By NINA TEICHOLZ AND TY BEAL
Guest Columnists
Our nation’s top health officials are sounding the alarm on federal nutrition policy. They’re right to be concerned. Rates of diet-related diseases – including obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and iron-deficiency anemia – continue to rise. Anemia alone affects 10 million Americans, causing chest pain, headaches, and fatigue. Left untreated, it can lead to serious heart problems, premature births, and stunted growth in infants and children.
Given the stakes, adequate nutrition should become the cornerstone of national dietary policy. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans shapes everything from school lunch programs to broader federal health initiatives.
Yet the recommended dietary patterns continue to fall short. According to the 2025 guidelines’ own expert report, a person following these recommendations will not meet adequacy goals for iron, vitamin D, choline, and folate – nutrients crucial for brain development, bone health, and the prevention of birth defects, among other vital functions.
The responsibility now lies with the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to make a final decision on the report’s findings and develop the official 2025-2030 guidelines, due out this year. It is crucial that the new guidelines effectively address nutritional needs.
The nutritional status of adolescent girls illustrates these concerns. Nearly 40 percent of females between the ages of 12 and 21 years are iron deficient. More than 6 percent are so low they develop anemia. This represents a significant public health challenge during a critical period of development.
The nutritional challenges extend to bone health. By the expert report’s measure, among girls aged 14 to 18 years: 68 percent fall below adequacy for calcium, 89 percent for magnesium, more than 97 percent for vitamin D, and 23 percent for protein.
Pregnancy and lactation amplify these challenges. Nutritional deficiencies during pregnancy can jeopardize the health of mother and baby, in extreme cases leading to complications such as developmental delays and neurological damage.
The expert committees behind the guidelines’ scientific reports have previously acknowledged these nutrient gaps and their public health significance. But the current report continues to reflect similar gaps in its recommendations.
For instance, the committee recommends Americans consume three servings of refined grains per day – not because they’re healthy, but because they’re enriched with added nutrients. Without these enriched foods, the recommended diet would be even less adequate.
Enriched grains were a reasonable priority when introduced in the 1940s. In the previous three decades, nutrition scientists had identified the vitamins and minerals needed to sustain good health. Although these experts identified milk, eggs, butter, organ meats, and green leafy vegetables as nutrient-dense “protective” foods, the government opted to deliver vitamins and minerals by adding nutrients to refined grains. Wartime rationing was in effect, and grains were still cheaper.
The fallout from stigmatizing nourishing foods is that basic nutrition has been imperiled.
Many nutrients from animal foods are more easily absorbed than those in plants or enriched refined grains. Additionally, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds can contain high levels of a compound called phytate, which hinders the body’s absorption of iron, zinc, and calcium. Yet the guidelines’ scientific report stresses the health benefits of beans, peas, and lentils over animal products and overlooks issues of nutrient absorption and adequacy.
Moving forward, we need to put nutrition back into our nutrition policy. The upcoming guidelines should prioritize nutrient sufficiency to support optimal health.
Nina Teicholz, Ph.D., is a science journalist and author. Ty Beal, Ph.D., is head of food systems data and analytics at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition. This piece originally ran in The Hill. Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
