US dietary guidelines expected as soon as this month, sources say
By Jessica DiNapoli and Emma Rumney
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which influence school lunches, medical advice and nutrition standards, are expected to be released as soon as June, two sources familiar with the matter said.
The Trump administration is accelerating the timeline to impact meals served in the upcoming school year, starting later this summer, one of the sources said. However, it is already late for many school districts to adjust items they purchase, said Diane Pratt-Heavner, the director of media relations for the School Nutrition Association.
The upcoming dietary guidelines are still being developed and nothing has been decided, a third source familiar with the matter said, adding they were expected to address saturated fat, found mainly in meat and certain oils, and ultra-processed food. Recommendations on drinking alcohol are not slated to dramatically change, the source said.
The guidelines will likely modify suggestions related to dairy consumption, according to an industry source. Currently, the dietary guidelines recommend low and non-fat dairy, but the new ones may include whole fat dairy, the source said.
The sources requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture publish the guidelines jointly every five years. Former President Joe Biden's administration began the process of drafting the guidelines.
The agencies did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The guidelines are the basis for school nutrition standards, which are set by the USDA.
Asked during a Tuesday press conference if the revised guidelines would include any changes to limits on saturated fats, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins declined to provide details.
"We're looking at everything right now. I don't want to make news today, but you'll be hearing a lot more on this in the coming weeks," she said, adding that her goal was to have the full guidelines out in the next month or two.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said last month that the guidelines would be four pages long, published by August and emphasize eating "whole food."
A report commissioned by Kennedy last month said the guidelines were compromised by corporate interests, such as the meat and sugar industries.
The report, named after the Make America Healthy Again social movement linked with Kennedy, also said that the current guidelines' recommendation to reduce saturated fat and sodium was problematic, and should instead focus on minimally processed food.
The current dietary guidelines recommend limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of total calories consumed daily, and do not address ultra-processed food. The definition of ultra-processed food is hotly debated by the food industry while the report describes it as industrially manufactured products.
The guidelines recommend limiting consumption of alcoholic beverages to one a day for women and two for men, or not drinking.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is required to set standards for school meals that align with the dietary guidelines. The guidelines also impact Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), an anti-hunger program. Doctors, nutritionists and dieticians also rely on them when advising patients.
School districts may struggle to meet the recommendations of the new dietary guidelines by the time school starts. Most school districts placed orders for fall 2025 menus at the beginning of the year, Pratt-Heavner said.
"Meeting mandatory changes to the nutrition standards or meal pattern would be extremely difficult given these procurement issues, but the administration could offer flexibility," such as allowing schools to offer whole milk, Pratt-Heavner said. Schools may now only offer fat-free and low-fat milk.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants health agencies to use a lot more AI. After the MAHA report, experts have some concerns
Advertisement And with the apparent inclusion of material imagined by AI, referred to as hallucinations, in the 'Make America Healthy Again' report, they see an ominous sign for the administration's ability to deploy it safely. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'If they were proceeding more apace, and I'm not talking about glacial government pace, I'm talking about responsible pace, this wouldn't happen,' said Oren Etzioni, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington and entrepreneur who studies AI. 'The presence of these embarrassing missteps just shows that it's amateur hour.' Kennedy has expressed ambitious but vague plans, usually in the context of cutting costs. He has outlined his vision during several congressional hearings, including one to replace the use of animals in experimental testing and some steps in clinical trials. 'We're phasing out most animal studies . . . because we can accomplish a lot of those goals on safety and efficacy with AI technology,' Kennedy said. Advertisement He also mentioned using AI to analyze data that HHS and other agencies have collected on patients, such as people on Medicare and Medicaid. He said they've recruited experts to 'transform our agency for a central hub for AI.' So far, the Food and Drug Administration has announced computer and AI modeling. 'In the long-term (3-5 years), FDA will aim to make animal studies the exception rather than the norm for pre-clinical safety/toxicity testing,' the FDA said in its road map. But the mistakes in the 'Make America Healthy Again' report have experts skeptical of HHS's ability to use AI correctly. The report cited sources that do not exist and had garbled footnotes, The agency declined to answer definitively whether AI was used on the report and why it contained nonexistent citations, but rather only highlighted the substance of the report. It also did not offer specifics about protocols for responsible AI use. 'HHS is addressing the risk of AI-generated errors through rigorous validation, human oversight, and strict quality controls,' a spokesperson said in a statement. 'AI tools are designed to support — not replace — expert judgment.' Advertisement Experts say the specifics of how AI is implemented will bethe true measure of whether the efforts at HHS will succeed or end up being harmful. 'I'm actually deeply optimistic about what [AI] can do in a lot of areas, including the ones that the secretary mentioned,' said Ziad Obermeyer, a physician and researcher at the University of California Berkeley who studies AI in biomedicine. 'What my research has shown is that it actually comes down to some of the really boring details that make the difference between a good, powerful algorithm that helps people, and one that really messes things up.' Republicans who work on AI issues in the Senate supported Kennedy's goals but also agreed on the importance of rolling it out with the right protections. 'This is going to be the future,' said Indiana Senator Todd Young. 'I mean, we'd be doing something wrong if, if the head of our health agency wasn't talking about using AI.' The two general use cases that Kennedy has mentioned, replacing steps in clinical trials and analyzing patient data, have some potential issues in common, including that AI can generate false information. But they also have risks unique to each case. Privacy, for example, is a serious concern with patient data. If not properly stripped of identifying factors, even supposedly anonymized data can be re-identified, as has happened in some cases. 'The most secret private information that people have is their health care data, and so AI should not be used in any way that does not have the strongest possible safeguards,' said Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat. 'We could have an absolute privacy catastrophe.' Advertisement Harvard Law School professor I. Glenn Cohen, who studies medical ethics and AI, said that the idea holds great potential, but that the administration would need to be very transparent about how it is protecting data and would be wise to run smaller pilot studies first. 'The 'move fast and break things' ethos of Silicon Valley may be appropriate in some parts of life — I don't really care if you're doing it for the order of Instagram postings," Cohen said. 'But it's not a philosophy we advocate for physicians or an attitude I think most people want health care to take.' The key limitation of AI is that it is only as good as the dataset used to build it. In specific areas where scientific data is really good and outcomes are predictable, such as in the structure of proteins, scientists have built powerful AI tools. AI can also help doctors and patients assess symptoms. But those are different from the discovery of new information, experts say, which is what a lot of science and clinical trials for novel treatments are designed to explore. Allison Coffin is a researcher at Creighton University who studies hearing loss, including that caused by certain medicines. She uses mostly zebra fish in her work, but also rodents. She says her lab is working on AI tools to help identify potential toxins in order to conduct more targeted research. But, she said, AI would always be used as an idea generator for testing in animals, not to replace them. 'That's an excellent case for AI, because AI can rapidly assess millions of potential drug structures. But you would still want to test their efficacy for new therapies in an animal,' Coffin said. 'I would never want to take a medication that hadn't been given to a living creature before, and I would think most people wouldn't. Do we want to be the first to take medication because a computer model says that it's safe?' Advertisement Other scientists questioned the ability of the government to do the cutting-edge research necessary after the administration's deep cuts to research funding and staff. 'Honestly I'm struggling for what to say,' wrote Sean Eddy, a Harvard scientist who works on building computer models for biology and genomic research. 'I just don't see how it makes sense for HHS to talk about delivering innovative technological breakthroughs while they're destabilizing and belittling the US scientific research enterprise. . . . Every lab at Harvard that does this kind of research, including my own, has had all their federal funding terminated.' Experts also question whether Kennedy understands where AI technology actually is today versus its potential capacities. Many cited cautionary tales of much lower-stakes AI deployment gone wrong, such as companies that 'Doing things like simulating an entire body in order to save clinical trials is just grossly unrealistic where we sit right now,' said Gary Marcus, a professor emeritus at New York University and critic of AI enthusiasm. 'If we're lucky, we can do it in 40 [years], but we certainly can't now. That's just a pipe dream.' Advertisement Tal Kopan can be reached at
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports
The Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document that cited disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News The document was written in support of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of PediatricsThe Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal vaccine recommendations that cited unpublished or disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News. In late May, Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism, announced on X that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, while touting President Trump's Make America Healthy Again agenda. "It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there," Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, told KFF Health News, the outlet that obtained the FAQ document. The outlet also reported that the document suggests a link between heart conditions like myocarditis or pericarditis and the COVID vaccine, but updated research suggests that connection has decreased with newer vaccine procedures. The document also left out multiple other peer-reviewed studies that show the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after getting sick with COVID for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone, per KFF Health News. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science," a HHS spokesperson told KFF Health News. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told KFF Health News. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Read the original article on People
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports
The Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document that cited disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News The document was written in support of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of PediatricsThe Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal vaccine recommendations that cited unpublished or disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News. In late May, Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism, announced on X that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, while touting President Trump's Make America Healthy Again agenda. "It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there," Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, told KFF Health News, the outlet that obtained the FAQ document. The outlet also reported that the document suggests a link between heart conditions like myocarditis or pericarditis and the COVID vaccine, but updated research suggests that connection has decreased with newer vaccine procedures. The document also left out multiple other peer-reviewed studies that show the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after getting sick with COVID for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone, per KFF Health News. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science," a HHS spokesperson told KFF Health News. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told KFF Health News. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Read the original article on People