralization of food, which is associated with restrictive eating patterns, lower intuitive eating, and higher risk among individuals with eating disorders or disordered eating. The Committee raises concerns about how this visual may influence eating behaviors, especially if the general population interprets it without professional guidance.
  • Insufficient Consideration of Dairy Alternatives and Cultural Foods: The guidelines recommend 3 servings of full-fat dairy per day, a level that contributes approximately 75% of the recommended daily limit for saturated fat, without sufficient guidance for people who cannot or choose not to consume dairy (e.g., lactose intolerance, allergy, cultural preference). Unlike the 2020 DGA, the 2025–2030 report offers limited acknowledgment of cultural food traditions and food availability, raising equity concerns about inclusivity and relevance.
  • Lack of a Clear and Consistent Definition of Ultra-Processed Foods: The DGA define highly processed foods as those primarily composed of extracted substances and/or industrial additives, yet provide examples (e.g., certain potato chips) that do not align with this definition. This inconsistency makes it difficult for practitioners and the public to interpret guidance or apply research accurately. Ambiguous messaging may also reinforce moralization of foods, potentially deterring individuals from using common convenience foods (such as frozen, canned, or ready-to-eat items) that support affordability, accessibility, and time constraints.
  • Concerns About Implementation Fidelity and Target Audience: The tone and general-population orientation of the materials raise questions about whether the DGA underwent adequate consumer testing to ensure clarity and correct interpretation. Without clear guidance for practitioners, historically the primary DGA audience, messaging risks being misunderstood or applied inconsistently across communities.

The Nutrition Education for Children Division emphasizes that the 2025-2030 DGA presents opportunities and challenges for families, educators, and professionals working to support healthy childhood development. Key concerns and priorities include:

  • Loss of Quantitative Targets: The shift away from specific, measurable nutrient and food group targets used in previous DGA editions complicates implementation across federal nutrition programs and childhood healthy-eating initiatives. Clear, quantitative benchmarks have historically supported consistency in curriculum design, program implementation, and evaluation.
  • Commitment to Culturally Responsive, Developmentally Appropriate Translation: The Division underscores its dedication to translating the DGA into education and policy actions that are culturally relevant, equitable, and appropriate for different developmental stages, ensuring that families, schools, and communities can meaningfully apply the guidance to support children’s long-term health.
  • Support for Added Sugar Guidance in Young Children: The recommendation to avoid added sugars for children ages four and under aligns with evidence on early taste development and routine formation. This guidance may help normalize healthier food choices in homes, early care and education settings, and schools.
  • Encouragement of Cooking and Skill Development: Simplified messaging that promotes cooking as a regular routine for children ages five and above and encourages adolescents to participate in food shopping and cooking, supports positive skill-building and autonomy in healthy eating behaviors.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) are crucial in shaping national nutrition policy and have a significant impact on public health. As the SNEB Public Health Division, we strongly advocate for the inclusion of comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations that prioritize not only individual dietary choices but also the broader social drivers of health that influence them. We recognize that structural factors such as socioeconomic status, access to healthy foods, equity in education, and living environments significantly shape our eating behaviors. To continue addressing these systemic barriers, the 2025-2030 DGAs must ensure that all communities have the resources and knowledge to make healthy, informed choices.

In a country as diverse as the United States, equity and cultural relevance are fundamental to any public health initiative set forth. To reduce health disparities, DGA-aligned resources should be inclusive of diverse cultural dietary practices and acknowledge that food traditions and preferences vary across different populations. By embedding culturally appropriate recommendations and addressing the unique challenges faced by marginalized communities, the DGAs can be a powerful tool in advancing health equity and reducing chronic diseases that are prevalent in many of these communities. The Public Health Division has a critical role in speaking up about these issues, ensuring that the guidelines are not only evidence-based but also socially responsive, culturally inclusive, and actionable, ultimately fostering a healthier, more equitable society.

The SNEB Research Division acknowledges the release of the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) and emphasizes the urgent need to strengthen the implementation of evidence-based dietary guidance to improve public health.

We support the continued emphasis on dietary patterns, diet quality, and reducing added sugars, consistent with recommendations from leading health organizations and supported by a strong body of cardiovascular and metabolic health research. At the same time, several areas warrant greater clarity. 

Guidance on saturated fat reflects a lack of alignment that may hinder both research and implementation; while the DGA maintains the recommendation to limit intake to less than 10% of total daily calories, concurrent promotion of foods that can contribute substantially to saturated fat intake complicates the definition and measurement of adherence. This inconsistency may limit comparability across studies and weaken the translation of established cardiovascular health evidence into practice.

While reducing ultra-processed foods is a shared priority, the guidance is based on an emerging evidence base that lacks a consistent definition. This makes it difficult to reproduce findings across studies, synthesize the evidence, and design and evaluate interventions consistently. Addressing these gaps will require stronger integration of implementation science, translational research, and community-based participatory research (CBPR) to ensure guidance is practical, culturally relevant, and equitable across diverse populations.

We also emphasize the importance of transparency in the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee selection and evidence review process. Balanced representation of scientific perspectives and full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest are essential to maintaining public trust and scientific credibility.

Finally, we encourage greater investment in rigorous, standardized research to better define and evaluate sustainable dietary patterns and their implications for both human and planetary health. 

The SNEB research division encourages sustained federal investment in rigorous, standardized, and equity-focused research—and transparent, balanced advisory processes—to strengthen future Dietary Guidelines and their real-world impact.

The Sustainable Food Systems Division raises significant concerns about the DGA’s failure to acknowledge the well-established connections between dietary patterns and environmental sustainability. Major points include:

  • Omission of Diet–Climate Connections: The Division notes that the DGA flagrantly omit global consensus recognizing the relationship between food systems and environmental impact. The EAT-Lancet Report (2025) identifies food systems as responsible for approximately 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. Ignoring this evidence removes critical context for consumers seeking to adopt sustainable dietary practices.
  • Lack of Guidance on Reducing food Loss and Waste: Food waste reduction is a proven strategy for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing food costs for households. The absence of any mention of food waste undermines opportunities for consumers to take actionable steps toward more sustainable eating patterns.
  • Limiting Access to Essential Sustainability Information: By excluding sustainability considerations, the guidelines fail to equip the public with evidence-based strategies for aligning dietary choices with environmental stewardship. Plant-forward diets are well-documented as more sustainable, less resource-intensive, and strongly associated with improved health outcomes and lower rates of diet-related chronic diseases.

Summary and Invitation for Continued Collaboration

The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans incorporate positive elements, significant inconsistencies, omissions, and unclear messages for their audiences. At the same time, there is an important opportunity to address the need for improved visualization and education clarity, resolutions to misleading recommendations on specific foods, solutions to discrepancies in alcohol guidance, and review of the implications for school nutrition and federal nutrition programs.

The Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior respectfully offers its expertise as a resource in this effort since our members represent multiple areas of expertise across nutrition research, education, sustainability, and community engagement. Our members stand ready to contribute to ongoing refinement, dissemination strategies, and implementation support. SNEB remains committed to advancing equitable, effective nutrition education and to supporting the translation of the DGA into practical, accessible tools for diverse populations to maximize effectiveness and favorable health outcomes. We welcome the opportunity for continued dialogue and collaboration to ensure that future iterations of the DGA uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and public health service.

Contributors

Heewon Gray (Vice President-SNEB), Joanne Burke (Chair-Division of Sustainable Food Systems), Mim Seidel (Chair-Elect and ACPP Representative-Division of Sustainable Food Systems), Sarah Burkhart (Former Chair-Division of Sustainable Food Systems), Padideh Lovan (Chair-Nutrition Education for Children’s Division), Lauren San Diego (Division ACPP Representative-Nutrition Education for Children), Ayron Walker (Chair-Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion Committee), Virginia Gray (Chair-Higher Education Division), Rickelle Richards (Division ACPP Representative-Higher Education Division), Jessica Soldavini (Chair-Elect- Higher Education Division), Susan Chen (Secretary-Higher Education Division), David Cavallo (SOTL Sub-committee Leader-Higher Education Division), Beth Miller (Chair-Elect-Research Division), Sydeena Isaacs (Secretary-Research Division), Mackenzie Ferrante (Chair-Research Division), Melissa Jensen (SNEB Member), Habiba Nur (Chair-DINE), Suzanne Piscopo (Past SNEB President, Past SNEF President, and Past DINE Chair), Angeline Jeyakumar (Chair-Elect – DINE), Serah Theuri (Past DINE Chair), Abiodun Atoloye (Past DINE Chair), Tosin Leshi (Division DEI Representative), Sherif Olasoji (DINE Representative for Membership), Nevenka Christiansen (SNEB member)

Editors

Ricardo Kairios (Chair-Elect-ACPP / Former-Chair- Division of Sustainable Food Systems), Kritika Gupta (ACPP Member), Bree Bode (ACPP Member), Siddique Bawa (ACPP Member), Marci Scott (SNEB Member), Sarah Panken (SNEB Member), Emily Duffy (ACPP Member), and Jennifer Garner (Chair-ACPP)

References

  • Gong, L., Cao, W., Chi, H., Wang, J., Zhang, H., Liu, J., & Sun, B. (2018). Whole cereal grains and potential health effects: Involvement of the gut microbiota. Food Research International, 103, 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.025 
  • Lim, K., McFadden, J., Miller, N., & Lacy, K. (2024). America’s farms and ranches at a glance: 2024 edition (Report No. EIB-283). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://doi.org/10.32747/2024.8754620.ers 
  • Seal, C. J., Courtin, C. M., Venema, K., & de Vries, J. (2021). Health benefits of whole grain: Effects on dietary carbohydrate quality, the gut microbiome, and consequences of processing. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20, 2742–2768. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12728 
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2019). School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study. https://www.fns.usda.gov 
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2026, January 7). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov