Why the New Dietary Guidelines Miss the Mark (and Why That Matters)

Every time new dietary guidelines are released, there’s a familiar wave of headlines declaring an “overhaul,” a “reset,” or a “new approach to health.” This time is no different.

But when we look closely at the new recommendations, what becomes clear is not a meaningful shift toward better health outcomes — it’s a continuation of the same patterns that have failed people for decades.

As a dietitian, and as someone who works with people navigating real lives, real bodies, and real constraints, I find these guidelines deeply frustrating — not because nutrition doesn’t matter, but because context does.

Let’s Start With the Basics: The Food Pyramid Is Not a Thing

Despite widespread media references, the food pyramid has not been used since 2011. For more than a decade, the U.S. has been using MyPlate as its visual nutrition guidance. That may seem like a small detail, but it’s not.

When reporting gets foundational facts wrong, it immediately undermines public trust. If we can’t even accurately describe what guidance has been in place, how can people feel confident interpreting what’s being proposed now?

“Eat Real Food” Ignores Reality

Advice like “eat real food” or “avoid processed foods” sounds simple — and that’s part of the problem.

It ignores:

• Food access

• Food affordability

• Time

• Labor

• Disability

• Geography

• Cultural foodways

• 
  

Groceries cost roughly 30% more than they did in 2020, while wages have not increased at the same rate. SNAP benefits have been reduced. SNAP-Ed funding has been cut. Many families are already choosing between rent, utilities, medication, and food.

We cannot expect meaningful change in what’s on people’s plates without addressing access, affordability, and structural support.

Nutrition guidance that assumes unlimited choice is not just unrealistic — it’s exclusionary.

Chronic Disease Was Named — But Its Drivers Were Ignored

The guidelines repeatedly cite rising rates of chronic disease. What they largely fail to mention are the social determinants of health, which are far stronger predictors of chronic disease than any single eating pattern.

These include:

• Income

• Housing stability

• Access to healthcare

• Chronic stress

• Racism and discrimination

• Environmental exposures

• Food insecurity

• 
  

When these factors are ignored, the implicit message becomes:Your health is a direct reflection of your personal food choices.

That message is false.And it is harmful.

It reinforces shame, blame, and the belief that bodies are problems to be controlled — rather than systems responding to their environments.

Weight Stigma Is a Public Health Issue — and It’s Still Being Ignored

One of the most glaring omissions in the guidelines is the absence of any meaningful discussion of weight stigma.

Decades of research show that weight stigma — not body size itself — is associated with poorer health outcomes, including increased stress, delayed medical care, avoidance of physical activity, disordered eating, and worsened mental health.

When nutrition guidance continues to frame health as something that can be achieved through individual control of body size or food intake, it reinforces stigma rather than reducing harm.

Weight stigma does not motivate health-promoting behavior.It erodes trust, discourages care-seeking, and deepens inequities.

Ignoring this reality is not a neutral omission — it actively undermines public health.

Ignoring Expert Panels Erodes Trust

One of the most concerning aspects of the new recommendations is the admission that expert panel guidance was largely disregarded.

Expert panels exist to evaluate evidence, reduce bias, and protect scientific integrity. When their recommendations are overridden without transparent justification, it doesn’t just undermine the guidelines — it undermines trust in:

• Dietitians

• Public health experts

• The food system

• Science itself

  
  

At a time when trust in public health is already fragile, this choice feels especially reckless.

Confusing and Contradictory Fat Guidance

The guidelines continue to recommend whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, which is not new, but still important. Where things become confusing is in the discussion of saturated fat.

On one hand, the guidelines promote foods high in saturated fat — including full-fat dairy, butter, beef tallow, and similar fats — at levels that research has consistently associated with increased chronic disease risk for many populations.

On the other hand, they also state that saturated fat intake should be limited. Both messages appear simultaneously.

This is confusing guidance at best, especially for the general public. Saturated fat tolerance varies by individual, genetics, and context — but presenting promotion and limitation side-by-side without nuance does not support informed decision-making.

“Limit Processed Foods” — Without a Definition

The continued recommendation to limit “ultra-processed foods” is another area where intention outpaces clarity.

There is no standardized definition of what constitutes an ultra-processed food. Many nutrient-dense, affordable, and accessible foods fall into this category — including foods that are lifelines for people with limited resources.

We cannot meaningfully reduce reliance on processed foods until we address:

• Cost

• Access

• Storage

• Cooking resources

• Time poverty

  
  

Without that context, this guidance again places responsibility — and blame — on individuals rather than systems.

Moralized Nutrition Guidance Fuels Disordered Eating

Another consequence of nutrition guidance that centers on control, restriction, and “good” versus “bad” foods is the harm it causes to people vulnerable to eating disorders and disordered eating.

Moralized food rules — especially when reinforced at a national policy level — increase food guilt, fear, rigidity, and shame. They can exacerbate eating disorder symptoms, prolong recovery, and push people further away from trusting their bodies.

Public health guidance should reduce harm, not intensify it.

When we frame health as a function of discipline and compliance, we don’t create healthier populations — we create more anxiety around food and bodies.

Restrictive Sugar Guidelines for Children Risk Long-Term Harm

Another concerning recommendation is the guidance to eliminate added sugars entirely until age 10. While this may sound protective on paper, it is both impractical and potentially harmful in real life. We know from decades of research and clinical experience that restriction — especially rigid, moralized restriction in childhood — increases the risk of secrecy, loss of control around food, bingeing behaviors, and shame-based relationships with eating and bodies. Evidence from child feeding research consistently shows that children develop self-regulation, trust, and flexibility around food through consistent access, neutral exposure, and supportive structure — not prohibition. Children do not learn moderation or attunement through bans; they learn them through modeling, repetition, and safety. Framing certain foods as forbidden during formative years does not prevent harm — it often delays it, setting the stage for guilt, anxiety, and disconnection that can persist well into adulthood.

Why the New Dietary Guidelines are not an "Overhaul"

Calling these guidelines an “overhaul” while:

• Ignoring structural drivers of chronic disease

• Cutting SNAP and nutrition education

• Reducing funding for health and cancer research

• Undermining vaccination access

• Threatening healthcare access

…is not just misleading. It’s irresponsible.

This kind of messaging muddies the waters, creates confusion, and fuels mistrust — all while failing to meaningfully improve health outcomes. As a clinician, it’s incredibly difficult to reconcile guidance that places responsibility on individual behavior while dismantling the very systems people need to make healthier choices possible.

What Actually Supports Health

If we want real change, we need to stop pretending nutrition exists in a vacuum.

Health is not just what you eat. It’s what you can afford. What you can access. What you’re supported in doing. What your nervous system can tolerate. What your life allows.

Guidelines that ignore these realities don’t empower people — they disconnect them from their bodies and from themselves.

And that disconnection is one of the biggest barriers to health we have.

Final Thought

People don’t need more confusing rules. They need stability, access, trust, and support.

Until our public health guidance reflects that truth, we will keep blaming individuals for outcomes that are shaped far beyond their control.

About the Author:

Rachel Caine, MS, RDN, LDN, is a registered dietitian based out of Watertown, MA, who specializes in trauma-informed nutrition care, intuitive eating, and building body trust and neutrality. Through her insurance-based private practice, Rachel helps clients reconnect with their physical selves and develop a more intuitive and compassionate relationship with food.