I get asked all the time about what’s happening with the dietary guidelines.  I have no inside information, but am exhausted at the thought that we have to go through all this again.

By law, dietary guidelines have to be re-done every five years, even though they always say the same things: eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; eat less sugar, salt, and saturated fat; balance calories.  OK.  They take take more than 150 pages to say that, but that’s what it all boils down to.

Will they be different in the new MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) era?  I can only speculate.

To review the process:

• A scientific advisory committee reviews the research and writes a report.  This one released its report in December.
• Now, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services appoint a committee—or somebody—to write the actual guidelines.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says the two departments are working on them and they will come out “hopefully early fall.”  If they do, this will set records.  The guidelines typically are released in late December or early January.

The secretaries have promised they will not continue the tradition of “leftist ideology”  I’m not sure what tradition that is, exactly, although I suspect it means “plant-based.”

I can’t wait to see what happens with:

• Beef: USDA has always been sensitive to the demands of beef, corn, and soybean farmers.  Suggestions to eat less beef are typically phrased euphemistically (“eat lean meat”).
• Fats: RFK Jr wants seed oils replaced with beef tallow.
• Sugar: USDA has always been sensitive to the concerns of sugarbeet and sugarcane producers, historically a powerful lobby.  RFK Jr says sugar is poison.
• Ultra-processed foods:  The scientific advisory committee ducked the issue.  The MAHA folks are concerned about them.
• Emphasis on plant foods: Will the guidelines continue to promote their health benefits?
• Calories: The “C” word.  Will the guidelines bring back a discussion of calories, their principal food sources, and how their intake is affected by ultra-processed foods?
• Sustainability: The “S” word.  I would guess this one stays off the table, but you never know.

This one will be fun to watch.

The FDA is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, now headed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  It is getting busy on carrying out Secretary Kennedy’s stated agenda.  It took four actions of interest last week.  Check out #3; it requires action.

I.  Approved Three Food Colors from Natural Sources

Since the HHS and FDA announcement last month during a press conference at HHS on petroleum-based food dyes, more U.S. food manufacturers have committed to removing them within the FDA’s set time frame of the end of next year.

“On April 22, I said the FDA would soon approve several new color additives and would accelerate our review of others. I’m pleased to report that promises made, have been promises kept,” said FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, M.D., M.P.H. “FDA staff have been moving quickly to expedite the publication of these decisions, underscoring our serious intent to transition away from petroleum-based dyes in the food supply and provide new colors from natural sources.”

FDA approved color additive petitions for:

• Galdieria extract blue, a blue color derived from the unicellular red algae Galdieria sulphuraria (by petition from Fermentalg).
• Butterfly pea flower extract, a blue color that can be used to achieve a range of shades including bright blues, intense purple, and natural greens (Sensient Colors LLC)
• Calcium phosphate, a white color approved for use in ready-to-eat chicken products, white candy melts, doughnut sugar, and sugar for coated candies (Innophos Inc).

II.  Announced top priorities for the Human Foods Program

FoodNavigator-USA report that Mark Hartman, who directs the new Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation, says the FDA soon will:

• Reveal how it will deal with the safety of chemicals in the food supply
• Create a new Office of Post Market Review to conduct risk reviews of chemical additives
• Increase transparency and stakeholder engagement in the review process
• Work through 70,000 comments on the FDA’s proposal for reviewing the safety of chemical additives
• Partner with the NIH to research how food additives affect children’s health
• Work with the food industry to phase out synthetic color additives
• Work through comments on sodium guidance
• Think about ways of addressing added sugars
• Identify ultra-processed foods as an “area of emerging study”

III.  Extended the comment period for front-of-package labeling until July 15

We are taking this action in response to requests to extend the comment period to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments. Comments should be submitted to Regulations.gov and identified with the docket number FDA-2024-N-2910.

Recall: This is what the Biden FDA proposed.  Here’s what I said about it (basically, we need something better).

Here’s a real opportunity.  If you want a front-of-package warning label like those in Latin America, here’s your chance to weigh in.

RFK Jr says he wants to Make America Healthy Again.  One way to do that is to discourage sales of food products high in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, but also discourage sales of ultra-processed foods.  Identifying foods as ultra-processed, on the basis of their chemical additives as well as their fat, sugar, and salt, would be an excellent step forward.

If you like the warning labels used in Latin American countries, send a note to the FDA Docket.  You have until July 15 to do that.

IV.  Announced a joint research initiative with NIH to address, among other unspecified questions,

• How and why can ultra-processed foods harm people’s health?
• How might certain food additives affect metabolic health and possibly contribute to chronic disease?
• What is the role of maternal and infant dietary exposures on health outcomes across the lifespan, including autoimmune diseases?

Comment

OK.  This represents action or proposed action.  My question: What will the FDA actually do?  I’m particularly interested in the joint NIH research initiative on ultra-processed foods.  Will NIH reverse its stance on Kevin Hall, whose research aimed to answer precisely that question?  I will be watching all this with much curiosity.

I often get asked why I think industry funding biases research in ways that almost always ensure that results favor the sponsor’s interests.

A reader, Professor Michael Tlusty, sent me this excellent example (my emphasis in bold).

BEEF CHECKOFF 2026 HUMAN NUTRITION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOW OPEN

On behalf of The Beef Checkoff, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) in Human Nutrition, to further understand beef’s nutritional qualities and define beef’s role in a healthy diet to nourish and optimize health at every life stage including research topics related to growth and development, healthy aging, and reduced risk of chronic disease.As part of their long-standing commitment to further scientific discovery, beef farmers and ranchers are invested in funding high quality, rigorous research — from observational epidemiological and clinical intervention trials to modeling and substitution analyses. As nutrition science continues to evolve, broadening and deepening the beef nutrition evidence base is essential to ensure that consumers have the most up-to-date information to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

The Human Nutrition Research Program follows a two-part application process, beginning with the submission of a pre-proposal. Pre-proposals are intended to be a brief overview of the proposed project….

Comment: If you want your project funded, you need to make sure it will demonstrate beef’s role in nourishing and optimizing health.  If your project does not do this, it won’t get funded.

OK.  Here’s your chance.  Pre-proposals are due May 30 at 11:59 pm MT.  Directions: Submit a Pre-Proposal

The President’s proposed budget cuts are worth a close look.

In addition to what I’ve posted this week, I have a few comments about it.

Most of the government’s budget cannot be cut; it is mandatory.

Mandatory expenditures include defense, interest payments, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and, yes, SNAP.   These can only be cut by an act of Congress.

The cuttable discretionary programs are the ones aimed at helping everyone, but especially the poor and vulnerable (they grey parts in this chart). 

The rhetoric—anti-woke, anti-Biden, anti-science—reminds me of the McCarthy era anti-Communist rhetoric.

Anything that Biden did is bad.  Anything aimed to help minorities or women is bad.  Anything that promotes research or tries to mitigate climate change is bad.

Is the Trump Administration engaging in “soft” eugenics, as The Guardian puts it?

By avoiding discussion of education, employment, social support networks, economic status and geographic location – the social determinants that public health experts agree influence health outcomes – Kennedy, in lockstep with top wellness influencers, is practicing soft eugenics…At the heart of all these policies is soft eugenics thinking – the idea that if you take away life-saving healthcare and services from the vulnerable, then you can let nature take its course and only the strong will survive….Maha perfectly mimics Maga’s deregulatory ethos: cut social services for vulnerable populations while parroting populist language that further helps consolidate power for the most well-off.

Food for thought, as we say.

Resource

Civil Eats on the effects of Trump’s first 100 days on the food system

I’m struck by the harshness of the USDA’s recent press announcement:  In First 100 Days, Secretary Rollins Puts Farmers First, Reverses Woke Priorities of Biden Administration

“It is absurd that while the Biden Administration was driving up inflation, American taxpayers were forced to fund billions in woke DEI initiatives. American farmers and ranchers don’t need DEI, they need reduced regulations and an Administration that is actively putting them first. In the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, USDA has done exactly that, by cancelling over 3,600 contracts and grants saving more than $5.5 billion. I look forward to finishing our work of cleaning out Biden’s bureaucratic basement and moving forward with this Administration’s priorities that put American farmers first,” said Secretary Rollins.

The statement boasts that Secretary Rollins

• Issued a memorandum to rescind all DEI programs and celebrations.
• Directed USDA to review Inflation Reduction Act funding to ensure that programs are focused on supporting farmers and ranchers,
• Terminated 597 grants, which totaled more than $3.45 billion and over 3,000 contracts totaling $1.8 billion…in unnecessary and wasteful spending.
• Canceled nearly 1,000 employee trainings, more than 750 of which focused on DEI alone.
• To ensure that taxpayer dollars are directly supporting farmers and not serving as a Green New Scam slush fund for non-governmental organizations, Secretary Rollins announced the cancellation of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC).

I am having a hard time understanding how these actions will help farmers and ranchers, especially because one of the cut programs was the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant, which paid farmers to provide fresh food to schools—a totally win/win program costing a tiny fraction of USDA’s budget but of inestimable worth to participating local farmers.

The anti-woke rhetoric reminds me of the McCarthy anti-Communist era.  If Biden did it, it’s bad.  If it helps vulnerable Americans, well, it’s “leftist ideology.”

I do not see how any of this will Make America Healthy Again.

If you think it will, please explain.

Seed oils, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr, are the unhealthiest ingredient in the food supply, not least because they are cheap and subsidized.

He also says they are one of the worst things you can eat.

Really?  I don’t think so, although seed oils, like everything else high in calories, are best consumed in moderation.

OK.  Here’s my understanding of what’s up with seed oils.

The basics

• They are essential in the human diet.  We require two fatty acids, linoleic (omega 6) and linolenic (omega 3), best obtained from seed oils.
• All food fats, seed oils no exception, are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids; only their proportions differ.
• All food oils have about 120 calories per tablespoon; this is why fat is fattening.
• Unsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, when substituted for saturated fatty acids, reduce blood cholesterol levels and heart disease risk.

On this last point, a recent epidemiological study, Butter and Plant-Based Oils Intake and Mortality, found:

• Higher intakes of canola, soybean, and olive oils was associated with lower total mortality (the investigators couldn’t find enough respondents who ate safflower or corn oils to study the effects of those oils),
• Every 10-g/d increment in plant-based oils intake was associated with an 11% lower risk of cancer mortality and a 6% lower risk of CVD mortality.
• Substituting 10-g/d intake of total butter with an equivalent amount of total plant-based oils was associated with an estimated 17% reduction in total mortality  and a 17% reduction in cancer mortality.

Note: butter has a similar fatty acid composition to beef tallow.  If they had studied beef tallow, I would expect the results to be similar.

The arguments against seed oils hold grains of truth but require explanation [my comments]

• We eat too much of them and with too much fried food [no argument on this one]
• Consumption increased from 1980 to 2000 in parallel with the rise in obesity [true, but so did calories from all other sources, and this is just an association].
• Their ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids is much too high [true for some seed oils, but not for olive, soy, or canola].
• Seed oils are extracted using hexane, a dangerous organic solvent [true, but processing removes most of it, and only slight traces remain. Still, it would be good if chemists could find “greener” alternatives].
• Highly unsaturated seed oils can become rancid quickly [true, which is why they need to be stored in dark bottles and refrigerated].
• Omega-6 fatty acids cause inflammation [not really, if anything, they are slightly anti-inflammatory but not by much; omega-3 fatty acids are somewhat more anti-inflammatory than omega-6’s, but that doesn’t mean omega-6s are terrible.
• They have too many calories and are mainly in junk foods [true, hence moderation].

One additional issue: replacing them

The soybean industry,  clearly in its own self-interest, notes that a reduction in use of soybean, canola, corn, cottonseed, grapeseed, rice bran, safflower and sunflower oils, would likely see an increase in use of imported palm oil, which will raise food costs.

That’s not all it would do.  As I’ve written previously, palm oil raises so many issues that it’s hard to know where to begin: unhealthy degree of fat saturation, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, child labor, labor exploitation, adulteration, and criminal behavior, with everyone who consumes products made with palm oil wittingly or unwittingly complicit in these problems.  See, for example, Jocelyn Zuckerman’s Planet Palm: How Palm Oil Ended Up in Everything—and Endangered the World.

Comment

I cannot find convincing data that seed oils are any worse for health than any other high-calorie food, and the evidence for their benefits as compared to animal fats seems strong and consistent.  Getting them out of the food supply could help reduce calorie intake, but only if they are not replaced by other fats. Using seed oils is healthier than using more saturated fats.

But all of this has to be understood in the context of calories and everything else in the diet.  Seed oils on salads make a lot of sense.

If you are still worried, there is always olive oil.  Olives are a fruit, not a seed.

The Trump Administration has issued its proposed budget.

It begins with the rhetoric characteristic of this administration.

The recommended funding levels result from a rigorous, line-by-line review of FY 2025 spending, which was found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.

If anything, these proposals are totally contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans, so much so that it’s hard to know where to begin, but let’s start with some selections from the USDA summary on page 31.

• Food Safety Inspection Service: a $15 million increase for meat and poultry inspection
• National Institute of Food and Agriculture: $602 million decrease (“eliminates wasteful, woke programming,”… “protects funding to youth and K-12 programs such as 4-H clubs, tribal colleges, and universities”)
• Agricultural Research Service and USDA Research Statistical Agencies: $159 million decrease.  Note the rhetoric: “…stop climate-politicized additional scopes added by the Biden Administration…”
• Farm Service Agency: $358 million decrease
• State, local, tribal, and NGO conservation programs: $303 million decrease
• Commodity Supplemental Food Program: $425 million decrease .  This program, which mostly helps seniors, is being replaced with “MAHA food boxes.”

On this last one: Oh no.  Not that again.  The boxes are a logistic nightmare , absurdly expensive, and do not help any except the largest farmers.

Note that there is nothing here about SNAP, which comes out of USDA’s budget.  SNAP is an entitlement; only Congress can cut its budget, and would have to do so through the Farm Bill.

Fortunately, these are proposals, which means there is at least a chance that Congress won’t agree to them.

A Canadian reader, Michel Lucas, sent this one (merci).

The report: Benoît Lamarche, Arne Astrup, Robert H Eckel, Emma Feeney, Ian Givens, Ronald M Krauss, Philippe Legrand, Renata Micha, Marie-Caroline Michalski, Sabita Soedamah-Muthu, Qi Sun, Frans J Kok.  Regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods and cardiovascular diseases: perspectives for future dietary recommendations.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 121, Issue 5, 2025, Pages 956-964,  ISSN 0002-9165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.03.009.

The workshop: Saturated Fat in Dairy and Cardiovascular Diseases, Amsterdam, 15–16 April, 2024.

Findings: “The most recent evidence indicates that overall, consumption of milk, yogurt and cheese, irrespective of fat content, is neutrally associated with CVD risk. There is also no evidence yet from randomized controlled trials that consumption of regular-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese has different effects on a broad array of cardiometabolic risk factors when compared with consumption of low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese.”

Conclusion: “Thus, the body of evidence does not support differentiation between regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods in dietary guidelines for both adults and children.”

Implication: “Strategies focusing primarily on reduction of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, the main source of SFAs in Western diets, rather than on the fat content of dairy foods, are more likely to benefit the population’s cardiovascular health.”

Funding: The workshop “was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Dutch Dairy Association.”

Comment: Foods from animal sources—meat and dairy—are by far the main sources of saturated fatty acids in US diets (all food fats, no exceptions, are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids; it’s just the proportions that differ).

Cows eat grass; grass has fatty acids but they are mostly unsaturated; bacteria in the cows’ rumens saturate the fatty acids.

Pretty much everyone agrees that when saturated fatty acids are substituted for unsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids, they raise blood cholesterol and the risk for heart disease.  The disagreements are over by how much and whether clinically meaningful.

The dairy industry would like everyone to believe that the saturated fatty acids in dairy foods are benign.  Hence this workshop.

Conflict of interest: The disclosure statement begins with “The Dutch Dairy Association had no role in the discussions held at the high-level closed workshop and did not participate or provide comments during the development and writing of this manuscript.”  It didn’t have to.

Here’s the rest of the statement (I’ve emphasized dairy connections):

AA is a member of the Journal’s Editorial Board and is also an Associate Editor on The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and played no role in the journal’s evaluation of the manuscript, reports a relationship with Rééducation Nutritionnelle et Psycho-Comportementale Scientific Committee and American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that includes board membership; and a relationship with Ferrero that includes funding grants. QS reports travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. AA, RHE, IG, EF, RMK, PL, RM, M-CM, SS-M, and FJK reports financial support and travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. BL reports writing assistance provided by Chill Pill Media Ltd and relationship with Health Canada that includes funding grants. EF reports a relationship with Food for Heath Ireland and Teagasc Food Research Ireland that includes funding grants; relationship with Irish section of the Nutrition Society and British Journal of Nutrition that includes board membership; relationship with National Dairy Council Ireland that includes consulting or advisory and travel reimbursement. IG reports a relationship with Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Australia, Barham Benevolent Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Medical Research Council that includes funding grants; relationship with European Milk Federation, French National Interprofessional Centre for Dairy Economics, and Dairy Council Northern Ireland that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with ELSEVIER INC that includes consulting or advisory. RMK reports a relationship with Dairy Management Inc that includes funding grants. RM reports a relationship with National Institutes of Health and Gates Foundation that includes funding grants. M-CM reports a relationship with French Dairy Interbranch Organization, Sodiaal-Candia and Danone that includes funding grants; relationship with Sodiaal-Candia that includes consulting or advisory; relationship with International Milk Genomics Consortium that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with Danone Nutricia Research and French Dairy Interbranch Organization that includes travel reimbursement. SS-M reports a relationship with Dutch Dairy Association and Danish Dairy Research Foundation that includes funding grants.