The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) were released this week with the tagline “eat real food,” and a stronger stance on limiting added sugars and highly processed foods.
But it also brought the return of a pyramid-like graphic—this time flipped on its head, emphasizing foods like steak, full-fat milk, and butter. The visual prominence of such options might have you thinking saturated fat limits were tossed out with the MyPlate graphic, but the actual Guidelines retain the longstanding upper limit of 10% of total daily calories.
“I think the new Guidelines move in the right direction by reinforcing the importance of reducing added sugars and cutting back on refined grains and other highly processed foods,” said Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology and chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “However, there appear to be several contradictions within the DGAs and between the DGAs and the new pyramid. The mixed messages surrounding saturated-fat-rich foods such as red meat, butter, and beef tallow may lead to confusion and potentially higher intake of saturated fat and increased LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.”
While the other largest section of the pyramid is sensibly composed of vegetables and fruits, Dr. Hu did flag the relatively smaller depiction of whole grains in the pyramid despite the Guidelines’ recommendation of 2-4 servings per day.
These details matter, as images and taglines may be more memorable than the nuanced details and underlying text. It’s one of the reasons why we created our Healthy Eating Plate (and the Healthy Eating Pyramid before that).
Below we unpack some key changes in this newest edition of the DGAs, considering both its written guidance and the “New Food Pyramid.”
Calling out “highly processed” foods
While previous DGAs have emphasized whole foods while minimizing added sugar and sodium, this edition is the first to call out a broader category of “highly processed foods.” Although this terminology is somewhat vague on the surface (food processing is a spectrum after all), the text recommends avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages as well as salty or sweet packaged snacks and ready-to-eat foods (even the illustrated yogurt container in the pyramid specifies “unsweetened”). The guidance on grains prioritizes whole, fiber-rich options while calling for a significant reduction in highly processed, refined carbohydrates, such as white bread.
Further reductions on added sugar
The new DGAs take an overall strict position on sweets, noting that “no amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet.” In practice, it recommends no one meal should contain more than 10 grams of added sugars (although meals aren’t generally how people track added sugar in their diet). This is reduction from the previous DGAs’ limit of 10% of daily calories (e.g., 50 grams of added sugar each day in a 2,000-calorie diet). It also now calls for children to avoid added sugars until age 10—a jump from age 2. The DGAs are clear on avoiding added sugar, but far less clear on how these recommendations can be implemented in everyday life.
Contradictory guidance on healthy fats
When it comes to dietary fat and long-term health outcomes, what’s most important is the type of fat you eat—reducing saturated fat and replacing it with sources of unsaturated fat. As mentioned, the DGAs maintained existing consensus that saturated fat consumption should not exceed 10% of total daily calories.
What’s confusing is that the “healthy fat” guidance groups animal-based foods higher in saturated fat—such as meats and full-fat dairy—with plant-based foods lower in saturated fat. There is no mention as to which of these foods should be chosen more or less often to help stay within the upper limit. And on the pyramid, steak, cheese, whole milk, and butter seem to play a prominent role.
Saturated fat math
What does this guidance look like in daily practice? Let’s take a 2,000-calorie diet where the 10% limit equates to roughly 22 grams of saturated fat. In the DGAs’ guidance on daily servings by calorie level, 3 servings of dairy are recommended daily. If full fat versions are selected for the examples given [one 8-oz cup of whole milk (5 grams saturated fat); ¾ cup of full-fat Greek yogurt (6 grams); 1 ounce of cheddar cheese (6 grams)], you are already at 17 grams of saturated fat. If you were to add a single tablespoon of butter (7 grams) or beef tallow (6 grams)—both suggested cooking fat options—you’re over the limit. And this isn’t even considering other foods consumed throughout the day, including some of the recommended protein options (more on that below).
While olive oil is visualized in the pyramid and suggested as a healthy fat, it is referenced as an option with “essential fatty acids.” While olive oil is a healthy choice lower in saturated fat (2 grams per tablespoon), Dr. Hu explains how there are better sources when consuming essential fatty acids is the goal:
“Olive oil contains mostly oleic acid, but relatively small amounts of essential fatty acids such as alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid compared with other oils that are rich sources of these fatty acids, such as soybean oil and canola oil. Importantly, all these plant oils have been shown to lower LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk compared with animal fats such as butter or tropical fats such as coconut oil and palm oil.”
Hype around protein quantity
The new DGAs suggest that adults consume 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, 50-100% more than what was previously recommended for minimum intake. Certainly, protein needs are highly variable—and wider ranges have been set by groups like the National Academy of Medicines—but these needs are best determined by a healthcare provider or a registered dietitian, as consuming excess protein can still be converted to fat in the body and lead to weight gain. What’s also missing from the Guidelines is clarity on the quality of different protein foods, especially when many in the U.S. are consuming more than enough protein.
“Substantially raising overall protein intake without distinguishing between different protein sources may have unintended long-term health implications,” says Dr. Hu. “Evidence continues to suggest that plant-based proteins and fish are associated with more favorable health outcomes than diets high in red meat.”
When we eat foods for protein, we also eat everything that comes alongside it: the different fats, fiber, sodium, and more. It’s this protein “package” that’s likely to make a difference for health. While the Guidelines recommend a “variety of protein foods” from both animal and plant sources, there’s no clear messaging about which options should be chosen more regularly. Given the DGAs’ stated saturated fat limits, this is an important consideration depending on what other foods are consumed throughout the day. For example:
- A 4-ounce broiled sirloin steak is a significant source of protein—about 33 grams worth. But it also delivers about 5 grams of saturated fat.
- A cup of cooked lentils provides about 18 grams of protein and 15 grams of fiber, and it has virtually no saturated fat.
“Less” Alcohol
On alcohol, the DGAs offer a vague message to “consume less alcohol for better health,” Without concrete limits, it’s hard for people to know what “less” actually means.
Still no consideration of environmental impacts
Another concern is that the DGAs do not consider the environmental and socioeconomic impact of dietary recommendations. This omission is problematic because food choices significantly affect the environment, and in turn are strongly shaped by socioeconomic and cultural factors.
Bottom line
Despite stronger positions on added sugars and highly processed foods, and technical alignment with the scientific consensus on saturated fat limits, certain aspects of the 2025 Guidelines send mixed signals. The New Food Pyramid graphic itself is particularly puzzling, given the visual emphasis on animal products high in saturated fat. Although DGAs are typically launched as policy documents, this edition appears more consumer-friendly, given its shorter length, associated graphics, and interactive website. Historically, research finds that Americans do not follow the dietary guidelines, so it remains to be seen if this edition will be any different. However, if you find yourself confused by some of the conflicting messaging, we recommend checking out the Healthy Eating Plate, or consulting a registered dietitian for more personalized guidance.
Related: A different road to this year’s DGAs
Every five years, the DGAs are updated by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) for use by federal nutrition program operators, policy makers, and healthcare providers. But first, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee—an independent group of nutrition science experts—summarizes the current state of nutrition science without influence from government or food industry. Members are vetted through extensive background checks, undergo ethics training, and scientific committee meetings are livestreamed. The public is also given opportunities to submit comments. After two years of evidence review and synthesis, the Committee released their Scientific Report to USDA and HHS.
But this time around, the Committee’s report was ultimately rejected by the current administration. Instead, a supplemental scientific analysis was conducted by a group of individuals selected through a “federal contracting process.” Although the supplemental document notes that “evidence was evaluated based solely on scientific rigor” and underwent “internal quality checks” with external peer review, some have raised concern over the lack of transparency in their process. In an Q&A with Harvard Chan News, Deirdre Tobias, assistant professor in the Department of Nutrition who served on the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, noted:
“As of today, there has not been transparency in who wrote the new DGAs. Although there are documents included in the appendices by named scientists, there is no transparency in the methodology and rigor that was employed, or why certain topics were selected to be relitigated. The reviews themselves, as well as their overall presentation and integration, deviate significantly from the rigorous process that the HHS developed for the DGAs to ensure the evidence base and its committees’ conclusions were replicable, unbiased, transparent, and free from non-scientific influences.”
Others have also flagged reviewers’ financial ties to the beef and dairy industries (which is disclosed in the supplemental analysis), given the prime placement of meat and dairy products in the DGAs.
