Where the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines Fall Short
Where the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines Fall Short
DGA Series: Part 4 of 8
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans influence everything from school meals to nutrition advice we hear online. In this series, we will look at their history, evolution, and impact to better understand how nutrition science translates into policy and practice.
Part 3 focused on what the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines get right. This post focuses on where they fall short. Not dramatically wrong. Not irresponsible. But not quite aligned with the strength and nuances of the evidence.
Being evidence-based means acknowledging progress and also naming limitations.
Saturated Fat and the Evidence
The Guidelines continue to recommend limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of total daily calories. This target has remained largely unchanged for decades, based on extensive research on the relationship between saturated fat and cardiometabolic risk.
Large systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown inconsistent associations between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease when saturated fat is examined independent of replacement nutrients. This is key: risk appears to depend heavily on what replaces saturated fat. Replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates shows little to no benefit, whereas replacing it with polyunsaturated fats shows more consistent benefit.
The 2025–2030 Guidelines continue to frame saturated fat primarily as something to limit without adequately acknowledging this context. The language emphasizes reduction without clearly addressing substitution, which oversimplifies a complex body of research.
At the same time, the Guidelines promote dietary patterns that include foods naturally higher in saturated fat, such as meats and full-fat dairy. This creates conflict and confusion. Advising less than 10% of calories from saturated fat while simultaneously encouraging foods that are major contributors to saturated fat intake leaves practitioners like me to reconcile this disconnect with the public and our patients. How can we encourage a diet low in saturated fats when some of the recommended foods are high in them? Very high.
Whole Milk, Full-Fat Dairy, And Cardiometabolic Risk
The most recent Guidelines endorse whole milk and full-fat dairy options. This recommendation is often interpreted as a blanket endorsement, yet the evidence is more nuanced.
Whole milk contains approximately 3.25% fat, not 100% fat, or even 10% fat. This is an important clarification, since the differences between whole and 2% milk are minimal when side by side. Also, noting that it appears some people incorrectly conflate whole milk with raw milk. (At least this is what it seems like when I see this discussion in social media circles.) These are not related products and should not be discussed interchangeably.
Here is how the milks compare (using 1 cup as the reference):
Whole milk provides roughly 150 calories, 8 grams of total fat, and about 5 grams of saturated fat.
2% milk provides about 120 calories, 5 grams of fat, and 3 grams of saturated fat.
1% milk provides about 100 calories, 2.5 grams of fat, and 1.5 grams of saturated fat.
Fat-free milk provides about 80 calories with negligible fat.
All options provide similar amounts of protein, calcium, potassium, and carbohydrates, none of which are added sugars.
Research on full-fat dairy and cardiometabolic risk suggests neutral to modestly protective effects, particularly for fermented dairy products like yogurt and cheese. However, evidence supporting the benefits of lower-fat dairy options is more limited, not because they are harmful, but because fewer studies isolate them specifically.
The issue is not whether a glass of whole milk or full-fat yogurt fits into a healthy diet. It can. The issue is how these foods fit into an overall eating pattern while still meeting recommendations for saturated fat.
From a practical standpoint, choosing 1% or 2% dairy provides the same core nutrients with less saturated fat, making it easier to stay within overall targets. This remains my recommendation for most adults and for children over age two, consistent with prior Guidelines and current evidence.
Conflicting Messages Around Dietary Fats
The Guidelines describe healthy fats as coming from meats, poultry, eggs, omega-3-rich seafood, nuts, seeds, full-fat dairy, olives, and avocados. They also recommend prioritizing oils rich in essential fatty acids, such as olive oil, while noting that butter and beef tallow can also be used.
This creates confusion. The fatty acid composition of butter and beef tallow is predominantly saturated fat. They do not align with the same evidence base supporting the use of unsaturated fats from plant oils, nuts, seeds, and fatty fish.
The statement within the guidelines that “more high-quality research is needed to determine which dietary fats best support long-term health” is also misleading. There is already an extensive body of high-quality research supporting replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats to reduce cardiovascular risk.
A clearer approach would emphasize unsaturated fats as the primary sources of fat, while acknowledging that saturated fats can be part of the diet without implying they are as healthy as unsaturated fats.
Chemical Avoidance Language Without Sufficient Context
The Guidelines recommend limiting foods and beverages containing artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives, and low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners. While this guidance may sound like a good idea, a great idea even, the evidence about these substances varies significantly across them.
For some additives, data are limited or mixed, particularly at typical intake levels. Meaning, consuming a small bag of M&M’s now and then (typical intake), not a pound a day, every day (non-typical intake).
Blanket language using “avoid” is overstating risk or potential harm with certainty, where evidence is still emerging, and may contribute to unnecessary fear around food. And, as I often say, is it the artificial dyes and flavors themselves that are the issue, or the types of foods they are in that are the bigger concern? Once the Skittles and M&Ms are free of artificial dyes, they are still Skittles and M&Ms. Those individual ingredients are less of an issue than how often they are consumed.
Some additives have stronger associations with adverse outcomes in specific populations. Others have little evidence of harm at current intake levels. The Guidelines, as written, don’t build in this distinction, and it can unintentionally create fear, rigidity, or confusion rather than informed decision-making. And, no, things are not as different in the EU as people think when it comes to additives.
Read More: Food in the U.S. vs EU: What’s Allowed and Why It Matters
Shifts In Language Around Sugars and Sweeteners
The Guidelines increasingly use the term “avoid” rather than “minimize” when discussing added sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners. This shift moves away from “moderation” language and toward absolutism. The all-or-nothing, black-and-white, right-or-wrong approach I am continually trying to stop.
From a behavioral and public health perspective, using the term “avoid” may be counterproductive. Evidence supports reducing added sugar intake, but framing guidance around avoidance can increase rigidity and reduce adherence. Meaning, as humans, once we are told not to do something, it is in our nature to do it.
Read More: Sugars: Natural vs Added
Alcohol Guidance and What Changed
For the first time, the Guidelines removed specific numeric guidance for alcohol intake. Previous recommendations of up to one drink per day for women and two for men are replaced with general advice to “limit” intake.
Yes, “limit” is good here, but what does that mean? It’s non-specific and up to the individual to interpret that for themselves. For some, this may seem obvious, but trust me, some will think that “limiting” themselves to a 6-pack on Saturdays and another on Sundays is just fine and is following those recommendations.
Alcohol is a known toxin – a Group 1 carcinogen in the same category as tobacco and asbestos. Research increasingly suggests that no level of alcohol intake is beneficial for health, particularly regarding cancer risk. From an evidence-based standpoint, not drinking is associated with a lower risk.
Removing specific guidance and the lack of clarity here is potentially problematic. A more transparent message would acknowledge that while abstinence carries the lowest risk, those who choose to drink should do so infrequently and in small amounts, as previously stated in past Guidelines, in moderation, defined as up to one drink per day for women and two for men, and to those of legal drinking age. Some individuals should avoid alcohol consumption completely
Where Nuance Gets Lost
In several areas, the Guidelines rely on older or weaker evidence and distill complex science into simple takeaways. That makes them easier to communicate, sure, but it also means important context can get lost. This is understandable in public guidance, but it can affect how recommendations are interpreted and applied. As I mentioned before, most people don’t follow the Guidelines, and they are intended more for policy guidance than for individuals. The interpretation, nuances, and applications are where people like me, Registered Dietitian Nutritionists, and other health professionals help interpret and apply these guidelines, given their understanding of the nuances and complexities.
The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines represent progress, but progress does not eliminate the need for critique. Identifying where they fall short is not anti-guidelines. It is part of evidence-based practice.
Next is how the Guidelines are Made – and why it matters. That’s part 5.
Related blogs in this series:
Previous Editions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
Why Do We Have Dietary Guidelines? A Look Back at the History DGA Series: Part 1 of 8
The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines: What They Got Right DGA Series: Part 3 of 8
External Resources:
Why Do We Have Dietary Guidelines? A Look Back at the History
History of Dietary Guidance Development in the United States – A Timeline
