Long before the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, heath secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew what he wanted them to say. He announced loudly, well in advance, that he wanted to “end the war on saturated fat” and steer people toward beef fat instead of seed oils. There was just one little problem. The guidelines are supposed to be based on science, not personal whims, so HHS needed a metaphorical fig leaf for a veneer of scientific credibility.

Tossing Out Careful Deliberations

It was clear enough from the beginning that this would not be an orderly update process grounded in decades of systematic science. From the start, it unfolded in a way that left scientists and public-health professionals scratching their heads. A transparent, deliberative process produced a new Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) scientific report before RFK took over. It took two years. Eminent experts poured over scientific research. They held public hearings and digested thousands of comments from the public.

All of that went out the window right away.

A Chaotic Rush to Topple the Food Pyramid

What replaced the DGAC process was markedly different. It was rushed, opaque, and, to many observers, engineered to justify conclusions long desired by RFK rather than to objectively evaluate evidence.

In the new scheme of things, an alternate group of experts came in with views that mostly aligned with the wishes of the Secretary. The whole point was to topple the old thinking embodied by the long-defunct food pyramid. Some observers point out the new group included people with professional ties to meat and dairy interests. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the resulting guidance is very strong in endorsing consumption of meat and dairy foods.

For anyone who took RFK seriously when he adamantly condemned industry influence on guidelines, this would have been a surprise. To us, it was not.

Protein and Saturated Fats Float to the Top

These dietary guidelines are not entirely unreasonable, as Dariush Mozaffarian points out with a new commentary in JAMA. However, the guidelines do place an unusually strong emphasis on protein and saturated fats from animal sources. They invert the familiar food pyramid in a way that many nutrition experts say contradicts decades of evidence on cardiovascular risk.

Because the process lacked the transparency that normally accompanies DGAC deliberations – and because it seemed to arrive at conclusions favored by political and industry narratives – some public-health observers now worry that the scientific rationale documentation from HHS serves more as a fig leaf for predetermined policy choices than as an objective evaluation of nutrition science.

Click here for insight into the process used to produce scientific support for RFK Jr.’s guidelines. For perspective on some of the concerns, click here. To read the commentary by Mozaffarian in JAMA click here.

Fig Leaf, photograph by B T, licensed under CC BY 3.0