5
The 2025-2030 guidelines deviated significantly from the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's science-based report. A separate review panel included members with disclosed financial ties to meat and dairy industries. How concerned are you about the transparency and potential industry influence in the final guidelines?
Results
(75 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Not concerned—the process was appropriately transparentuser-925512They got it right so there doesn’t seem to be any corruption
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-74194Gee, you don’t think Bobbie brainworm is biased do you?
- Extremely concerned—represents regulatory captureuser-870202This is blatant corruption. I'm sure Kennedy was given large sums of money to publish these guidelines to boost the meat consumption.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-269790Any dietary guideline must be evidence based and not allow any financial biases.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-756315The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines process shows substantial transparency issues, as documented by multiple expert analyses. The Clinical Advisor report notes that the final guidelines were not based on the vetted Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s scientific report, but instead on a separate scientific document developed through a non‑transparent process with no public protocol, unclear peer review, and membership that bypassed the usual vetting standards. Additionally, the Institute of Food Technologists review reports that members of the alternative panel responsible for the “Scientific Foundation” report had financial conflicts of interest, including ties to the meat and dairy industries. This raises legitimate concerns about whether industry influence shaped the final recommendations, especially given that the guidelines increased emphasis on animal protein and full‑fat dairy. Given the deviation from standard evidence‑review procedures, lack of transparency, and the presence of disclosed industry financial ties among panel members, the level of concern warranted is high, as these issues directly threaten the scientific integrity and credibility of the nation’s primary nutrition policy.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-868575Very concerned but not surprised - these MAHA nuts scream about how every scientist is paid off when the evidence points against their unsubstantiated health claims yet there is no concern with the obvious conflict of interest of the panel members (how not surprising these dairy/meat lobbyist members agreed that people should eat more meat and diary).
- Moderately concerneduser-323548More than industry influence, I am concerned that the experts were cherry picked for those who focus on nutrient adequacy rather than health outcomes. Both are important, and both should be at the table.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-573501The outcomes appear to be opinions, not evidence-based recommendations. The standard process for the DGAC is to go through an ethical review prior to appointment, be sworn in as a Special Government Employee, hold public meetings, publish a detailed report of their conclusions that is subject to public comment, review public comments on their work etc. It is a rigorous and thorough process. The 2025-2030 DGA was produced without such public scrutiny of the process.
- Not concerned—the process was appropriately transparentuser-37602Declaration of potential conflict of interest increases the credibility of the findings.
- Moderately concerneduser-890708该组织及其人员是否公正和科学，特别是他们是否能代表公众的利益。
- Extremely concerned—represents regulatory captureuser-543438It's very clear that this administration can be bought to spew whatever they want without scientific FACTUAL backing.
- Moderately concerneduser-64256Based on the available information, the concern about transparency and potential industry influence in the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines is extremely high and substantiated by multiple reports and formal challenges. The process deviated significantly from the independent scientific committee's report and involved a review panel with disclosed financial ties to the meat and dairy industries, contradicting prior commitments.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-284488Ignoring the science seems to be a hallmark of this administration. And there obviously were conflicts of interest with the review panel.
- Extremely concerned—represents regulatory captureuser-423252Yes of course people are making money off these bad guidelines.
- Extremely concerned—represents regulatory captureuser-655754yeah, this is so obviously a conflict of interest and explains why the guidelines don't make logical or practical sense.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-863596Red meat and tallow and butter and processed and preserved meat are already proven to have adverse effects on CVDs and other chronic diseases.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-206808Scientific integrity is more important
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-980128Deviation from the DGAC report: Substantial departures from a transparent, science-based advisory process without clear justification undermine confidence in evidence-to-policy translation.
Perceived conflicts of interest: Even when disclosed, financial ties to meat and dairy industries create a credible perception of bias, especially when final recommendations favor those sectors.
Process opacity: Lack of detailed, public-facing explanations for why specific DGAC conclusions were modified weakens accountability.
Public trust implications: Nutrition guidance depends heavily on trust; perceived industry influence risks erosion of credibility and reduced adherence.
Bottom line: While industry engagement is not inherently disqualifying, the combination of process deviation, insufficient rationale, and conflicted panel composition warrants serious concern and stronger safeguards going forward. - Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-385373The separate review panel included members with disclosed financial ties to meat and dairy industries may have potential conflict of interest.
- Extremely concerned—represents regulatory captureuser-517643what else is new in Trumpia?
- Moderately concerneduser-420581The deviation from the Advisory Committee’s science-based report, combined with the inclusion of panel members with disclosed industry ties, raises legitimate concerns about transparency and the perception of potential industry influence.While disclosure of conflicts of interest is an important safeguard and does not inherently invalidate the process, the divergence from prior evidence-based recommendations warrants clearer justification and documentation.Greater transparency around decision-making criteria and how scientific evidence was weighted relative to stakeholder input would strengthen confidence in the integrity of the final guidelines.
- Very concerned—raises questions about scientific integrityuser-566604A group of researchers that formed the scientific basis of new dietary guidelines included people with financial ties to the beef and dairy industries, as well as food companies and other groups.Meat and dairy products received prime placement in new dietary advice unveiled Wednesday by the Trump administration, drawing criticism from nutrition experts who see saturated fat as a key problem. Some experts said the guidelines appeared favorable to certain industries.