New Dietary Guidelines? Let’s Talk About Food Access and Affordability Instead
We need government food policies that are understandable, sensible, feasible, flexible, actionable, and beneficial.
Against that standard, the new 2026-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), released January 7, 2026 (here), are not particularly useful. Many of the findings are unclear and probably not actionable, the message is garbled, and the inverted food pyramid is inexplicable.
Worst of all, the DGA’s are not responsive to the most important realities of hunger in America. Building on a point I have made elsewhere in my writing:
Hungry people buy whatever sustenance they can afford from whoever can supply it, and then only if it can be consumed in a setting and timeframe that matches their individual and family circumstances.
For millions of Americans, eating healthy is a luxury they cannot afford. For them, the quality, safety, and nutritional value of their food become, at best, secondary considerations to the limitations created by access, affordability, and time.
We need food guidelines and policies that address access, affordability, and other real-world challenges. Instead, we mostly see proposals that treat these issues as afterthoughts or dismiss them as mere barriers to implementation.
Shortcomings of the New DGAs
To be clear, DGAs don’t create food policy. They are important because they are intertwined with the core federal government programs to combat hunger.
One of the claimed benefits of the new DGAs is that they are more consumer-friendly than in the past. In that regard, the guidelines are shorter, but there is a serious mismatch between the guidelines and people’s reality. In the vernacular: “you have to meet people where they are at.” The new guidelines do not.
We are told that the central message of these new dietary guidelines is “Eat Real Food.” What does that mean outside the bubble of individuals with enough time to figure it out and enough time and money to act upon it?[1] Even within that bubble, it’s not particularly practical advice, as gently but firmly described by Jess Steier, D.Ph. in her essay “Let Them Eat Real Food” (here).
Further, there are a lot of substantive and procedural problems with the just-released DGAs. According to nutritionist Kevin Klett, PhD, excellent analysis (here), he states that “... there are some straightforward things, but also a number of contradictory recommendations and just plain flubs. I’m already seeing pretty vastly different takes and interpretations and that’s because the guidelines lend themselves to such ambiguities.”[2]
All of which is to say — these DGAs are unrealistic, AND they don’t provide useful, actionable, scientifically sound guidelines for healthy eating. It is a broad, messy, and confusing response to the critique that Americans (including but not exclusively SNAP recipients) consume too much soda and junk food and not enough “real food.”
A More Real-World Approach to Food Policy
Last August, in “A Message to MAHA: Every American Should Have Access to A Healthy and Affordable Diet,” (here), I described the elements of a national food agenda that is responsive to the real-world needs of all Americans.
1. Every American should have the ability to afford healthy foods.
In 2023, the USDA reported that nearly 15% of Americans (more than 45 million people) were food insecure at some point during the year (here).
A broad reconsideration of our national food and dietary policies and guidelines is valuable. Still, it needs to be tempered by awareness of the current level of food insecurity and the understanding that rising food prices risk millions more Americans becoming food insecure.
2. Every American should have access to healthy foods.
Beyond affordability, food deserts leave millions of Americans isolated from a range of healthy foods. In the face of SNAP budget cuts, there is a risk these will expand. Many smaller, particularly rural, grocery stores are heavily dependent on serving families with SNAP benefits.
3. Every American should have access to foods that are made from safe ingredients.
Healthier diets should reduce the incidence and impact of diseases, including acute as well as chronic conditions. We need more and better nutrition research, especially on causation. A healthy diet should be built around some “better to be safe” changes, but also allow for innovation and information derived from new and ongoing research.
4. Every American should have access to safe foods with minimal risk of intentional and unintentional adulteration.
A healthy diet should be compatible with maintaining food safety and minimizing the risk of foodborne illness. Preservatives, in particular, are essential to many products and may need to remain even if they have names that people cannot pronounce. Intentional and negligent adulteration is a serious issue (my most recent take on this topic is here). Reducing the frequency of such incidents should also be a consideration when recommending healthy dietary choices.
5. Every American should have access to healthy and convenient foods tailored to their life stage and offering a range of choices.
There cannot be one healthy diet to the exclusion of others. Providing multiple ways to eat healthier respects lifestyle, cultural, gender, medical issues, and age differences, as well as individual taste preferences.
A healthy diet must also allow for multiple convenient options. A significant portion of the American population lacks the time, space, physical ability, and/or necessary equipment to cook meals from scratch at home, especially given their family and work obligations and living conditions.
A national food agenda that begins to address these five elements would respond to my initial statement: We need government food policies that are understandable, sensible, feasible, flexible, actionable, and beneficial.
[1] Marion Nestle has observed that: “The groups in America who eat most healthfully are educated; have decent jobs, money, and resources; have homes with functioning kitchens; can cook; live in safe neighborhoods with grocery stores; and have access to affordable health care.” here
[2] A more understated critique from Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health can be found here. Marion Nestle, the doyenne of nutritional food policy, has made several pointed comments in her three columns since the release of the guidelines (here). Center for Science in the Public Interest held a very thorough hour-long briefing on January 12, which will be posted here soon.