RFK Jr.’s Culinary Battle: Is He Capable of Transforming America’s Eating Habits?

While the new dietary guidelines for Americans are still under development, President-elect Donald Trump has encouraged Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)—to “get creative with food,” hinting at potential significant changes in national nutrition policy.

However, these guidelines are not created in a vacuum. They are the outcome of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), composed of nutrition scientists and public health authorities. Over two years, this committee reviews research, collects public feedback, and compiles a report that informs the ultimate recommendations.

The DGAC serves in an advisory capacity.

“The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee assesses scientific data and puts forward recommendations,” Richard Mattes, a nutrition scientist and member of the 2020 DGAC, stated in an interview with The Epoch Times. Their report is forwarded to HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which finalize the guidelines.

Premium Picks

Americans are also advised to cut back on overall red meat consumption. For individuals consuming 2,200 calories or more daily, the DGAC recommends reducing weekly meat, poultry, and egg intake by an additional 3.5 to 4 ounces compared to earlier guidelines—approximately the size of a deck of cards or the palm of one’s hand.

“This guidance fails to acknowledge that plant-based proteins may not be as comprehensive as animal proteins—and hence, not as easily digestible,” noted Nina Teicholz, a nutrition expert and author, in her Substack, Unsettled Science. She pointed out that plant proteins typically contain additional carbohydrates, which might complicate efforts to manage obesity and diabetes.

The committee recommends six servings of grains per day, with refined grains limited to three servings. Although there are health concerns regarding refined carbohydrates, the DGAC has kept them in the guidelines due to their nutrient fortification with elements like iron and folate.

Teicholz questions this stance, emphasizing that red meat provides a natural source of bioavailable heme iron and folate, which is being reduced simultaneously.

The committee highlights a whole-foods diet—incorporating vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts, and fish—while also endorsing water as the primary beverage and maintaining low- or non-fat dairy products as recommendations.

Even though the food pyramid was formally withdrawn in 2011 and superseded by MyPlate, its legacy continues, as the broad guidelines it endorsed regarding grains, fats, and sugars still shape eating patterns.

“While it aimed to promote whole grain consumption and smaller portion sizes, the pyramid’s portrayal of grains as the foundation of a healthy diet inadvertently spurred the food industry to aggressively market highly processed grain products,” Marion Nestle, a food policy expert and ex-DGAC member, told The Epoch Times via email.

Carlos Monteiro, a Brazilian researcher and specialist in ultra-processed foods, criticized the food pyramid for not distinguishing among food types.

“The issue with the food pyramid isn’t its focus on grains and grain products. It’s its inability to differentiate between whole grains and processed or ultra-processed foods,” Monteiro remarked to The Epoch Times via email. While refined carbohydrates, like sugars and sweets, are placed at the pinnacle for limited consumption, the pyramid’s broad base devoted to grains fails to distinguish between whole and refined varieties. Monteiro stated this limitation extends to other food categories, such as meat, dairy, and fruits, and continues in newer frameworks like MyPlate, which also neglect food processing considerations.

“The guidelines were based on substandard science—specifically, epidemiological studies,” Teicholz remarked to The Epoch Times. “With these studies, it’s easy to obtain a favorable outcome.”

The DGAC refrained from issuing explicit recommendations against ultra-processed foods, citing insufficient research.

“To enact national policy, robust evidence is essential,” stated Mattes. “Currently, there is only one small randomized controlled trial on this matter; it simply isn’t enough.”

Teicholz pointed out the complexities surrounding ultra-processed foods, describing the term as “poorly defined.” She warned that sweeping changes, including the removal of processed meats—which are a vital protein source in school lunches—based on scarce evidence could prove counterproductive without addressing the more urgent issues of excessive sugars and refined grains.

Countries such as Brazil, France, and Israel have embraced dietary guidelines that explicitly recommend a reduction in ultra-processed foods. Advocates contend that these policies serve as examples for the U.S. to emulate in addressing chronic diet-related illnesses. However, the cautious stance of the DGAC suggests that America may be behind in implementing comparable strategies.

Kennedy has openly discussed the need to tackle what he refers to as the “corporate capture” of federal health bodies.

“We do not adhere to the dietary guidelines very well,” remarked Mattes.

“Americans have made significant changes across all food groups based on our advice,” she stated. She also questioned the accuracy of the HEI, noting that it only provides snapshots and may overlook broader historical patterns.

Although a considerable number of Americans may not perfectly adhere to the guidelines, their influence on food production, marketing, and public perception has molded what is generally available and affordable. Movements like the popularity of low-fat diets and the rise of carbohydrate consumption illustrate their widespread impact.

Another concern revolves around systemic accountability.

“Agencies like the USDA lack accountability for the chronic health issues associated with the dietary recommendations they provide,” stated Teicholz, emphasizing that healthcare systems ultimately bear the cost associated with poor nutrition.

The complexity of the guidelines also hinders their efficacy. With some versions exceeding 900 pages, they can be challenging to distill into actionable advice.

“As the guidelines have become more extensive, our health outcomes have worsened,” Mattes noted, arguing that improving compliance necessitates simple, relatable suggestions.

“We can’t merely issue directives and expect compliance. For effective change, we must understand the barriers individuals encounter and customize guidance accordingly.”

Future Directions for Kennedy: Reform or Overhaul

As compliance with the guidelines remains low, Kennedy’s leadership represents a unique chance for reform, yet substantial hurdles await.

Nestle believes Kennedy could wield significant influence over the guidelines, as their finalization lies with leadership at HHS and USDA.

“The Secretaries appoint a joint committee to draft the guidelines, and Congress can also provide input,” she elaborated in an email to The Epoch Times, adding that Kennedy would collaborate with the USDA secretary to influence the guidelines’ direction.

Nonetheless, Nestle expressed caution, noting that food industry lobbying and demands for an unrealistic level of proof have historically hampered reform efforts. She recognized the challenges of building policy changes on incomplete or shifting scientific data.

Nestle admitted uncertainty regarding Kennedy’s approach to his duties.

“I genuinely have no idea what actions he might undertake if appointed,” she stated, referring to the often slow and resistant nature of federal processes.

Regarding whether Kennedy’s ideas align with evidence-based solutions, she offered a mixed perspective. “Some are, while some are not,” she wrote. “My strategy is to endorse those that are grounded in sound science while opposing those that lack support.”

Kennedy’s specific intentions regarding the guidelines remain ambiguous. His outspoken criticism of corporate influence suggests he may advocate for considerable reform, yet it is unclear whether he will function within the established framework or venture onto a completely new path.

While Kennedy’s proposed reforms may take years to come to fruition, individuals can implement changes now to enhance their diets and lower disease risk. Prioritizing whole, minimally processed foods while reducing sugary beverages and ultra-processed snacks serves as a practical starting point. Small, consistent habits like cooking more at home or opting for water instead of soda can significantly decrease health risks linked to diet.

The 2025 Dietary Guidelines could serve as a critical indicator of Kennedy’s capacity to influence federal nutrition policy. Will he manage to reshape national dietary recommendations and fulfill his commitment to better health in America, or will entrenched forces obstruct his efforts?

As Teicholz asserts in her Substack article, “The health of our nation rests on the outcome.”