​The nation’s updated five‑year 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans introduce several notable updates, including a redesigned food pyramid and a renewed emphasis on whole foods and protein. The changes have sparked debate among researchers, clinicians, and public health professionals. Beyond the headlines, the more important question is how recent evidence informed these recommendations, and what they may mean for chronic disease prevention and federal nutrition programs moving forward.

Unprocess Your Plate
One of the most significant shifts is the clearer emphasis on limiting highly processed foods. For the first time, the guidelines explicitly discourage packaged, ready-to-eat products high in added sugars and refined ingredients. This change reflects a growing body of research linking diets high in ultra-processed foods to obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality.
A recent meta-analysis reported consistent associations between higher ultra-processed food consumption and increased risk of cardiovascular disease and other adverse cardiometabolic outcomes. While earlier editions focused primarily on individual nutrients such as added sugars or sodium, the current guidance more directly acknowledges the role of food processing and overall dietary patterns in shaping health outcomes. This evolution reflects decades of research supporting dietary patterns centered on whole and minimally processed foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and healthy fats that protect against chronic disease.
The guidelines also continue to reinforce limits on added sugars and encourage greater intake of fiber-rich whole foods. The updated guidance emphasizes nutrient-dense foods and overall dietary quality, rather than focusing narrowly on calorie counts. These recommendations remain consistent with long-standing evidence from the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet, both linked to improved cardiometabolic health and reduced risk of chronic disease.
The Protein Pivot
Another prominent feature of the new pyramid is its prioritization of protein. The guidelines highlight protein consumption across the lifespan, with attention to muscle maintenance and metabolic health. National data from What We Eat in America (NHANES) indicate that most U.S. adults already consume an adequate or high amount of protein, though adequacy varies by age and sex. This context has prompted experts to debate how broadly to interpret higher protein targets, and whether that messaging could distract from other important components of a balanced diet. Because guidelines still advise limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of daily calories, careful communication is essential to ensure that increased attention on protein does not create confusion around high-saturated fat sources, such as certain red or processed meats. Messaging should also highlight protein-rich options like legumes, seafood, nuts, and low-fat dairy.
Nuanced Nutrition and Forming the Foundation for Federal Programs
These nuances do not diminish the broader strengths of the guidelines. Rather, they illustrate the complexity of translating evolving nutrition science into clear, population-level recommendations. Faculty experts at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health have noted that while the guidelines maintain important advances, particularly in discouraging ultra-processed foods, certain aspects, including the prioritization of animal protein sources over plant-forward options, have generated discussion about alignment with elements of their Advisory Committee’s scientific report.
Importantly, the public health implications of the Dietary Guidelines extend beyond individual dietary choices. The guidelines serve as the foundation for federal nutrition programs, including SNAP, WIC, the National School Lunch Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The updated guidelines can influence food procurement standards, nutrition education, and meal planning across programs serving millions of Americans. Even modest, widespread improvements in diet can help reduce obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.
Ultimately, the impact of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines depends less on the design of a pyramid, and more on how well the recommendations are translated into practice. Aligning federal policy, food environments, and clinical guidance with the strongest available evidence offers an opportunity to strengthen prevention efforts nationwide. Thoughtful implementation and clear communication will determine whether these updates translate into measurable improvements in population health.

Author 
​Nelly Miranda Mongalo, MPH, is a public health professional with a concentration in Health Services Management & Policy. She earned her Master of Public Health from Tufts University School of Medicine, where her work focused on nutrition policy analysis and early childhood health initiatives. Her interests include maternal and child health and chronic disease prevention. As a foreign-trained dentist who transitioned into U.S. public health, she brings a clinical perspective and a population-level approach to health policy. Nelly is passionate about advancing policies and programs that support healthier families and communities. Outside of her professional work, she enjoys traveling and spending time on family adventures with her husband and two daughters.

Eliza Stuart, B.S., B.A

​Many of us turn to coffee, tea, and energy drinks to perk us up, yet these caffeinated beverages fail to address a common underlying cause of low energy: iron deficiency. Caffeine might even worsen the issue by reducing the body’s ability to absorb iron, so for those of us with low iron levels, focusing on increasing iron consumption might be a more effective way to feel energized throughout the day than drinking another cup of coffee.

​Nearly 1 in 3 adults in the US are iron deficient, and iron deficiency is more common among women than men, with the highest prevalence among women under 50. The widespread consumption of caffeine in the US may be ineffective, and even counterproductive, for improving energy levels in nearly a third of the population because caffeine is associated with reducing the body’s ability to absorb iron.  

These numbers reflect real experiences. For example, when my grandmother was iron deficient, she described feeling like a “limp noodle,” and didn’t have much energy, regardless of how much coffee she drank. Beyond lethargy, low iron levels are associated with decreased physical capacity, impaired neurocognitive function, and heart failure, so maintaining an adequate iron level is important for many long-term health outcomes.

Taking iron supplements and eating iron-rich foods like meat, seafood, greens, beans, and breads and cereals with fortified grains can help increase iron levels. Cooking in a cast iron skillet can also help increase the iron in your food!

To optimize your body’s ability to absorb the iron you consume, it is beneficial to be thoughtful about what vitamins and compounds you are having (or not having) alongside an iron-rich meal or iron supplement. Vitamin C is known to improve iron absorption, so healthcare professionals commonly advise people taking iron supplements to drink a glass of orange juice when they take their iron pill.

Conversely, a recent study found that caffeine, especially in conjunction with the polyphenols in coffee and tea, is associated with reducing the bioavailability of iron by increasing inflammation. Timing matters: the beneficial effects of Vitamin C and the negative effects of caffeine on iron absorption are most profound when these are consumed around the same time as iron.
​
In short, pairing iron-rich meals or supplements with Vitamin C and steering clear of caffeine for a few hours before and after can make a big difference. These small changes can help you get the most out of your iron and keep your energy levels strong.

  Ross Hatton, PhD, MPA

​More than half of the foods purchased by U.S. households contain food additives. These substances include sweeteners, preservatives, dyes, and flavors that are added to foods to improve their shelf life, flavor, visual appeal, and food safety. Some are innocuous or even beneficial for health. For example, lactic acid is a preservative found in many fermented foods (e.g., yogurt, cheese, and pickled vegetables) that studies suggest may improve gut health. However, many additives, such as brominated vegetable oil—an emulsifier used in soft drinks—have been linked to negative health outcomes such as cancer, hyperactivity, and inflammation, particularly among children.  

​But how do unsafe additives enter our food supply? Historically, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulated the ingredients that can be used in foods sold in the U.S. Since 1958, the FDA has allowed chemicals (i.e., food additives) to be used in food if they are “generally recognized as safe”, or GRAS. Initially intended to allow common ingredients such as vinegar and baking soda to be used without prior FDA approval, this exemption was used by food industry to introduce hundreds of additives while the FDA had limited oversight and resources to confirm their safety. And, in 1997, the FDA proposed a rule to further allow industry to self-certify which foods qualify for GRAS. Through this loophole, industry introduces new additives to the food supply without the FDA reviewing their safety and without notifying the FDA or the public.
Fast-forward to 2025, and more than 10,000 food additives are allowed in the U.S. food supply. Although estimates suggest 3,000 of these substances were not reviewed by the FDA, it is impossible to know the exact number because the GRAS loophole allows food companies to introduce these substances without any notification. Regardless of the exact number, these counts far exceed the number in the European Union, where only 411 food additives are approved. As a result, U.S. consumers face far greater uncertainty about the safety of the processed foods they consume. 

In recent years, consumers and policymakers alike have become increasingly attentive to the ingredients used in the U.S. food supply. Currently, the media and political spotlight is on the potential health effects of consuming ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which contain many food additives. However, U.S. consumers may not fully understand the extent to which they consume chemicals introduced by food industry without FDA oversight. The GRAS loophole not only allows additives that may not have been sufficiently tested or reviewed for their safety; it also limits consumers’ ability to be fully informed about the foods they eat by allowing industry to avoid disclosing the use of new additives.

Ongoing efforts to identify UPFs and require labels for food additives commonly found in UPFs could help improve consumer understanding and inform choice at the point of sale. However, these interventions are likely to be insufficient for helping consumers make informed, healthier food choices, as over 70% of the food supply is estimated to be UPFs. This means consumers have few options for limiting their consumption of food additives, even when properly informed.
Instead, efforts are needed to improve the food supply itself and address the approval of additives. Recent proposals in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania would require industry to disclose their use of GRAS substances, which would then be recorded in a public database. Such requirements could lead industry to reduce its use of the GRAS loophole and would, at minimum, improve transparency and provide consumers with additional information about the food they purchase.
​
But these proposals would neither end industry self-approval of food additives nor ensure the review of previously approved substances. Federal policymakers have committed to closing the loophole, and, in 2025, the FDA announced that it would propose a new rule requiring industry to notify the FDA of GRAS submissions. This would ensure that, nationally, U.S. consumers know whether GRAS substances are present in the foods they purchase, and the FDA should enact this rule following public comment. In addition, to further improve the safety of the U.S. food supply, policymakers should overturn the rule allowing industry to self-certify foods that qualify as GRAS and should review substances previously approved via industry self-certification. Taking these steps will not only help consumers make informed and healthier choices but will also help ensure consumers are not unduly exposed to food additives that can negatively impact their health.

Izzuddin Aris, PhD

​When we think about what influences our health, we often focus on individual-level factors such as diet, exercise, and genetics. Nearly two decades ago, the World Health Organization launched its Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) to catalyze global action around the social and structural factors that shape health outcomes across populations. These include five key areas:

1. Health care access and quality
2. Economic stability
3. Neighborhood and built environment
4. Social and community context
5. Education access and quality

Among these, neighborhoods play a particularly powerful role. They encompass both physical and social attributes that can either support or hinder optimal health. For example, in disadvantaged neighborhoods, it’s often easy to find alcohol, fast foods, and tobacco which may lead to residents’ increased consumption of these products and, in turn, may increase their risks of developing obesity, hypertension, and heart disease.

​Why Women Are Especially Affected
Women’s health is especially sensitive to these social and environmental influences. Things like income, education, employment, geographic location, family dynamics, and even local policies all intersect to shape women’s health experiences and outcomes. During midlife in particular, when women experience physiological and hormonal changes related to menopause, the stakes get even higher, including increased risk of cardiovascular disease. While cohort studies have taught us a lot about aging and chronic disease risk in women, there’s still much to learn. Especially about how neighborhood stressors affect women’s health during midlife transition.
What We’ve Learned from Project Viva
To dig deeper, we turned to Project Viva, a Boston-based longitudinal cohort study that began tracking pregnant women between 1999 and 2002. With over 25 years of data—including residential addresses, lifestyle habits, and sociodemographic information—Project Viva offers a window into how neighborhood conditions influence women’s health over time.
Here were our findings:

• Women living in highly vulnerable neighborhoods—characterized by low income, high poverty and unemployment rates, high prevalence of single-parent households, and limited vehicle access--reached natural menopause about two years earlier than those in neighborhoods with very low vulnerability.
• In a separate study (currently under review), we found that women in highly vulnerable neighborhoods had lower cardiovascular health scores across the menopausal transition and experienced a faster decline in heart health during premenopause.
• Conversely, another study showed that women living near greenspaces—especially areas with tree coverage—had better cardiovascular health, reflecting healthier diets, better sleep, more physical activity, and better body weight, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels.

Why This Matters
These findings reveal a powerful truth: your ZIP code can be just as important as your genetic code when it comes to women’s health. Where you live can influence when you enter menopause and how your heart holds up through midlife.
This isn’t just about data, it’s about action. If we want to promote health equity, we need to address disparities in neighborhood conditions. That means improving access to healthy food, greenspaces, and community resources. It also means reducing environmental stressors and supporting policies that uplift vulnerable populations. As an example, investments of $36 million from The Healthy Futures Fund allowed the not-for-profit So Others Might Eat to develop the 320,000-square-foot Conway Center in Washington, DC. This center provides affordable housing, primary care services, employment training, and economic development opportunities together in one location, where residents and community members will have access to outreach and health education programs designed to promote healthy lifestyles and uplift vulnerable populations. Future research should explore how these place-based solutions could help delay early menopause and support better heart health for women everywhere.

Hannah Cole, AB 

​Can your lunch help your skin health? Many content creators seem to think so! If you’ve never heard the phrase “eat your skincare,” it refers to the idea that what you eat can influence your skin health – a popular subject in certain corners of the internet. While you might scroll past these kinds of posts, people dealing with acne may be taking them to heart, making dietary changes based on what shows up in their feeds. That’s why it’s worth taking a closer look at what these posts are actually claiming, how they stack up against scientific literature, and how this content might be shaping patients’ choices.

​I spent some time perusing Instagram posts that connect nutrition and skin health, especially acne. A few patterns stood out. Here, I’ll unpack three recurring themes–probiotics, glycemic load, and micronutrients–and reflect on the potential benefits and drawbacks of this kind of content for patients.
 
In the realm of probiotics, many Instagram posts touch on links between gut and skin health, frequently mentioning specific foods such as kimchi, yogurt, and sauerkraut. The relationship between gut bacteria and skin health isn’t just wellness influencer fluff: scientific literature also supports the role of the microbiota in the gut-skin axis. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a specific oral probiotic capsule even found significantly greater improvement in Acne Global Severity Scale scores in the probiotic group compared to the placebo. It is important, however, to contrast the specific intervention studied with the recommended foods touted in many social media posts.
 
Another major theme among posts that I saw related to dietary glycemic load, with posts promoting “low-glycemic foods” or describing “high glycemic foods” as a trigger for acne. Both social media content and scientific literature discuss a relationship between glycemic load or “high-sugar foods,” insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), and acne development. Furthermore, an investigator-blinded randomized controlled trial of a low-glycemic-load diet over 12 weeks in male patients found a statistically significant drop in acne lesions compared to the control group. While this study shows promising evidence favoring a dietary change, it is still important to consider who was included in the study and the specifics of the intervention.
 
Finally, many micronutrients were mentioned in the posts that I encountered, including zinc, vitamin C, and vitamin A. A systematic review of nutraceuticals for acne found good-quality studies favoring only vitamin D, green tea extract, probiotics, and the herbal formula cheongsangbangpoong-tang. Studies of other nutraceuticals (including zinc, vitamin C, and vitamin A) were rated as fair to poor in quality. Again, of note, studied interventions frequently differ from what is promoted online.
 
This experience highlighted why social media literacy is so important, especially in clinical contexts. While some posts may be grounded in research, it is important to be aware of bold claims that go beyond what guidelines recommend, which could mislead patients. It can also be easy to miss that a post is trying to advertise products or services. Another concern is that some posts disparage medical treatment in favor of nutritional intervention, reinforcing stigma around more conventional care.
 
Still, it’s not all bad. Some posts introduce a diverse range of perspectives that aren’t always represented in medical literature. At its best, this content can inspire patients to make healthful choices by giving them inspiration for new recipes and ingredients that their clinician may not be familiar with.
 
One final point: my feed changed as a result of this digital experience. The more I clicked on posts related to acne, gut health, and micronutrients, the more similar content appeared on my Explore page. This kind of algorithmic loop demonstrates how platforms like Instagram can amplify health content – for better or worse – and it’s a ripe area for further exploration.

Author 
​Hannah L. Cole, AB is a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School. She aspires to a career in pediatric dermatology, with particular interests in inflammatory skin disease, pharmacoepidemiology, and the impact of digital technologies on child health. She is from Newton, MA and graduated from Harvard College in 2022 with a concentration in Molecular and Cellular Biology.