Will the UK and Australia follow the new American Dietary Guidelines?
Why the American approach, messaging styles and political influence still matter.
When the US dietary guidelines were released last month, it led to uproar on social media. Not least by nutritionists, dietitians and doctors.
The pyramid, flipped on its head, has invoked strong reactions, as I’m sure it was designed to do, but this has also broadened its reach.
The New Dietary Guidelines for Americans
A simplification of messaging
The previous guidelines were long, detailed and ultimately nuanced based on a range of needs. There was also a recognition (through imagery) of the wide cultural diaspora of the United States.
This guidance has now been reduced down to 10 pages. These guidelines tell a story of simplification and clearer messaging on what is considered healthy. But it does lack the detail of the previous guidance.
The image clearly shows 3 distinct areas in the guidelines:
Protein, Dairy and Fats
Vegetables and Fruits
Whole Grains
Will this simplified approach help?
A first look at the new guidelines is a clear simplification. It uses the rule of three within these 3 distinct areas.
Notably, it’s what is missing that is important: There is no inclusion in the guidelines of any foods that are clearly in packets (aside from the minced meat), highly or ultra-processed foods or confectionary.
The pyramid doesn’t appear to sit in a hierarchy of the most to least.
Instead it has 3 points which converge together, although it is referred to as a pyramid.
There is still the inclusion of vegetables and fruits as a core component of diet, however the biggest change is the clear inclusion of dairy, protein and ‘healthy’ fats.
And the imagery includes meat and dairy as a core component of this.
The written guidelines recommend whole grains at 2-4 servings per day, there’s a focus on nutrient dense foods and encourages fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables.
There remains a recommendation of keeping saturated fat intake to less than 10% of calories, although the visual representation may make this difficult to follow if using this as a main guide.
If I ate all these foods in a given week would I remain healthy?
Most likely.
And it is hard to argue that this combination of foods in this ‘pyramid’, which I would rather define as a triangle, is going to make you sick, or increase your risk significantly of health problems including cardiovascular disease or diabetes.
Other guidelines do not promote sweets and chocolates but their inclusion in the discussion may still signal to some people that it is safe to have. Moderation may be open to interpretation.
What is moderation when the same foods are designed to be ultra-tasty, ultra-moreish and by this design lead us to consume more?
For example the EatWell guide in the UK makes references to these foods and leaves them outside the main plate.
By inclusion of these ultra-processed this still signals to me that it is acceptable for health.
Should guidelines include unhealthier foods, or keep them completely removed?
There is division between whether this is acceptable, and I for one ate two bags of popcorn, had a few alcoholic drinks and pack of sweets last week.
So like nearly all of you, I’m not perfect.
But to include within an eating guide does suggest a softening of the negative impact these foods really do have on our health.
In my view it should be clear that these are always unhealthy, and not to be included on a visual. The USA has made progress by ensuring that these foods are not included.
Yes, they might be easily available, but to omit them is progress, especially if the UK and Australia are influenced by these guidelines.
The EatWell Guide - Public Health England
Why the upset with the dietary guidelines?
They are so simple, that they are unlikely to be a right fit for all Americans. Diversity of thought matters to ensure inclusion and equity, so that all Americans can benefit.
Gemma Newman, GP, lifestyle and holistic health advocate has written about her concerns of the dietary guidelines.
notes the guidelines as being visually misleading, inconsistent scientifically, with delivered with heavy political influence.
There are key foods missing.
Gemma’s concerns also include clear omissions of foods missing from this food pyramid including beans, lentils, nuts and seeds especially supportive of health. This is a short summary and I would recommend a read of her perspective.
These food groups are backed-up in studies and in population based observations such as the characterisation of regions in the world known as ‘Blue Zones’.
(The blue zones are not without their controversy either so is used as a point of reference here rather than a gold-standard perspective).
It is likely that if there was a more of a plant-based political agenda from those in leadership and power then the pyramid would look different. Ultimately there is continual influence from those with power and leadership.
It is to be expected, but perhaps the expectancy leads to a resignation that it will occur, and complacency of the impact it may have.
Eric Topol recently interviewed Dan Buettner on Substack about the Blue Zones including some controversies around the data.
Is 'evidence-based science dying in a ‘post-truth’ world?
The USA may be living out its post-truth world, with less of a focus on evidence-based medicine.
There is significant mistrust of evidence-based medicine, with arguments regarding this including influence by industry, whether that be ‘big food’ or ‘big pharma’, and has also taken on a ‘real-food’ approach.
A health system spear-headed by the most hated, yet also most loved secretary for human and health services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
With a leadership voice change on vaccines and food with such instances including unpasteurised milk and use of paracetamol in pregnancy making headlines.
While taking on the (ultra-processed) food industry he has been paid by many organisations in the (meat & dairy) industry at the same time.
When there is such mis-trust in evidence-based medicine and public health, messages that are given from those in positions of leadership may also swing too far in the opposite direction, and significantly increase the risk of harm to its population.
Shouldn’t we be scientific, not political?
Yes, of course science needs to prevail. But what is science without culture or politics?
When considering food science, the pursuit of the best foods for health and utilising evidence-base is only as good as the foods that people identify with and eat regularly, and are part of countries culturally.
Releasing this food pyramid in India would cause uproar and possibly even protest, and releasing the Indian dietary guidelines into the USA would also be akin to waging war on its own citizens.
I’m sure the Indian plate would be more akin to plant-based diets, which is much more common among Indian populations.
Indian Dietary Guidelines on a plate
Certainly there is an argument that while culture should of course have impact on the guidelines being provided, it doesn’t mean the guidelines can contain foods commonly associated with American diets (fast food chains and ultra-processed foods) and nor should the political will of individuals influence the science providing dietary guidelines advice to many millions of citizens.
Jessica Knurick, PhD, RDN summarises these concerns; the dietary changes from previous US guidelines are not much different in their recommendations.
However government messaging as to why there are dietary-associated health problems, and the presentation of dietary guidelines in the food pyramid are flawed.
The root cause
Jessica identifies root cause problems. That the real drivers of poor diet are structural and not informational. The USA essentially remains driven by corporate power, agricultural policy and the ability to influence politics, and science translated into policy.
The guidelines add to the ongoing confusion regarding saturated fat
The narrative on social media is that saturated fat may not be as harmful as we have previously made it out to be for cardiovascular health.
What does Dr Idz have to say about it?
Dr Idz has summarised the influence of the meat and dairy industries with his critical post of the release of the dietary guidelines here.
Clearly people will respond more to images, rather than reading text, and I for one can say I’ve looked at the image many times, compared to sitting down and reading even a relatively short 10 page document.
Fibre, Fibre, Fibre.
The message on fibre is missing. Frankly fibre or fiber (depending on your spelling version) is the new hottest trend coming and with good reason.
Fibre is the new ‘protein’ and the dietary guidelines ave missed an opportunity here.
The new guidelines do not state how much fibre is required, just that it is important, and the 10 page document only references fibre twice.
Fibre is an essential component of our diet, of which it is estimated that in the US population only 5% of Americans are achieving the fibre recommendations. And fibre doesn’t come from from meat or animal sources, it’s derived from plants and ever more present when they are not ultra-processed.
Low fibre intake is associated with higher risk of heart attacks and other forms of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, colorectal cancer, weight gain / obesity, metabolic syndrome and all cause mortality (dying from anything).
It can improve cholesterol, blood glucose control and is shown to reduce inflammation in the body.
Our most under-utilised protector
It is one of the strongest protectors in our diets, yet remains so under consumed because of its lack of airtime.
However, authors and experts in the field of fibre including Dr Emily Leeming are making progress in building this awareness for the general public and health conscious.
What about Australia?
Their guidelines were updated in 2013, with a detailed visual representation of foods. Plates or circles are less confrontational, without indicating a specific area of focus, and the sectioning allows for a better understanding of proportions.
I’m sure the American Dietary Guidelines will have been noticed, so at the next update, will the politics of America inadvertently affecting our messaging on food?
In August 2025 ABC news released an article discussing how the Australia’s next dietary guidelines will also consider the environment.
If this is the case then one can expect more emphasis on plant-based proteins and fibre and less evidence on animal-based products.
Basing a human nutrition decision on the environment is not one that is focused on the direct need of the health of a person.
Decisions of whether to consider the environment are not just scientific, but they are cultural; based on political and public sentiment, specifically whichever has the most power.
Going down this route would be in contention with meat and dairy industries. It’s possible that the decisions made in America will impact that of Australia and UK.
It won’t be just about the science.
It probably never was and won’t be in the coming dietary guideline updates.
How the science is portrayed to populations is related to the prevailing culture at the time, with the ones who have the most amount of power to enable their message to shout louder than others.
The cultures of different countries will impact what they are eating, what information they are receiving and also who their leadership is.
The leadership will inform how these nutritional guidelines are decided, and who will be consulted to inform the development of the guidelines and how it will be presented.
Ultimately the USA remains a leader in nutritional science and opinion, politics and power.
All of this means that what happened in the USA may have an impact on future dietary guidelines globally.