Currently browsing posts about: MAHA

Let’s start with what I like about the 2020-2030 Dietary Guidelines and New Pyramid, taken together.

Eat Real Food

It’s how I eat, and prefer to eat.

It’s consistent with Michael Pollan’s Eat food.  Not too much.  Mostly plants.

Pollan’s version, to which I subscribe, is supported by at least three of the guidelines:

• Eat vegetables & fruits throughout the day
• Focus on whole grains
• Limit highly processed foods, added sugars, & refined carbohydrates

The New Pyramid

It’s bright and cheerful.

It illustrates a basic nutrition message: eat a wide variety of foods from all food groups.

It’s possible to eat healthfully following this diagram if eating a wide variety of foods and balancing calories.

It’s consistent with food movement objectives, and is bringing attention to these objectives.

What’s missing and I wish were included

• Eat Real Food as the first dietary guideline
• Greater emphasis on plant sources of protein
• Inclusion of whole grain foods in the “eat more” part of the pyramid
• Policy support

The need for policy

Much about these guidelines and food guides connects with long-desired objectives for a food system aimed at promoting the health of people and the planet.  As I noted in an earlier post, these guidelines focus explicitly on personal responsibility, not system change.

To create a food system that supports eating according to these guidelines and pyramid, we need:

• Agricultural subsidies: for foods for people (not feed for animals or fuel for automobiles, as the current system does)
• School food: kitchens and cooks in every school, gardens wherever possible, and enough money to pay for real food
• Education: cooking classes for kids and adults, men as well as women
• Equity: enough money to buy real food, and the space, equipment, and time to prepare it

I will have more to say about all this as time goes on, so stay tuned.

The Eat Real Food Website says “We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources….” But here’s what comes up first and is clearly the first priority.

And here’s an exultant RFK Jr on X:

Protein is well understood to be a euphemism for meat.  I’ve already written about how most people already eat twice the protein needed so advice to eat more of it is unlikely to do anyone any good.

And the document, Daily Servings by Calorie Level, makes it clear that you have to eat meat if you are going to reach the level of protein intake recommended.  For this, I am indebted to Kevin Klatt, who posted this on X.

What’s wrong with recommending more meat?

• It’s healthier getting protein from plant sources.
• The way we produce meat pollutes the environment with pesticides and herbicides to grow their feed.
• It also presents major food safety hazards (see Eric Schlosser’s update on Fast Food Nation)
• Cattle burp methane and are the single largest food source of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Beef cattle are raised in CAFOs under crowded and dirty conditions.
• The meat industry exploits workers.
• Consolidation in the meat industry keeps prices high (Tyson’s just agreed to an $82.5M settlement in a beef price-fixing lawsuit)
• Producing meat the way we do is not sustainable and adds to inequities.

Of course, sustainability and equity are non-topics for this administration.  But they matter and should very much be on the table for discussion.

We already eat plenty of meat—more than 100 pounds per capita per year of red meat alone (according to USDA).  We don’t need to be eating more.

Correction

In my first post on these dietary guidelines, I said:

Some of the instructions don’t make sense: “Consume meat with no or limited added sugars?”  Who does this?

Several readers wrote to object.  Renata M, for example, said she could think of so many examples, she just had to say something.

• BBQ sauce
• Ketchup
• Teriyaki sauce
• Other popular “Chinese” foods
• Brown sugar-glazed pork chops
• Pasta sauce
• Sloppy Joe’s
• Brines and marinades
• and more, if honey and maple syrup are considered added sugars [they are]

Oops. Sorry about that.  Thanks!

This is the second in a series of posts I will be writing about the new Dietary Guidelines for America, 2025-2030.

Yesterday, I gave an overview of the guidelines, finding them cheerful, but muddled, contradictory, ideological, and retro.

I do like the cheerful message: Eat Real Food.

But after reviewing lsome of the rest of the materials that come with the guidelines, I think those terms miss a more important concern: they are about personal responsibility, not public health.

This is most explicit from the Eat Real Food Website.

Our nation is finding its footing again, moving past decades of unhealthy eating and rebuilding a food culture rooted in health, science, transparency, and personal responsibility.

In March, I posted a a comment about a statement made by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Secretary [of HHS] Kennedy and I have a powerful, complementary role in this, and it starts with updating federal dietary guidance. We will make certain the 2025-2030 Guidelines are based on sound science, not political science. Gone are the days where leftist ideologies guide public policy.

I could not imagine how anyone could think the dietary guidelines reflected leftist ideology and guessed that she must have been talking about plant- as opposed to meat-based diets.  I wasn’t entirely wrong.  Eating meat is the first priority of the guidelines, a matter I will discuss next week.

But now I think she must have meant personal responsibility as opposed to public health policy.

This approach leaves it entirely up to you to make healthful food choices, never mind that if you try to eat healthfully, you are fighting the entire food system on your own.

The goal of food companies—even those selling real food—is to get you to buy as much of it as possible, regardless of how their products affect your health or that of the planet.

Given this administration’s destruction of the public health system in America, you really are on your own.

The groups in America who eat most healthfully are educated; have decent jobs, money, and resources; have homes with functioning kitchens; can cook; live in safe neighborhoods with grocery stores; and have access to affordable health care.  That’s what public health is about.

If the government leaves it to you to “do your own research” and fight the food system on your own, it is saying it has no responsibility for creating a food environment that can help you eat and enjoy real food.

It’s all on you.

The eat-real-food message is cheery and for sure it’s how I eat, at least most of the time.  I will have more to say about it next week too.

But the focus on personal responsibility troubles me.  Shouldn’t all of us be able to eat as healthfully as possible?

The Fact Sheet rejects health equity out of hand, but then says:

We reject this logic: a common-sense, science-driven document is essential to begin a conversation about how our culture and food procurement programs must change to enable Americans to access affordable, healthy, real food.

Isn’t that what health equity is about?  For that we need policy backed by resources.  Personal responsibility won’t work without it.

The new Dietary Guidelines  [The guidelines are in bold; my summary follows]

• Eat the right amount for you: balance calories
• Prioritize protein foods at every meal: prioritize animal sources
• Consume dairy: prioritize full-fat
• Eat vegetables & fruits throughout the day: eat more, but not as much as previously recommended
• Incorporate healthy fats: prioritize animal fats
• Focus on whole grains: prioritize, but eat less than previously recommended
• Limit highly processed foods, added sugars, & refined carbohydrates: eat less
• Limit alcoholic beverages

These were released along with a fact sheet, scientific report, and interactive website.  I’ve summarized the details below in a table comparing these guidelines to the previous version.

Why muddled?  The lists of guidelines differ among the various documents.  The prioritization of protein is hard to understand; most Americans already eat plenty.  Some of the instructions don’t make sense: “Consume meat with no or limited added sugars?”  Who does this?

Why contradictory?  If you increase the amount of protein, meat, and full-fat dairy in your diet, you will not be able to keep your saturated fat intake below 10% of calories, and will have a harder time maintaining calorie balance (fat has twice the calories of protein or carbohydrate).  If you want to increase the amount of fiber in your diet, you need to prioritize vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, not meat and dairy.

Why ideological? The fats recommended as sources of essential fatty acids—olive oil, butter, and beef tallow—have little or no essential linoleic or alpha-linolenic acids. For those, seed oils (not mentioned in these guidelines) are much better sources.  The prioritization of animal-based as opposed to plant-based is inconsistent with research on diet and health.  USDA Secretary Rollins said these guidelines would no longer reflect leftist ideology.  The fact sheet and website make the ideology explicit.

Why retro?  Except for the excellent advice to reduce intake of highly processed foods, which were not particularly prevalent back then, these guidelines take us back to the diets of the 1950s when everyone was eating lots of meat and dairy and not worrying much about vegetables, and heart disease was rampant.  I’m all for eating whole foods but these guidelines dismiss 75 years of research favoring diets higher in plant foods.   

Bottom line:  A mixed bag.  These guidelines are big wins for the meat, dairy, and alcohol industries (alas).  The loser: ultra-processed foods (yes!).  The recommendation to reduce highly processed foods (a euphemism for ultra-processed) is the one great strength of these recommendations.  Following that advice might help Make America Healthy Again.  But the rest must be viewed more as ideology than science, and also must be interpreted in the light of  this administration’s destruction of what was once a reasonably effective public health service (CDC, FDA, NIH) and system.  Eating more meat and fat is unlikely to help people resist measles and other illnesses preventable by vaccination.

I will have more to say about the specific recommendations in subsequent posts.  In the meantime, here’s my quick summary.

Dietary Guidelines: 2020-2025 vs. 2025-2030

**Correction: I wrote this before I saw Daily Servings by Calorie Level.  These make it clear that the new guidelines do not decrease fruit and vegetable recommendations.

I will be writing about the details in subsequent posts.  Stay tuned.

Resources

• The press release
• Dietary Guidelines for America 2025-2030
• Daily Servings by Calorie Level
• Fact Sheet
• The Scientific Foundation for The Dietary Guidelines of America
• Scientific Foundation Appendices
• Eat Real Food: The Interactive Website
• Press conference video
• Dietary Guidelines for America, Previous Editions, 1980-2020
• MAHA Report history of dietary guidelines
• South Park’s take on this

Alert to readers: Amazon.com displays listings for several more workbooks, study guides, and cookbooks purportedly based on my book, What to Eat Now (see previous post on this).  I did not write any of them.  Caveat emptor!

___________________________

From FoodDive: How MAHA transformed the food industry in 2025:  Lawmakers capitalized on anxieties around ultraprocessed ingredients to introduce new regulations, with companies choosing to reformulate or fight back.

To summarize:

• Artificial food dyes: food companies voluntarily said they would get rid of them by the end of 2026 or 2027.  Will they?  We shall see.
• Ultra-processed foods: The first MAHA report mentioned them 40 times.  By the second, the only issue was to define them, and RFK Jr said they might not even do that.
• GRAS loophole: The FDA says it will require better evidence of safety before allowing new additives in food.
• Seed oils: some food companies are replacing them with beef tallow or avocado oil.  How will this affect health?  It depends on the quality of the replacement.
• High fructose corn syrup: Coca-Cola said it would replace it with cane sugar, no doubt at higher cost.  Since both sweeteners have the same sugars and calories, this switch is unlikely to make any difference to health.
• School food: Whole milk is back.  Will this help children maintain healthy weight?  We shall see.
• SNAP: 18 states are restricting sodas (some also restrict candy or desserts) from purchases using SNAP benefits.  Will this encourage SNAP recipients to buy less soda?  I hope states will collect data on this and other points.
• Dietary guidelines: They are expected next week.  We shall see.

The food industry’s response?

• Go along with this if it doesn’t affect the bottom line.
• Fight back if it does.  And sue states if it really does.

So far, most of what is happening in the food arena is either still in the promise stage, voluntary, and unlikely to have much health benefit (See: A MAHA Check-Up: Is The United States Getting Healthier?)

All of what is happening with food must be understood in the context of the devastating destruction of America’s public health and scientific research systems.

MAHA’s work is focused on the dietary choices of individuals.

Any individual who tries to make healthful dietary choices is up against a food system designed for profit, not public health.

Diet matters to health, but healthy diets are not enough to prevent measles.

We need functioning public health systems: CDC, FDA, NIH.  We no longer have them.

Happy new year everyone.  Let’s hope the new year brings us peace, kindness, and public health.

From last week’s The Guardian: “Inside the Republican network behind big soda’s bid to pit Maga against Maha: A Guardian investigation finds the US soda and snack-food industries, threatened by RFK Jr’s movement to change Americans’ eating habits, have turned to a group of well-connected strategists, shadowy pollsters and ‘anti-woke’ influencers.”

The ongoing influence campaign is being spearheaded by the American Beverage Association with help from the Consumer Brands Association, two prominent trade groups in the food industry. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper, the three largest soft-drink corporations in the United States, as well as packaged-food conglomerates like General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz and Nestlé, are among those that pay dues for the right to have a say in either or both of the trade groups’ strategies.

All three soda-makers identified the Maha efforts as significant threats to their bottom lines in their most recent annual reports, delivered to investors after Trump nominated Kennedy to be secretary of US Health and Human Services. Coke and Dr Pepper went as far as to suggest such risks would be compounded if unnamed “government officials” were to voice health concerns about their products.The three soda makers did not respond to questions about the lobbying effort.

The article goes on to explain the lobbying methods and paid influencer campaigns, at the federal level but also in states considering legislation on food dyes (which take care of many ultra-processed foods) and restrictions on sodas in SNAP.

Whether the MAHA food agenda is real or a smokescreen (see yesterday’s post), anything useful it tries to do will come up against this kind of concerted, well-funded effort, which may be why the second MAHA report backed off on so many issues.

The September 22 New Yorker had an article titled “Mommy Issues,” a profile of an influencer in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

I was stopped cold by its quoted comment from Del Bigtree, “an anti-vaccine activist who had served as the communications director of [Robert F.] Kennedy’s Presidential campaign.” At a MAHA Action dinner in Washington, DC, Bigtree offered a toast to RFK, Jr, and

thanked the assembled group, singling out [Calley] Means, who, he said, deserved credit for “reaching out and bringing in the food issue, which was such a great cover to get Bobby all the way through.” The room erupted with guffaws.

The real agenda?  Getting rid of vaccines.

Will the MAHA movement make any real progress on major food issues?

I consider food dyes and closing the GRAS loophole to be long overdue improvements, but minor.

If MAHA wants to improve the nutritional healthy of American children, it needs, for starters, to enact policies to:

• Stop marketing unhealthful foods to kids
• Reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods
• Make school meals universally available
• Improve the quality of school meals
• Make sure every child has access to sufficient, high-quality food

The FDA is starting the regulatory process to close the GRAS Loophole.

This proposed rule, if finalized, would amend the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) regulations in 21 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] parts 170 and 570 to require the mandatory submission of GRAS notices for the use of human and animal food substances that are purported to be GRAS.

What?  You mean manufacturers are not already required to tell the FDA when they are putting new additives into foods?

No, they are not.  Hence, the “GRAS Loophole.”  Food manufacturers have been allowed to decide for themselves whether a new additive is safe and also to decide whether to inform the FDA about it.

Closing the loophole is a long-standing goal of food advocates.  Even I got into this one.

In 2013, I wrote a short editorial about the history and significance of GRAS determinations: Nestle M. Conflict of interest in the regulation of food safety: a threat to scientific integrity. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013;173(22):2036-8. 

Here’s the FDA’s version of this history.

And Food Dive explains: FDA takes first step toward closing GRAS ingredient ‘loophole’

Dive Brief:

• The FDA proposed a rule that companies provide health data and other documentation when declaring a new food ingredient or additive is safe, a step toward eliminating a voluntary approval process decried by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
• The rule would require companies to submit mandatory notices when declaring an ingredient is Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS. Currently, notices are voluntary, though strongly encouraged by the FDA.
• The proposal is included among a list of upcoming regulatory priorities by the Trump administration. In March, Kennedy directed the FDA to explore rulemaking to eliminate companies’ ability to self-affirm that an ingredient is safe.

If the FDA can pull this off, it will indeed be a MAHA Win.

I hope it can, given how many FDA employees are no longer with the agency (~3,500 according to reports).