Digesting the New Dietary Guidelines with Key Takeaways for Regulated Entities

On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the highly anticipated 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). At roughly 10 pages, down from more than 160 in prior editions, the new DGAs introduce notable changes, including targeting ultra-processed foods (UPFs), emphasizing higher protein and full-fat dairy consumption, and removing the numeric limits for recommended alcohol consumption. The DGAs clearly reflect long-telegraphed administration priorities.

Below are some key observations:

1. Continued Focus on Ultra-/Highly-Processed Foods

Perhaps the most obvious, and least surprising, policy signal is the continued emphasis on UPFs and the DGAs’ explicit call to limit these products. The guidelines also introduce the term “highly processed foods” (HFP) to complement Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/USDA efforts to craft a formal regulatory definition (see our earlier post on the FDA/HHS/USDA UPF Request For Information for additional background).

The language used in both the DGAs and an accompanying HHS Fact Sheet is notably vivid, framing certain UPF/HFP products not merely as foods to limit but as potential “dangers” to public health: “For the first time, the Dietary Guidelines call out the dangers of certain highly processed foods – a common‑sense and vital public health point.” Emphasis added.

This emphasis persists, even without a legally operative definition of “ultra‑processed” or “highly-processed” foods, an ambiguity that remains one of the most significant unresolved issues in the space.

While the lack of a precise definition introduces uncertainty, it may influence market behavior over time. Historically, scrutiny of certain ingredients has prompted companies to reassess formulations and marketing strategies, but the extent and timing of any response here remain to be seen.

2. Food Marketed to Infant/Children 

The DGAs’ “Special Populations & Considerations” section applies similar cautionary language to products for infants and young children, advising parents to avoid feeding “highly processed” foods to this group. This signals heightened federal concern in the early‑childhood context.

In addition, the MAHA Strategy Report outlines HHS and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) interest in potential industry guidelines to limit the marketing of certain unhealthy foods to children, including scrutiny of claims and imagery. Any such initiative is almost certain to cite the revised DGAs as foundational justification.

Altogether, this trend underscores the need to monitor how “highly processed” is interpreted for products intended for infants and children.

3. An About-Face on Juice

Another notable shift is the DGAs’ recommendation that 100% fruit and vegetable juices be “consumed in limited portions or diluted with water.”

The prior 2020-2025 DGAs treated 100% juice, along with water and low‑fat dairy, as a primary beverage option. The new position appears grounded in an umbrella review discussed in “The Scientific Foundations for the Dietary Guidelines For Americans Appendices” examining added sugars, sugar‑sweetened beverages and 100% juice. The review found mixed evidence regarding chronic‑disease outcomes, including “some adverse cardiometabolic outcomes and no indication of benefit for any outcomes.”

This shift also stands in tension with FDA’s recent Healthy Final Rule, which cited to the 2020-2025 DGAs, in which the agency expressly rejected arguments that 100% juice should lose eligibility for a “healthy” claim. FDA emphasized that 100% juice contains no added sugars and contributes meaningfully to fruit‑group intake recommendations.

The implications here, particularly for suppliers in federal nutrition programs such as the Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Program (WIC) and the Child Nutrition Programs, could be substantial. This is an area ripe for downstream regulatory alignment and market reaction.

4. Less Alcohol?

The DGAs now recommend, plainly, that “less alcohol is better for overall health.” This departs from the 2020-2025 DGA framework, which still articulated numeric limits for “moderate drinking” (≤2/day for men; ≤1/day for women).

By moving away from numeric benchmarks, the new guidance may weaken traditional “moderate/responsible drinking” narratives. Regulators (i.e., Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), FTC, state attorney generals (AG)) and the plaintiffs’ bar may rely on this shift to argue that:

• Consumers should not be led to believe there is a safe or healthy level of drinking.
• Marketing that normalizes daily alcohol consumption or ties alcohol to “health optimization” could face heightened unfair or deceptive acts or practices scrutiny.

While alcoholic beverages already require a federal health warning, that statement is narrow in scope. Plaintiffs and regulators may contend that small warning labels do not neutralize broader marketing that normalizes or “health‑washes” alcohol consumption. The DGAs could serve as new authoritative support for claims that existing warnings reflect minimum compliance, not full disclosure.

5. Near Term Industry Effects and What Else to Monitor

Federal Nutrition Programs: The companies most likely to feel near‑term effects are those participating in federal nutrition programs. Updates to the DGAs initiates a lengthy process of aligning program requirements, procurement standards and product specifications. Historically, this alignment unfolds through notice‑and‑comment rulemaking and substantial administrative action. However, given the administration’s public emphasis on nutrition programs this week, certain aspects of alignment may move more quickly than in prior cycles.

FDA Activities: On the FDA regulatory front, we expect FDA to update its approach to the “healthy” nutrient content claim, particularly in light of the DGAs’ heightened focus on UPFs, added sugars and the broader recognition of protein consumption from non‑“lean” meat and poultry sources. FDA’s forthcoming Front‑of‑Pack (FOP) final rule is also likely to reflect these priorities, with stronger emphasis on added sugars and potentially processing level indicators.

Litigation/Enforcement: From a litigation‑risk perspective, the revised DGAs, and the accompanying “The Scientific Foundations for the Dietary Guidelines For Americans Appendices” document, introduce new material plaintiffs’ attorneys may attempt to leverage in creative ways. Coupled with public statements from federal officials and an increasingly sharp rhetorical focus on UPFs, plaintiffs’ attorneys may feel newly emboldened. Similarly, state and local AGs may rely on the DGAs to expand enforcement actions. As demonstrated in recent San Francisco UPF litigation, government plaintiffs can pursue theories that require no individualized causation and carry substantial per‑violation penalties. This dynamic, combined with procedural advantages unique to government enforcement, creates a potentially heightened exposure profile.

“Health Halo” Claims Surge: For years, food and beverage companies have faced litigation over “health halo” representations (i.e., claims, imagery or symbolism that imply broad health benefits beyond what is substantiated or permitted). The new DGAs may open the door for increased use of such claims, particularly those aimed at individuals with chronic disease: “Following the Dietary Guidelines can help prevent the onset or slow the rate of progression of chronic disease, especially cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes.” Emphasis added. These statements could embolden companies to invoke DGAs‑aligned benefits.

If you have any questions regarding the applicability and reach of the new DGAs to your company, Akin is ready to assist.