RFK Jr.’s New Dietary Guidelines Would Flip Decades of Federal Nutrition Advice

Last updated 1 day ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

About 42 million Americans receive SNAP benefits (food assistance), averaging $187 monthly. On January 7, 2026, the Trump administration released new dietary guidelines that would completely change 50 years of federal food policy. For the first time in the modern era of federal dietary guidelines, the official recommendations warn against highly processed foods. They recommend full-fat dairy instead of skim. They suggest cooking with beef tallow.

These aren’t suggestions for your personal meal planning. These recommendations decide what foods roughly one in four Americans get through federal programs—school lunches, SNAP benefits, WIC (nutrition for pregnant women and children) packages. When the government changes what it considers healthy, millions of people’s plates change with it.

Major Changes to Federal Food Recommendations

The most defensible shift: an explicit focus on avoiding highly processed foods. Previous versions somehow managed to ignore ultra-processed foods entirely, despite mounting evidence that 55% of Americans get more than half their daily calories from these products. Research published in The BMJ linked diets high in ultra-processed foods to 32 different adverse health outcomes. The old version said nothing about this.

The new guidelines tell Americans to avoid “highly processed packaged, prepared, ready-to-eat, or other foods that are salty or sweet” and sugar-sweetened beverages. They warn specifically about artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives, and low-calorie sweeteners.

Marion Nestle, a retired professor at NYU who’s spent decades critiquing federal food policy, called this “the one good thing” about the new recommendations. “Clear, straightforward, supported by science,” she said. She described the rest as “muddled, contradictory, ideological, retro.”

On protein, the recommendations increase intake from 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight to 1.2-1.6 grams. For a 150-pound person, that’s jumping from 54 grams daily to 82-109 grams. Most Americans already eat around 100 grams daily, so this change mostly validates what people already do while giving them permission to eat more eggs, meat, and beans.

The dairy reversal is stark. Out: fat-free or low-fat milk. In: full-fat dairy with no added sugars, three servings daily. This happened despite the scientific advisory committee recommending that federal policy maintain the previous emphasis on low-fat options. The research on full-fat dairy remains mixed—not settled enough to justify such a definitive reversal.

The cooking fat guidance recommends olive oil, butter, or rendered beef fat for meal preparation. Rendered beef fat is now officially endorsed by the federal government as a cooking medium.

The Saturated Fat Contradiction

Kennedy spent months suggesting the administration would end what he called the “war on saturated fats.” At a National Governors Association event in July 2025, he said the new policy would “stress the need to eat saturated fats of dairy, of good meat.” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary made similar statements.

The final version kept the 10% cap on saturated fat that has been consistent in recent federal guidelines, including the 2020-2025 version.

This creates a confusing contradiction. It tells you to cook with butter and rendered beef fat—both high in saturated fat—and features a redesigned food pyramid with red meat occupying the largest portion. But buried in the specifics: saturated fat should still represent no more than 10% of your daily calories, same as before.

According to a top advisor to Kennedy, the administration didn’t want saturated fat to become the headline. They worried people would focus on other changes instead of the sugar and processed food rules. They also felt constrained by international precedent, not wanting to be the only country in the world to abandon saturated fat limits when the WHO and every other nation maintains similar caps.

Most people will absorb the symbolic message—butter and rendered beef fat are back, baby—and miss the fine print.

Stricter Limits on Added Sugars

The guidelines take a harder line on added sugars than any previous version. “No amount of added sugars” are recommended, especially for children. A single meal should contain no more than 10 grams of added sugar. Crackers: no more than 5 grams per three-quarter ounce serving. Yogurt: no more than 2.5 grams per two-thirds cup.

These are specific, enforceable numbers that food manufacturers and school lunch programs can use. The previous version recommended keeping added sugars below 10% of daily calories—a vaguer target that left more room for interpretation.

The guidelines also emphasize reducing refined carbohydrates and prioritizing fiber-rich whole grains. Americans should aim for two to four servings of whole grains daily and cut back on highly processed, refined carbs. Research shows that refined carbohydrates rapidly drive your liver to store more fat and make it harder for your body to control blood sugar.

On sugar-sweetened beverages, the guidance is unequivocal: avoid soda, fruit drinks, and energy drinks. These beverages deliver concentrated sugar with no fiber to slow absorption, causing rapid spikes in blood sugar and insulin in ways that promote fat storage and make your body less able to control blood sugar.

How the Scientific Process Broke Down

Federal food recommendations are supposed to be based on what the most research shows, according to the 1990 law that governs them. The process involves an external scientific advisory committee that reviews current research and makes evidence-based recommendations. Then HHS and USDA finalize the guidelines.

The advisory committee was assembled under Biden and completed its work in late 2025. The Trump administration then departed from the committee’s recommendations in several significant ways.

Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital who served on the committee, expressed concern about “clear and specific discrepancies between the Committee’s Scientific Report and the final Dietary Guidelines.” She noted that the scientific report was thorough and based on careful research studies with clear explanations of how strong the evidence is, while the final version presents “simplified claims that are often uncited, imprecise, and inconsistent with the underlying science.”

Kennedy and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins defended their approach by attacking the committee itself. Rollins declared they would ensure recommendations were based on real science, not politics. “Gone are the days where leftist ideologies guide public policy.” Kennedy said the committee’s 453-page scientific report “looks like it was written by the food processing industry.”

This is a remarkable accusation given that the committee had rules to make sure members didn’t have money connections to food companies. But it reflects Kennedy’s broader narrative that previous federal food advice has been captured by corporate interests promoting processed foods and seed oils.

Weaker Alcohol Guidance Despite Stronger Science

The guidelines recommend drinking less alcohol to stay healthier without specifying how many drinks Americans should have daily. The previous version said no more than one drink daily for women, two for men. The new version: drink less, we guess?

Science is getting clearer that even modest drinking is linked to serious health complications. According to reporting, the alcoholic beverage industry pressured federal officials to ignore scientific reports on alcohol’s health risks, citing alleged bias on the advisory committee.

A congressional report released minutes before the announcement described corruption in the committee examining alcohol. The result: alcohol guidance became less specific despite the science getting clearer about alcohol’s health risks.

The Seed Oil Debate

Kennedy says seed oils are harming Americans without them realizing it—canola, soybean, corn, cottonseed, sunflower, and safflower oils that have become everywhere in processed foods. The guidelines reflect this concern by recommending fats from whole food sources and specifically naming olive oil, butter, and rendered beef fat as cooking options.

Soybean production grew rapidly in the 20th century after the American Heart Association began recommending soy oil as a cholesterol-lowering agent. This created the commercial conditions for seed oils to dominate the food supply. They’re cheap, don’t break down when heated, and taste neutral, which works in countless applications.

Julia Zumpano, a registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic, has a detailed view: “They’re not poison, but we’re poisoning ourselves with everything else that’s ultra-processed and processed that may be cooked in seed oils. The bigger picture is the fact that we’re eating way too much of seed oils, which happen to be found in highly processed foods. That’s where I see the problem.”

Using seed oils at home to cook fish isn’t the problem. The problem is that they’re in virtually every processed food Americans consume in massive quantities. Swapping seed oils for rendered beef fat in those same processed foods doesn’t solve the fundamental problem.

How Federal Food Programs Will Change

Federal recommendations establish the foundation for SNAP, WIC, school meals, and programs for older adults. When the recommendations change, these programs eventually follow.

As of January 2026, eighteen states have gotten permission to restrict SNAP purchases of items like soda and candy. Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia started restrictions on January 1, 2026. Idaho, Oklahoma, and Texas follow in spring. Arkansas and Tennessee come later.

The new policy will likely accelerate this trend. States now have federal backing to define “highly processed foods” and restrict their purchase with assistance dollars. But without a clear definition of what counts as highly processed, states will struggle to enforce the rules.

Does a can of beans count? What about whole grain bread from a bakery? Frozen vegetables with added salt? Without clear definitions, states will make their own determinations, creating a patchwork of rules that varies by zip code.

For school lunches, changes will take longer. Schools last updated their standards in 2023, but won’t put the new rules in place until 2027. Schools will continue operating under previous standards while directors figure out how to incorporate recommendations emphasizing full-fat dairy, more protein, and fewer processed foods within existing budgets and supply chains.

WIC programs give specific foods instead of cash, so they’ll need to decide which foods to include. The shift to full-fat dairy is straightforward enough. The increased protein recommendations might expand the quantity of eggs, beans, and other protein sources in WIC packages. But implementation takes time and money.

New Emphasis on Gut Health and Fermented Foods

The guidelines focus on gut health and the different bacteria in your digestive system. They recommend vegetables, fruits, fermented foods, and high-fiber foods to support the healthy bacteria in your digestive system.

This shifts from focusing on individual nutrients like vitamins and minerals to thinking about how diet affects the bacteria in your gut. Research shows that having different types of bacteria in your gut helps your health.

The emphasis on fermented foods supports traditional ways of preparing food that cultures around the world have used for centuries. Sauerkraut, kimchi, yogurt, kefir—foods created through natural bacterial fermentation that previous versions largely ignored.

According to reports, Kennedy is so devoted to sauerkraut that he brings it to restaurants. Fermented foods are safe and likely helpful, so this addition seems reasonable.

Separating Science from Politics

The recommendations include some useful changes—explicit warnings about processed foods and added sugars—while making other changes that range from scientifically questionable to symbolically contradictory.

The focus on highly processed foods fills a hole that previous guidance left. Americans eat too many ultra-processed products, which contribute to long-term health problems. Saying this in federal policy matters, even though it’s hard to enforce without clear definitions.

The sugar restrictions make sense. Added sugars provide calories without nutrients and make it harder for your body to control blood sugar. Setting specific limits gives food manufacturers, schools, and programs clear goals to meet.

The full-fat dairy recommendation is less clear. The research is mixed. Some studies show full-fat dairy is as good as or better than low-fat versions; others show the opposite. Reversing decades of guidance based on mixed research seems too fast.

The saturated fat contradiction—promoting butter and rendered beef fat while keeping the 10% limit—will confuse people and likely lead them to increase saturated fat intake regardless of what the fine print says.

The weakened alcohol guidance doesn’t make sense. The science has gotten clearer about alcohol’s health risks, but the guidance became less specific. That suggests industry influence rather than science-based decisions.

When political appointees significantly change what scientists recommended without explaining how the changes are based on research, it makes people question whether the recommendations are based on science or politics. People need to believe that federal advice comes from science, not politics or industry pressure.

These recommendations will change what millions of Americans eat through federal programs. Doctors will recommend them, schools will serve these foods, and manufacturers will make them.

Will These Recommendations Change What Americans Eat?

Most Americans don’t follow federal food recommendations, no matter what they say. The real question isn’t whether this is good science. It’s whether it will change what people eat.

Federal programs will change over the next few years. School cafeterias will change their menus. WIC packages will include more full-fat dairy and protein. States will try to restrict SNAP purchases of processed foods. Food manufacturers will change their products to meet new sugar limits or lose school and government contracts.

For individual Americans, the impact will be less obvious but still important. Doctors will mention these recommendations when talking to patients. Media coverage will influence what people think is healthy to eat. The focus on animal fats instead of seed oils will change how people cook at home, even if they never read the guidelines.

The emphasis on avoiding ultra-processed foods could help if it makes people cook more meals at home and buy fewer packaged products instead. But that requires time, money, and the ability to cook—things many Americans don’t have. Without fixing these problems, telling people to avoid processed foods helps rich people more than people working multiple jobs.

Scientists will continue learning. New research will emerge on saturated fats, seed oils, gut bacteria, and ultra-processed foods. In 2030, another committee will meet to review the research and make recommendations that the next administration might or might not use.

We have recommendations that warn against processed foods but promote rendered beef fat, restrict saturated fat but promote butter, and weaken alcohol guidance while strengthening sugar limits. It’s a document that reflects both research and political compromise, both good changes and political choices.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.