Can We Really Feed People Well for $3 a Meal? A Reality Check
Can We Really Feed People Well for $3 a Meal? A Reality Check
DGA Series: Part 8 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.
This is Part 8. It is the final installment of this series, but it is not the end of the conversation. The 2025 to 2030 guidelines were just released. We are only beginning to see how they will be interpreted, implemented, and operationalized.
One week after the releaseof the 2025 - 2030 Dietary Guidelines, on January 15, 2026, an op-ed entitled “Healthy and Affordable Food Is Within Reach for All Americans” from the United States Department of Agriculture included a strong statement from Secretary Brooke Rollins:
“Eating healthy can cost as little as $3.00 per meal.”
The claim was based on internal meal simulations conducted by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service. On paper, the numbers may work. In spreadsheets, in models, in controlled assumptions, it may be possible.
But in the real world, this claim deserves scrutiny.
The $3 Assumption
Three dollars per meal. Roughly nine dollars per day.
Before we debate whether that is technically feasible, we need to ask: feasible for whom?
A seven-year-old does not eat like a 19-year-old collegiate athlete. A 57-year-old sedentary adult does not require the same caloric intake as a construction worker. Energy needs vary widely. So do protein requirements, cultural food preferences, medical conditions, access to cooking facilities, and time. More than just the price of food.
Meal simulations often assume optimal purchasing patterns. Bulk buying. Zero waste. Full utilization of leftovers. Stable access to refrigeration and storage. Reliable transportation to stores with competitive pricing. The ability to prepare meals from scratch.
Those assumptions are not universal realities.
What Actually Drives Food Costs
The Guidelines emphasize a variety of high-quality poultry, pork, ground beef, fish, eggs, nuts, full-fat dairy, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. That sounds reasonable on paper.
But meat is expensive. Even ground beef prices fluctuate significantly. Leaner cuts cost more. Poultry and pork prices are tied to feed costs, transportation, and labor. Fish varies dramatically depending on species and source, and where you live in the U.S.
Fruits and vegetables are not immune to cost pressures either. Labor shortages, fuel costs, infrastructure limitations, and trade relationships all affect pricing. We do not grow everything in the United States year-round. Some foods cannot be produced domestically at scale due to climate limitations. Others require greenhouses, imports, or extended transportation networks.
If we want to emphasize beef production, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested in recent comments, we need to acknowledge that scaling domestic production requires time, land, labor, water, and infrastructure. Those inputs are not free. They do not materialize overnight. And, it’s questionable if it is even doable.
Policy statements often skip this step. They present the endpoint without acknowledging the build-out required to get there. Which is years, not weeks or months.
The Bulk Purchasing Argument
It is true that some foods cost pennies per serving when purchased in bulk. A large container of oats may contain 30 servings and cost only $5–6. Dried beans are inexpensive per serving. Rice can be cost-effective.
But there is an upfront cost. Not everyone can float that initial purchase. Not everyone has the storage space. Not everyone has the time to soak and cook dried legumes. And definitely, not everyone can afford a membership to a warehouse store.
And variety matters. Eating oats every morning because they are inexpensive is possible. It is not necessarily sustainable or culturally aligned for everyone.
What Does “Healthy” Even Mean?
We also need to talk about definitions.
There is a regulatory definition of “healthy” established by the Food and Drug Administration for food labeling purposes. But most consumers are not walking grocery aisles analyzing FDA criteria.
READ MORE: What Defines a Healthy Food? The FDA’s Updated Criteria Explained
In everyday life, “healthy” is a gray area.
Peanuts and peanut butter can be nutrient-dense. But formulations vary. Added sugars, added oils, and sodium content differ widely. But if someone won’t eat the peanuts-and-salt-only version, why not have the kind with some added sugar and ingredients that help prevent separation? A sugar-sweetened soda versus a sports drink – may seem obvious, but on paper, it can look similar. Chocolate milk versus plain milk – chocolate milk is a great recovery drink with nutrients, so is that so bad? Sure, plain milk doesn’t have added sugar, but again, having some nutrients is better than having no nutrients.
The lines are not always as obvious as we pretend. People argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to buy unhealthy foods with their SNAP benefits, but where is the line drawn? It may seem pretty straightforward, but it isn’t.
When policymakers say “healthy,” they may mean nutrient targets within a model. Consumers hear something broader and more ambiguous.
Lived Experience Versus Policy Language
One of the consistent tensions throughout this series has been the gap between policy language and lived experience.
It is easy to list poultry, pork, beef, fish, eggs, nuts, dairy, leafy greens, apples, melons, whole-grain breads, corn tortillas, and oats as healthy options.
It is harder to build weekly menus, calculate cost per serving, account for spoilage, and feed a family with different appetites, preferences, and needs.
Yes, some combinations of these foods can be structured under three dollars per meal. Especially if calories are tightly controlled. Especially if waste is minimal. Especially if energy needs are modest.
But is that reflective of how people actually live?
Does it account for regional price variation? Food deserts? Transportation barriers? Cultural food patterns? Time scarcity?
A simulation can optimize variables. Real life cannot.
So, Where Does That Leave Us?
This series has not been about dismissing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. They serve a purpose. They synthesize evidence. They guide federal programs. They influence education and research priorities.
But guidelines are frameworks. They are not meal plans. They are not grocery receipts. They are not lived experiences.
As professionals, we have to hold two truths at once:
First, it is possible to construct cost-conscious, nutrient-dense meals.
Second, broad claims like “$3 per meal” can oversimplify the complexities of real life.
The most important takeaway for individuals is this: use the guidelines as a reference point, not a rigid rulebook. Understand the principles. Prioritize nutrient density when you can. Be flexible. Adjust for your budget, household, health conditions, and access.
Professional judgment matters. Context matters. Economics matter.
And conversations like this matter.
This is the final post in the series, but it is not the end of examining how nutrition science becomes policy and how policy shapes real-world food choices. As we continue working with the 2025 to 2030 guidelines, we will likely uncover additional strengths, tensions, and unintended consequences. These are just things we come across as we work with them.
Nutrition does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in grocery stores, kitchens, school cafeterias, and communities with varying resources and our lived experiences.
If we are serious about feeding people well, we must move beyond models and into the realities people navigate every day.
That is where real-world nutrition lives.
Related blogs in this series:
Previous Editions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines: What They Got Right DGA Series: Part 3 of 8
Where the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines Fall Short DGA Series: Part 4 of 8
How the Dietary Guidelines Are Made and Why That Process Matters DGA Series: Part 5 of 8
How the Dietary Guidelines Shape Federal Nutrition Programs DGA Series: Part 7 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
