The updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans should more prominently promote plant-based foods and a warning about the dangers of ultra-processed foods, argued several commenters yesterday at a public meeting hosted by HHS to gather feedback on the upcoming 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines.
Others at the meeting took opposite positions – arguing for a more nuanced approach to UPFs and the promotion of ‘high-quality’ animal proteins.
The meeting was held a month after the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee submitted to HHS its scientific report with recommendations to update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Several speakers, citing health benefits, advocated for the prominent inclusion in the guidelines of plant-based foods, including beans, peas and lentils.
“The scientific report repeatedly recognizes the health power of plant-based foods. Beans and legumes are given special prominence as beans are one of the Three Sisters,” which also include corn and squash, said former President of the Navajo Nation Jonathan Nez. Part of Indigenous American agriculture, the Three Sisters are planted together and grown symbiotically to enrich the soil and deter weeds and pests.
Nez commended the committee for its recommendations to include more nutrient-dense plant-based options over animal-based proteins, in addition to recommending water as the primary beverage for Americans. The committee’s recommendations also will “allow federal nutrition programs to serve and accommodate traditional foods and recipes” for Native Americans, Nez added.
The DGAC’s Health Equity Working Group was formed to apply a health equity lens to the 2025–2030 guidelines, ensuring that the DGA considers diverse racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and cultural factors. As part of its efforts, the subgroup launched a first-ever pilot program to develop dietary intake patterns tailored to American Indian and Alaska Native populations.
Ultra-processed food exclusion needs more nuance
Several speakers expressed concern over the committee’s determination on ultra-processed foods (UPFs). The DGAC did not provide a clear guidance on the health impact of UPFs, citing that the category does not have a unified definition. The committee expects research on health impacts of UPFs to expand in the next five years.
While available evidence is still evolving, the precautionary principle would suffice for the committee’s recommendations, argued David Katz, founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.
“When you perceive a signal of danger in medicine, in public health, you guide people away from it. Even as you continue to assess the nature of the risk, we could advise people to avoid ultra-processed foods in food categories where alternatives are readily available to them,” Katz said.
Further research is needed about the impact of UPFs on the diet, agreed Neil Bernard on behalf of the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine, a non-profit focused on promoting animal-welfare and plant-based eating for better health outcomes. But he added that the committee “was right” about its distinction between the health impacts of certain processed foods.
“While some processed foods such as hot dogs and bacon are associate with increased diabetes risk, for example, the opposite is true for processed breakfast cereals, they are associate with reduced risk. Some processing is helpful for the addition of vitamins or preservatives. So rather than beating up on processing overall, we need more research and a more nuanced approach,” he said.
Concerns over DGAC’s meat reduction recommendations
The committee’s recommendations to reduce red meat consumption based on modest observational evidence, hypothetical substitution modeling and limited total evidence puts “at risk the health and development of America’s next generation,” said Mary van Ellis, a nutrition scientist and registered dietitian.
“As many pregnant and nursing woman require these calorie levels, women could be misguided into believe that a wholesome, nutrient-dense food they depend on for nourishment, such as beef, is bad for them,” van Ellis said.
Further, women who rely on government programs could be denied access to meat, she added.
Gabrielle Lyon, a clinician trained in nutrition and geriatrics, echoed these sentiments adding that her patients “experienced sustained benefits with a moderate protein diet” and urge that the committee “reprioritize the value of high quality-proteins, especially meats,” in Americans’ diets.
While a balanced diet with plant-based foods is critical, “high quality animal proteins have unique advantages that plant proteins cannot offer, including bioavailable micronutrients,” she said.
The committee should revisit evidence that demonstrates the health benefits of beef and reconsider its reduction recommendations, urged Barb Downey, a fourth-generation Kansas rancher.
Reducing beef consumption “distracts from the real nutrition problem” of Americans consuming “too many processed foods and empty calories, and not enough essential nutrients,” she added.
Renaming dairy and fortified soy alternatives would encourage better dietary choices
The DGAC’s recommendation to conduct consumer research on the naming of food subgroups, particularly the non-dairy and fortified soy alternatives group, earned accolades from Tiffany Bruno, a registered dietitian.
To better highlight the nutritional value of these foods, Bruno proposed renaming this category to “calcium-rich proteins.” She argued that labeling these products as non-dairy and fortified soy alternatives diminishes the importance of non-dairy options like fortified soy milk and yogurt and create confusion among consumers about the choices in the category. Rather, renaming the group would reduce confusion, encourage better dietary choices and help Americans meet calcium and protein requirements.
“Other foods in the protein group do not contain high quantities of calcium, and we know many Americans do not meet the requirements for calcium, while many other fortified non-dairy beverages are popular and high in calcium, they lack adequate protein compared to soy and dairy milk,” explained Bruno.
