The New Dietary Guidelines Say “Eat Real Food,” But Are We Asking the Right Questions?

The Real Question Is Whether the System Is Ready to Deliver It.

Subscribe

Every time new Dietary Guidelines are released, the first reactions are predictable. Nutritionists dissect the science. Health organizations debate the recommendations. Headlines argue about what’s “in” and what’s “out.” And, this year, about the food pyramid's inversion. Policy experts quibble over what actually new and what's been repackaged to look new but isn't.

This year I see something else. Something I haven't heard anyone else talking about. Which is why, after the initial dust has settled on the this and that of the Guidelines, I share this with you.

Let' start by focusing on how the Guidelines are being framed. We are hearing language about “realigning the food system,” about supporting American farmers and ranchers, and about affordability. The Secretary of Agriculture is front and center alongside Health and Human Services in a way that is more visible than in past cycles, even though the Guidelines have long been a joint USDA–HHS effort.

That visibility matters. Because when the government says, “We are realigning our food system to support American farmers, ranchers, and companies who grow and produce real food,” it invites a different kind of story and, therefore, scrutiny.

Not just: Is this good nutrition advice? But: Is the system actually aligned to make this possible?

“Eat Real Food” Is a Big Ask in a Highly Processed Reality

Let’s start with the baseline.

Ultra-processed foods still make up roughly half or more of the calories in the American diet. That did not happen by accident. It is the result of decades of policy, pricing, marketing, infrastructure, and risk management decisions that made processed calories cheap, shelf-stable, and ubiquitous.

So when Guidelines call on Americans to eat more “real food,” that is not a small nudge. It is a request for a structural shift.

Which immediately raises the farm-side question: Where will that food come from, and under what conditions?

Supporting American Growers in an Import-Dependent System

Nearly half of the fruit and more than a third of the vegetables Americans consume, by value, are imported. That reality reflects seasonality, labor costs, trade policy, infrastructure gaps, and the simple fact that our domestic food system has not been built to prioritize year-round access to regionally grown produce at scale.

If supporting American growers is truly part of the plan, then “eat more fruits and vegetables” cannot exist in isolation from questions about:

• Labor availability and cost

• Cold storage and aggregation

• Regional distribution

• Risk management for specialty crops

• Procurement commitments that provide stable demand

Without those pieces, the burden of “realignment” quietly falls back on independent growers who already operate with thin margins and high risk.

Ranchers, Protein & Consolidation

The same tension exists in meat. Let me explain.

Most beef cattle are finished in large feedlots (Calves are born on ranches and transitioned to feedlots where they are fed grain to get to slaughter weight quickly). Most chicken is produced under contract. (This means that means that independent farmers raise chickens for large corporations that control the supply chain but shift capital investment and risk onto farmers.) Much of pork production is similarly integrated (where breeding, raising, slaughtering, packaging and marketing is all controlled by one entity). This doesn’t mean independent ranchers don’t exist, but it does mean the dominant system rewards scale, uniformity, and vertical control.

So when Guidelines suggest moving toward whole, minimally processed protein sources, the farm question is not ideological. It is practical: Who benefits from increased demand? Who absorbs the risk? And who has the infrastructure to meet it?

Independent ranchers, diversified livestock operations, and pasture-based producers may hear “support” in these Guidelines, but without changes to processing access, inspection bottlenecks, and regional slaughter capacity, they are often structurally locked out of growth opportunities.

Subscribe

The Word That Begs Serious Scrutiny: AFFORD

“Ensure all families can afford it.” This is the sentence that should slow everyone down.

Food affordability is not just about consumer behavior. It is the outcome of farm policy, subsidy design, transportation, labor, retail pricing strategies, and procurement rules.

Grocery prices have risen sharply over the last several years, with particular pressure on meat, eggs, and fresh foods. Meanwhile, ultra-processed foods continue to benefit from economies of scale, cheap commodity inputs, and a system designed to minimize volatility for manufacturers.

If affordability is a real goal, then the question is not whether Americans want to eat real food. It is whether policy is actively making real food the easier -- and that means affordable -- choice.

Subsidies: What We Pay For Shapes What We Eat

Here is where the tension becomes unavoidable.

Billions of federal dollars flow annually through commodity subsidies and crop insurance premium support, with the largest shares tied to corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. Much of that production feeds into animal feed, exports, biofuels, or ultra-processed food ingredients.

Specialty crops, diversified farms, and regional food systems operate under a different risk profile, with fewer safety nets and less predictable support.

So the question becomes uncomfortable but necessary: Are the Dietary Guidelines now leading agricultural policy, or are they still downstream of a subsidy system built for a different food economy?

Is this the dog wagging the tail, or the tail wagging the dog?

A Word to Independent Growers and Ranchers

This is where I want to pause and speak directly to the people who grow food.

It is understandable to feel cautiously hopeful when federal language shifts toward “real food,” “support,” and “alignment.” Words matter. Signals matter.

But history suggests that independent farmers and ranchers should ask harder questions before relaxing into reassurance.

Support is not a sentence in a guideline. Support is policy, funding, infrastructure, and procurement that shows up consistently, predictably, and at scale.

If you are an independent grower or rancher, these are reasonable questions to be asking right now:

• Will this change how risk is shared?

• Will this expand access to markets, processing, and distribution?

• Will this make it easier to survive price swings, labor shortages, and climate volatility?

• Or will it simply raise expectations without changing the underlying rules?

Hope is not a strategy. Alignment is.

“Calling on Farmers” Means Calling on Policymakers

The Guidelines call on farmers, ranchers, health professionals, educators, industry, and lawmakers alike. That is appropriate. But responsibility must be proportional to power.

Farmers cannot realign a food system alone. Grocery stores cannot do it alone. Families cannot budget their way out of structural misalignment.

If we are serious about eating more real food, then lawmakers must align:

• Subsidies with outcomes

• Procurement with values

• Infrastructure with regional resilience

• Affordability goals with actual cost structures

Schools, hospitals, and the military are especially important here. These institutions translate guidelines into purchasing decisions. If they cannot afford, source, or prepare real food at scale, the Guidelines remain aspirational rather than operational.

Taking Our Time Is the Right Move

I am not interested in coming out swinging at new Dietary Guidelines. This is not a moment for reflexive applause or condemnation.

It is a moment for patience, clarity, and systems thinking.

The words are promising. The questions are necessary. The work, if it is real, will show up in budgets, programs, and supply chains. I hope you have your eyes on the right part of this equation and I hope that these ideals are not empty.

“Eat real food” is not just dietary advice. It is a test of whether we are finally willing to align policy with the food future we say we want.

And for farmers and ranchers especially, it is worth asking, quietly but firmly:

Are we actually being supported in a meaningful way to make this happen?

Subscribe

____________________

Dana DiPrima is the founder of the For Farmers Movement. For Farmers supports American farmers by sharing their stories, replacing myths with facts, and providing them with high-impact grants and other helpful resources. Dana is the host of  One Bite is Everything, the podcast that connects the food on your plate to the rest of the world underscoring its impact on your health, communities, environment, and economy. She authors a weekly letter in addition to this blog. You can subscribe here. And you can join the For Farmers Movement to support your farmers here. You can also follow her on Instagram and Substack.