1
Since the release of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines from the US FDA, there has been considerable debate within the scientific community as to the potential benefits or harm these guidelines may affect on the US population. In your opinion, do you believe these recommendations will be more or less beneficial to the US population than the 2020-2025 guidelines?
Results
(77 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Harmfuluser-74194Beef tallow. Give me a break. The swamp of food processong schemes also makes the recommendation against UPF problematic.
- Harmfuluser-214851These new guidelines are not based on the scientific accumulated over the last few decades. It is a complete denial of the research conducted that shows the harmful effects of red meat for a number of chronic disesases.
- Harmfuluser-870202There are no safe levels of alcohol to consume whether you are an adult no matter your age. It is especially deleterious if you are pregnant. Guidelines on alcohol consumption were removed from the current dietary guidelines.
- Less beneficialuser-156266The protein guideline of 1.2 - 1.6 g/kg bw is misguided. The studies used to derive this value looked at total urine nitrogen which is seriously flawed. The value needs to be much higher, especially for the development of growing children.
- Harmfuluser-269790The emphasis on consumption of red meat is misguided and against scientific evidence. Red meat and saturated fats are associated with increased inflammatory markers And Cardiovascular disease.
- Less beneficialuser-756315The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines are viewed as less beneficial because they place a disproportionate emphasis on high protein intake even though most Americans already consume enough while downplaying fiber, a nutrient many people lack and which is strongly linked to long‑term health. They also introduce mixed messages about saturated‑fat‑rich foods, visually promoting items like full‑fat dairy and red meat despite maintaining limits on saturated fat, which experts warn may confuse consumers and inadvertently raise cardiovascular risk. Finally, the guideline‑development process was less transparent than in previous cycles, with many recommendations from the vetted scientific advisory committee not incorporated, reducing confidence that the final guidance reflects the strongest available evidence.
- Harmfuluser-49719Carbohydrates are driving the diabetes epidemic and metabolic syndrome, and yet the FDA refuses to encourage reducing them in the diet.
- Harmfuluser-492182Full fat milk
Whole grain in the narow part of the piramid - Less beneficialuser-573501These guidelines contain internal contradictions. The process used undermines the credibility of the DGA--they seem to be driven by priorities of the agricultural community rather than by evidence to support health. The process is not trustworthy.
- More beneficialuser-376021. Encourage consumption of more whole foods and less of ultra processed foods.
2. The inverted food pyramid with higher proteins and lipids encourage consumption of alternative energy sources.
3. Discourage consumption of sugars and salt. - More beneficialuser-361025Ultra-processed foods are good for nothing, Organic and unprocessed are always natural and healthy.
- More beneficialuser-45601Logic is simple. Eat real food. Focus on natural protein sources, fibers and dairy products. As general consensus, humans have thrived on this diet for thousands of years. No one can argue about it being more useful.
- Less beneficialuser-890708特朗普政府增加了軍事支出，相應地減少了其他領域的投資。
- Harmfuluser-543438They really don't make sense. We are now to include full-fat dairy at every meal? That along with other specifications just don't make sense considering the obesity epidemic worldwide.
- More beneficialuser-64256I agree with your view that the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines are more beneficial than the previous version. This judgment is based on their fundamental shift toward combating the root causes of the modern diet-related health crisis, primarily through a clear, actionable focus on food quality rather than just nutrient quantities。
- Less beneficialuser-768571A diet high in animal proteins, especially from red meat, has been associated to increased risk of several pathologies.
- Less beneficialuser-628816Cost
- Less beneficialuser-284488While the concerns about processed food seem reasonable, I don’t think that increasing animal protein, full-fat dairy, and beef tallow is grounded in solid science.
- More beneficialuser-365674These recommandations seem much more evidence based than the previous "food pyramid" which we know now was driven by lobby groups in the grain industry.
- Harmfuluser-423252Chaning guidelines frequently undermines the public trust. The current changes in guidelines are not supported by enough evidence to warrant eroding the public trust.
- Less beneficialuser-110809Increasing red meat in people's diets will not be beneficial to people's health
- Less beneficialuser-655754There are actually some improvements to the previous ones--full fat milk in schools is actually a great idea for a number of reasons--but for the most part the guidelines go against evidence-based medicine. The guidelines are also confusing, because it's unclear how someone can maintain this low carb diet while also reducing high fats (the suggestion is you can eat a lot of burgers but this would be poor for most people's health). So on balance, I think that these guidelines do more harm than helping.
- Less beneficialuser-863596Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that Americans have decline in CAD and deaths, but there is an increase in metabolic diseases such as obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as metabolic chrnic kidney disease.It is possible that decline in ultraprocessed foods would cause some decrease in the obesity and related diseases. however, increase dairy products such as butter and margarine (TFA) is likely to cause increased in the intake of energy, saturated fat and trans fat, resulting in to increased risk of CVDs.
- More beneficialuser-206808Guidelines provided after a scientific evidence and deliberation will definitely be beneficial for population
- More beneficialuser-980128Stronger alignment with current evidence: Explicit guidance to avoid ultra-processed foods reflects a growing body of high-quality epidemiologic and mechanistic research linking UPFs to cardiometabolic risk.
Protein adequacy across the life course: Higher protein targets may better support metabolic health, healthy aging, and weight management—if sourced from nutrient-dense foods.
Reframing dairy fat: Moving away from a blanket low-fat mandate acknowledges mixed evidence on dairy fat and cardiometabolic outcomes, potentially improving adherence without clear harm.
Policy signal matters: Clearer, food-based guidance can improve public understanding and downstream policy (school meals, procurement).
Caveats: Benefits hinge on implementation. Without safeguards, higher protein could skew toward processed meats, and full-fat dairy guidance requires context on overall dietary patterns. Equity, affordability, and food environment reforms will determine real-world impact.
Overall, compared with 2020–2025, the 2025–2030 guidelines appear more beneficial—with the proviso that execution and messaging are critical. - More beneficialuser-385373The The new guidelines introduce significant changes that may generated substantial discussion within the scientific and public health communities. In my opinion the new guidelines may represent an important evidence base and practical implications for American diets.
- Harmfuluser-517643These "guidelines" promote a ideology that is heavily biased and without scientific foundation.
- More beneficialuser-4205812025–2030 Dietary Guidelines are likely to be more beneficial than the 2020–2025 guidelines at a population level, primarily due to a clearer emphasis on dietary patterns, protein adequacy, and the explicit guidance to limit ultra-processed foods. These changes align more closely with current evidence linking dietary quality, metabolic health, and chronic disease risk.The potential benefits will strongly depend on implementation and public interpretation. While increased flexibility regarding fat sources and protein intake may improve adherence for some populations, there is a risk that emphasizing animal protein and full-fat dairy without sufficient contextual guidance could lead to increased saturated fat intake among certain groups.From a public health perspective, the guidelines represent a positive step forward, but their net impact will depend on complementary education, consideration of physical activity levels, and clarity around overall dietary balance rather than single nutrients.
- More beneficialuser-566604The new dietary guidelines call for prioritizing high-quality protein, healthy fats, fruits, vegetables and whole grains – and avoiding highly processed foods and refined carbohydrates