As the Trump administration signals a major shift in federal nutrition policy, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services, is preparing to introduce new dietary guidelines that would significantly reduce their length and complexity. The proposed "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) agenda aims to replace the current 160-page Dietary Guidelines for Americans with a simplified four-page document focused on encouraging Americans to "eat whole food." This move follows President Trump's announcement to bring back the presidential fitness test, which had been discontinued during the Obama administration.

Kevin Klatt, an assistant research scientist and instructor in UC Berkeley’s Department of Nutritional Sciences and Toxicology, recently examined the evolution of nutrition science and federal dietary guidelines in an article for the Annual Review of Nutrition. Klatt traced key moments in public awareness about diet and health, including President Eisenhower’s 1955 heart attack and a 1961 Time Magazine cover story on fat intake and heart disease. These events marked a turning point as Americans shifted concern from infectious diseases to chronic conditions like cardiovascular disease.

Since their inception in 1980, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have reflected prevailing scientific knowledge while also serving as a foundation for various federal programs such as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children), school lunch initiatives, military nutrition standards, and labeling policies. Over time, these guidelines have changed format—from the well-known food pyramid emphasizing carbohydrates in past decades to today’s MyPlate model illustrating balanced meals.

Klatt commented on recent developments: "I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a massive investment in nutrition research funding that would improve the evidence that supports the guidelines, because we are cutting National Institute of Health funding quite massively. There have been some calls to push a nutrition science agenda aimed at producing data relevant to regulators, but nothing specific on investing in very large randomized control trials, or even smaller trials related to how things like food processing impacts chronic disease risk factors. The current administration’s actions have actually led to the loss of the top nutrition scientist studying the issue of 'ultraprocessed foods.' I would say the current administration is overwhelmingly going in the opposite direction of what we would need to do to improve the quality of evidence informing dietary guidance and identify new mechanisms that underlie how foods impact the risk of obesity and chronic disease."

He further explained: "This is a bit of a misunderstanding of the role of the Dietary Guidelines. The title indicates they are 'for Americans' but the user is not actually intended to be the American public. Early editions of the dietary guidelines in the 1980s had maybe seven bullet points that were a bit more public facing, but since 2005, the dietary guidelines have really been intended to be used by healthcare professionals and as a policy document. The current administration seems to want to roll that back, and doesn’t seem to acknowledge that it’s a policy document."

Klatt stressed that: "The 160 page Dietary Guidelines for Americans document is not intended for the everyday American to sit down and wade through it. It is supposed to be a scientifically rigorous document."

"It’s a policy document from the federal government, and that’s really where it has some fangs in that it can be used to inform federal programs. That can be everything from SNAP...to WIC...It guides school lunch program[s]...and military...[and] labeling initiatives...across all these various federal initiatives," he said.

On potential consequences if guidelines are drastically shortened: "I think it’ll be a period of chaos where federal programs and policies that are supposed to be based on very specific details...will suddenly no longer be in line with [the] document....The Dietary Guidelines drive industry formulations; I think there will be a period of deep uncertainty if we just get a four pager."

Addressing terminology used by policymakers regarding processed foods: "Not particularly. They’ve used [terms] without defining [them], and they’ve made up new terms like ultraprocessed fats...not found within scientific literature....There’s an official four-stage categorization system...called NOVA classification: ...they use that sometimes but then they seem...never clearly say what they mean."

Reflecting on past recommendations about low-fat diets versus newer concerns over processed foods: "We learned...that what you replace foods with matters—replacing fat with starch/sugar was not helpful....With focusing on UPF [ultraprocessed foods], we have to ask whether efforts...by removing 'industrialized' ingredients will actually make them more health promoting....There is concern with demonization...that our food won’t have helpful additives..."

On whether education alone can change eating habits: "I would imagine so....If you look at every nutrition education campaign..., there’s limited long-term penetration because they don’t change...[the] food environment....It’s not like you walk out into your food environment...[and it's] easy..."

He noted political challenges faced by previous efforts such as Michelle Obama's attempts at improving school lunches.

Discussing trust issues between scientists and public perception: "At this point..., I don’t really think so....We live in [an] ecosystem where people profit substantially off providing contrarian dietary advice....Trust/expertise are so degraded..."

Klatt suggested possible ways forward: "I think a well done campaign by government ...could start building back trust....But from what I’ve seen..., they are actively relying on public distrust..."

Regarding advances such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., Ozempic): "I think what GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic tell us..., almost everything about obesity localizes [in] brain....That framework—you have target brain/regulate things around brain's dominant control..." He observed these drugs mark significant changes compared with traditional approaches focusing only on nutrients or calories.

Finally he said: "If I could allocate ...research money,...build centers where you put best neuroscientists/nutrition/food scientists,...ask how we've changed food ...promotes likelihood ...overeating beyond physiological requirement?...UPF people assume if you just ate completely whole foods you'd cure all problems—but maybe there's potential for technofuturist approach saying we've engineered foods wrong ways."

Federal dietary guidelines continue shaping U.S. food policy despite evolving science—and may soon undergo their most dramatic revision yet.