On January 7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, alongside the Department of Health and Human Services, unveiled the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for the years 2025 through 2030. Secretaries Brooke Rollins and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. heralded this release as a groundbreaking overhaul in federal nutrition policy, emphasizing its significance like never before.

The new guidelines present a straightforward message: prioritize whole foods, reduce the intake of added sugars, and steer clear of ultra-processed foods laden with additives.

However, the updated dietary recommendations introduce a controversial shift that may undermine its intended impact. Notably, the guidelines suggest a significant increase in the consumption of meat and dairy while failing to differentiate between products from sustainable and industrial farming sources.

While advocating for steak and cheese over refined carbs might appear logical, it comes with concerns. Without transformative changes in animal agriculture practices, boosting meat and dairy consumption could escalate the use of hazardous antibiotics, pesticide-ridden feed, and pollution-intensive waste management systems.

The core issue isn’t the emphasis on meat or dairy themselves, but rather their origins. A substantial portion of the U.S. animal food supply is reliant on large-scale confinement operations known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These facilities prioritize high output at low cost, often resorting to routine antibiotics and pharmaceuticals to control diseases. This practice contributes to the alarming rise of antibiotic resistance, posing a significant threat to human health.

Feed often comes from corn and soy grown in pesticide-heavy monocultures and shipped in at scale. And the waste doesn’t disappear: manure from these concentrated animal feeding operations comes in volumes that can pollute local air, contaminate streams and groundwater, and degrade surrounding land. In Ohio, we saw huge algal blooms choke off aquatic life in Lake Erie that were directly tied to a major animal feeding operations in the northwest part of the state.

The unhealthy side of that production model shows up in the food, too. Animal products can carry what the system uses — chemical residues from feed and persistent pollutants that move through soil and water. Some contaminants concentrate in animal tissue, especially fat. When you eat higher on the food chain, you don’t just get more protein — you also absorb more of the system’s chemical footprint.

All this might seem like a niche concern for Whole Foods moms, but it isn’t. It is about what ends up in kids’ school meals. It’s about what farmworkers breathe and touch, and what runs off fields into streams and wells that provide our water. Farm states like Iowa have faced rapid rises in cancer rates in recent years, underscoring the risks of the chemical-intensive industrial system to the people who grow our food.  

If the federal government wants Americans to eat more animal-based foods, it should clarify the importance of decent standards. In some cases, that means organic or pasture-raised. But it can also mean a broad range of regenerative practices like cover-crops, diversified rotations, or managed grazing.

Of course, the problem is tat all of this is expensive, especially amid rising food prices that are squeezing Americans’ budgets.

That’s why a serious strategy to “make America healthy again” should focus on helping farmers reduce dependence on chemical inputs and increase affordable access to healthy, minimally-processed foods. It should reimagine the system so that any agricultural subsidy steers us toward wellness and ultimately reduces healthcare costs.

Rollins and Kennedy are touting their new initiatives around “regenerative agriculture,” but the Trump administration has also cut the capacity that helps farmers transition away from destructive industrial practices. There are fewer experts available now to help farmers plant cover crops, improve grazing, reduce chemical inputs, and rebuild soil health.

At the same time, Republicans in Congress have been seeking to shield pesticide companies from lawsuits and to weaken oversight of “forever chemicals” harmful to human health. And the Trump administration is staffing agencies, including the EPA, with lobbyists from the pesticide industry. 

In essence, the Trump administration is recommending that people eat healthy food while eliminating the rules and tools that make that possible. Policymakers need a better strategy. 

First, if guidelines recommend more meat and dairy, they should also say what kind: products raised with fewer chemicals, less routine drug use, and better land and water practices. Keep it simple: If you eat more animal foods, do your best to choose sources that reduce chemical exposure and pollution.

Second, make those choices cheaper and easier. The government already shapes markets through what it buys and funds. But the Agriculture Department’s purchases still overwhelmingly favor big industrial agriculture and help concentrate power among megaproducers. It should strengthen procurement standards, including for school meals and other public programs.

Third, align farm policy with nutrition goals. Shift subsidies and incentives away from chemical-dependent commodity production and toward diversified farms, regional processing, and supply chains that let small and mid-sized producers compete. 

American nutrition needed a reset. Inverting the food pyramid can be a positive development. But if we want a “real food” system, we need to invest in building one.

Tim Ryan is a former 10-term Democratic member of the U.S. House from Ohio. Justin Talbot Zorn served as legislative director for three members of Congress and is a senior adviser at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.