The New Food Pyramid Is Scientifically Questionable

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) for 2025-2030 have caused significant controversy, with polarised opinions between their supporters and detractors. They are disruptive, to say the least, both in how they are presented and the recommendations they make.

But little has been said about the fact that, for the first time since 1980, after nine editions in 45 years, the standard scientific procedure for preparing them has been completely bypassed.

The most striking thing about the 2025-2030 GDAs is their graphic representation. It breaks radically with established visuals like MyPlate (a guide represented as a pie chart in the form of a plate, in use since 2010) and the typical “food pyramid”, which has been around from 1992 to the present day.

The new guidelines use an inverted pyramid, which creates a visual gradient from the most recommended foods at the top to the least recommended at the bottom.

This is not an entirely new format. The Flemish Institute for Healthy Living used it in 2017, but with two clear differences: it explained the reason for the new chart and how to interpret it, and its contents were clearly different – even contradictory – to the current DGAs.

Animal protein at the top

In terms of content, the new guidelines contain obvious contradictions, and messages that are questionable in light of scientific evidence:

• The report recommends that saturated fats should not exceed 10% of total calorie intake. However it also advises regular consumption of beef and beef tallow, butter and whole milk products. The graphic representation reinforces this idea.
• In the pyramid, whole grains are the least recommended food group (bottom segment). However, when comparing the recommended servings per day with the servings of the most prominent foods, they turn out to be identical: between 2 and 4.
• Legumes make no appearance at all in the graphic, despite being a vital component of a healthy diet. This omission reinforces the central role of animal protein in the new guidelines.

Flipping the script

The DGAs are updated every five years through a rigorous process overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Over two years, through a fully transparent process that includes a public consultation period, an independent panel of 10 to 20 experts known as the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee analyses evidence and prepares a report. Once completed, this report is sent to the USDA and HHS, which then drafts the DGAs based on its recommendations.

But in the current edition, everything has changed. When the Trump administration received the Advisory Committee’s 421-page report, it carried out an unprecedented, expedited review process lasting less than six months to “correct deficiencies” in the original document. An alternative panel of experts – The Scientific Foundation For The Dietary Guidelines For Americans – then issued its own report without the usual mechanisms for transparency and public participation.

In just 90 pages, this new report sets out concerns regarding the original document, the recommendations it accepts or rejects from it, and the “evidence” that would come to shape the current DGAs.

Nothing illustrates this shift better than the opening page of this alternative report: a checklist showing, one by one, what has been done with the 56 recommendations made by the original Advisory Committee. Only 14 were accepted in full, while 12 were partially accepted and 30 rejected outright.

By doing this, the administration makes a clear and unequivocal statement of what it thinks of the Advisory Committee’s original report. It is an example of what Spanish author Mauro Entrialgo calls “malismo”: the flagrant, deliberate use of ideas or behaviours typically considered “bad” to gain public support. The checklist is a message, one that says “look what I’m doing with your recommendations”.

It also dedicates half a page to “supporting testosterone health in men” (page 64). This is wholly unnecessary in terms of public health needs, but aligns with an ideological exaltation of masculinity.

The alternative report also adds further layers of concern, as many of its authors have significant ties to the dairy and cattle industries (as detailed on pages 11–18 ), sectors that stand to benefit particularly from the new DGAs.

False justification

The current guidelines exploit scientific rhetoric by arguing that the health crisis among Americans is a consequence of previous decades of federal recommendations. This constitutes a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: it assumes that because something happens after something else, it was caused by it. According to this logic, the old DGAs promoted the low-quality, highly processed foods that caused the current epidemic of obesity and chronic diseases.

The reality is that no previous version of the GDAs recommended soft drinks, sweet or savoury snacks, pastries, sugary breakfast cereals or other ultra-processed foods. On the contrary, they have clearly discouraged or cautioned against them.

Furthermore, available evidence shows that Americans’ adherence to the guidelines has historically been low. Blaming previous editions for poor nutrition and its consequences is therefore, at the very least, an exercise in demagoguery.

The 2025-2030 GDAs are not only scientifically questionable and contradictory, but have also been clearly influenced by extremist ideas. They are a recipe that combines a few healthy ingredients with generous helpings of ideology and corporate interests.