The updated US guidelines retain the long‑standing recommendation to keep saturated fat below 10% of total energy intake, and they do emphasise limiting ultra‑processed foods and added sugars (1–3). They also mention plant proteins and whole foods, at least in passing (1).
However, the visual pyramid and messaging put red meat, butter, tallow and full‑fat dairy at the top, and heavily promote animal protein as the default, which makes it practically impossible for many people to stay under 10% saturated fat without either tiny portions or extreme restriction elsewhere (1–4). Commentators – including nutrition researchers and former advisory members – have already pointed out that if you actually follow the "enjoy beef, butter, full‑fat dairy" messaging, you blow past the saturated fat limit with a single meal (2–4).
Whole Grains: Why Are They Being Sidelined?
Another odd feature is the visual deprioritisation of whole grains, despite decades of evidence that higher whole‑grain intake lowers cardiometabolic risk. In some popular representations of the new pyramid, whole grains sit near the bottom, while meat and full‑fat dairy are celebrated at the top, sending a confusing signal to the public (2,4).
This is hard to justify given that large cohort studies and meta‑analyses consistently show that higher whole‑grain consumption (often 1–3 servings per day) is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and all‑cause mortality (5–7). The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations and several European food‑based guidelines explicitly encourage daily whole‑grain intakes of 75–90 g, highlighting grains as both health‑promoting and climate‑friendly (5,8). Denmark's whole‑grain partnership, for example, has successfully increased population whole‑grain intake alongside reductions in less healthy refined grain products (6).
So while the US document claims to prioritise "whole foods", its visual and political emphasis clearly favours animal products over truly evidence-backed staples like whole grains and legumes (1–4,6–8).
Saturated Fat vs Seed Oils: The Evidence, Not The Politics
The saturated fat contradiction
The guidelines keep the <10% of energy from saturated fat limit, which aligns with multiple major bodies and a substantial evidence base linking higher saturated fat – particularly from red meat and high‑fat dairy – with increased LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk (3,9–11). But at the same time they explicitly elevate butter, beef tallow and full‑fat dairy as "healthy fats" and prominent foods in school meals and daily diets (1–3).
Several commentaries have already called this out as logically inconsistent: the maths just doesn't work if you both encourage frequent full‑fat animal products and expect the public to stay under 10% saturated fat (2,3,10).
The "seed oil" backlash vs actual data
In parallel, the new guidelines step back from previous decades of advice to use vegetable oils instead of animal fats, reflecting a wider cultural backlash against "seed oils" (3,4,9). Politicians and influencers have framed seed oils (like sunflower, soybean, corn and canola) as uniquely inflammatory and harmful, despite this not being supported by the totality of evidence (9,11).
Current data show:
- Replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat from plant oils lowers LDL cholesterol and is associated with lower cardiovascular risk in large prospective studies and trials (9–12).
- Linoleic acid (the main omega‑6 in "seed oils") is not consistently associated with higher inflammation in humans; in fact, higher linoleic acid intake is often linked to lower cardiovascular risk and sometimes lower inflammatory markers (9,11,12).
- Major organisations (e.g. American Heart Association) explicitly state there is no reason to avoid these oils, and plenty of reasons to use them instead of butter, lard or tallow (9,11).
In other words: if your choice is between butter/beef tallow and a typical high‑oleic or mixed polyunsaturated plant oil, the evidence still favours the plant oil for cardiometabolic health (9–12). That nuance is largely missing from the new US messaging, which leans into "ending the war on saturated fat" while underplaying the well-documented benefits of unsaturated plant oils (3,4,9–12).
Conflicts Of Interest And Transparency Problems
Concerns about conflicts of interest around US dietary guidance are not new, but they appear sharper this cycle. Reports indicate that industry-linked voices from meat and dairy sectors exerted substantial influence, and early commentary from former advisory members and independent scientists has questioned how closely the final guidelines follow the evidence‑based recommendations of independent committees (1,3,4).
Analyses of previous guideline cycles have documented extensive food industry input, lobbying and sometimes weak separation between evidence review and policy language, particularly around red and processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra‑processed foods (10,13). In this context, it is difficult to ignore that the guidelines' generosity towards beef, butter and full‑fat dairy – alongside scepticism toward seed oils and the relative sidelining of legumes and whole grains – maps very neatly onto powerful US agricultural interests (1–4,10,13).
How Denmark, Sweden, Germany And Canada Are Doing It Better
If you zoom out, the contrast with several recent European and Canadian guidelines is stark.
- The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (which inform Denmark and Sweden) explicitly promote predominantly plant‑based eating, rich in vegetables, fruits, pulses, potatoes and whole grains, with modest amounts of fish and small quantities of red meat, and they integrate sustainability considerations throughout (5,8).
- Denmark's guidelines recommend daily legume intake (~100 g cooked) and high whole‑grain intake, backed by national campaigns that have measurably shifted consumption patterns (5,6).
- Sweden's consumer guidance summarises the message as "eat greener, not too much, and be active", emphasising whole grains, legumes, plant oils (especially rapeseed), and clear limits on processed meat and high‑saturated‑fat foods for both health and climate reasons (5,8).
- Canada's 2019 Food Guide moved away from industry‑driven dairy and meat quotas, instead promoting a plate that is half vegetables/fruit, a quarter whole grains, a quarter protein foods with a clear emphasis on plant proteins, and water as the drink of choice (14).
These frameworks are not perfect, but they are more internally consistent: they align visual messages, sustainability goals and the bulk of nutritional evidence around whole, mostly plant-based foods, limited saturated fat, and use of unsaturated plant oils over animal fats (5–8,11–14).
So, How Should You Interpret All This?
If you're looking at the new US guidelines from a plant-based, evidence-first perspective, a fair summary might be:
- The broad direction of limiting ultra‑processed foods, added sugars and saturated fat is sound (1–3,9).
- The visual pyramid and rhetoric are heavily skewed towards animal products, undermining their own saturated fat limits and downplaying the well-established benefits of whole grains, legumes and plant oils (1–4,5–8,10–12).
- The scepticism toward "seed oils" is much more about politics and online culture than about the balance of peer‑reviewed evidence (9–12).
- More modern guidelines from countries like Denmark, Sweden, Germany (via the Nordic framework) and Canada provide clearer, more transparent and more sustainable advice that aligns much better with the data on whole grains, plant proteins and unsaturated fats (5–8,11–14).
For your readers, you can confidently encourage a pattern that looks far more like the Nordic/Canadian model: mostly plants, plenty of whole grains and legumes, plant oils instead of butter/tallow, modest animal products if used at all, and minimal ultra‑processed foods – regardless of the latest US food pyramid graphic.
References
1. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Understanding the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 2026.
2. Oprah Daily. The new dietary guidelines are deceptively confusing. 2026.
3. Food Safety Magazine. New U.S. Dietary Guidelines name and shame "highly processed foods". 2026.
4. The Conversation. The new US food pyramid is scientifically questionable and upends decades of trusted public health advice. 2026.
5. ClimateXChange. Dietary guidance for healthy and climate-friendly diets: a review of international examples. 2024.
6. Ibsen DB, et al. Legumes in a sustainable healthy diet, including the Danish whole-grain partnership experience. University of Copenhagen report. 2022.
7. Aune D, et al. Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;353:i2716.
8. Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023. 2023.
9. Undark. As guidelines shift, a curious debate over seed oils emerges. 2026.
10. DiNicolantonio JJ, O'Keefe JH. Problems with the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;61(1):10–13.
11. American Heart Association. There's no reason to avoid seed oils and plenty of reasons to eat them. 2024.
12. Mensink RP. Effects of saturated fatty acids on serum lipids and lipoproteins: a systematic review and regression analysis. Nutrients. 2016;8(12):810.
13. ClimateXChange, annexes on conflicts of interest and industry influence in food-based dietary guidelines. 2024.
14. Health Canada. Canada's Food Guide. 2019.