The year has just started, but the initial days of 2026 have delivered significant updates regarding health. On Monday, the US federal health agency reshaped its guidelines for standard childhood vaccinations—an action that health organizations fear could unnecessarily endanger children against preventable diseases.
Further announcements came from the federal government on Wednesday, when health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. along with his team from the Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture revealed fresh dietary guidelines for Americans. This caused quite a commotion.
This stir is partly due to their endorsement of items such as red meat, butter, and beef tallow—foods associated with cardiovascular disease, which nutrition specialists have long advised people to limit in their diet.
These guidelines are significant—they affect food assistance programs and school lunch menus, for instance. So this week, let’s examine the good, the bad, and the concerning guidance being offered to Americans by their government.
Government dietary guidelines have existed since the 1980s. They are revised every five years, involving a collaboration of nutrition scientists combing through scientific findings over extensive periods. This team first publishes its insights in a scientific report, and nearly a year afterward, the conclusive Dietary Guidelines for Americans are released.
The most recent guidelines spanned from 2020 to 2025, with updates anticipated in the summer of 2025. Preparations had been going on for years; the scientific report that would guide them was published back in 2024. However, the release of the guidelines was postponed due to last year’s government shutdown, as Kennedy noted last year. They were ultimately released yesterday.
Nutrition professionals had been anxiously awaiting this. Nutrition science has altered moderately in the past five years, and many expected to see updated recommendations. Research now indicates, for instance, that there is no “safe” level of alcohol consumption.
Additionally, we’re beginning to uncover more about the health risks associated with some ultraprocessed foods (although we still lack a comprehensive understanding of their implications, or even what qualifies as “ultraprocessed.”) Some researchers had anticipated that the new guidelines would incorporate aspects of environmental sustainability, according to Gabby Headrick, the associate director of food and nutrition policy at the George Washington University’s Institute for Food Safety & Nutrition Security in Washington DC.
They did not.
Many of the proposed recommendations are reasonable. The guidelines advocate for a diet abundant in whole foods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. They recommend sidestepping highly processed items and added sugars. They also emphasize the necessity of dietary protein, whole grains, and “healthy” fats.
However, not all recommendations are sound, according to Headrick. The guidelines commence with a “new pyramid” of foods. This inverted triangle features “protein, dairy, and healthy fats” on one side and “vegetables and fruits” on the opposite.
There are several issues with this illustration. To begin with, its structure—nutrition experts have long moved past the food pyramids from the 1990s, says Headrick. They are perplexing and complicate the understanding of what a healthy plate should include. This is why scientists now utilize a plate illustration to represent a healthy diet.
“We’ve been employing MyPlate as a simple, consumer-friendly tool to explain the dietary guidelines for over a decade now,” remarks Headrick. (The UK’s National Health Service employs a similar method.)
Moreover, the content of that food pyramid is troubling. It gives significant emphasis to meat and full-fat dairy products. The upper left image—which will be one of the first seen by viewers—depicts a steak. Centrally located in the pyramid is a stick of butter. That’s unprecedented. And it’s not beneficial.
While red meat and full-fat dairy can indeed be part of a nutritious diet, nutrition experts have consistently advised most individuals to limit their intake of these products. Both can contain high levels of saturated fat, which might elevate cardiovascular disease risk—the top cause of mortality in the US. In 2015, based on limited evidence, the World Health Organization classified red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Additionally, the document’s criteria for “healthy fats” is concerning, as it includes butter and beef tallow (a favorite of MAHA). Generally, neither is considered as healthy as olive oil. For example, while olive oil has about two grams of saturated fat per tablespoon, a tablespoon of beef tallow contains around six grams of saturated fat, and the equivalent amount of butter holds around seven grams of saturated fat, according to Headrick.
“I believe these are rather harmful dietary recommendations to propagate when it is established that these specific foods likely lack health-enhancing benefits,” she states.
Red meat is certainly not a sustainable dietary option, nor are dairy products. The guidance regarding alcohol is fairly ambiguous, advising individuals to “consume less alcohol for improved overall health” (which might leave you pondering: Less than what?).
There are additional dubious recommendations within the guidelines. Americans are urged to boost their protein intake—ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 grams daily per kilogram of body weight, 50% to 100% greater than what previous guidelines suggested. This increase in protein consumption might lead to elevated levels of both calories and saturated fats to unhealthy extents, warns José Ordovás, a senior nutrition scientist at Tufts University. “I would be cautious and err on the lower side,” he advises.
Some nutrition scientists are questioning the rationale behind these modifications. It’s not as if the new guidelines were part of the 2024 scientific report. The evidence concerning red meat and saturated fat remains unchanged, says Headrick.
While reporting this article, I reached out to various contributors of the past guidelines, as well as some who had led research for the scientific report of 2024. None agreed to provide statements on the record about the new guidelines. Some appeared discontent. One merely informed me that the method of creating the new guidelines was “opaque.”
“These individuals dedicated considerable time, and they conducted a meticulous job [over] a couple of years, identifying [relevant scientific studies],” states Ordovás. “I’m not surprised that when they see their work was disregarded and supplanted with something quickly assembled, they feel somewhat disappointed,” he concludes.
This article was initially featured in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
