The months-long process to determine the federal government’s food recommendations for the next five years will now extend into 2025. That means Biden officials will miss the opportunity to finalize new guidance before the Trump administration takes office.
Changing terminology during an update is unprecedented in recent history, but previous versions have come close. The 2005 update was completed just days before the inauguration, and the 2020 revision came out a month before Biden took office.
The guidelines are hotly debated in Washington because they affect a wide range of federal programs, from nutrition labeling rules to school lunch standards. These are traditionally based on scientific reports from external experts.
The committee has been meeting since last year to address a number of controversial questions and is not expected to issue recommendations until mid-December. It typically takes several months for officials to issue guidance after the report is completed.
The schedule was decided long before Election Day, a person familiar with the process told CBS News.
An HHS spokeswoman would not comment on when the report would be produced, except to say it was expected “later this year.”
“HHS and USDA continue to demonstrate their commitment to transparency, equity, and scientific integrity throughout the entire process,” the spokesperson said.
It would be virtually impossible for the Biden administration to finalize the update before leaving office, former officials said. There is so much work left to do, including examining results and developing and testing updated messaging through tools like MyPlate, which replaced the Food Pyramid.
“Given the complexity and cross-departmental perspectives, this is a very heavy task,” said Dr. Brett Giroir, who served as HHS assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration’s last revision.
Public and institutional input must also be incorporated into the guidance before the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health reach an agreement.
“I think it’s an intentional tension when Congress tells the two agencies to collaborate on something to hopefully move the end product in the right direction. And I certainly think people are concerned that HHS and USDA have different constituencies, different constituencies, and different backgrounds.” I think you’ll agree,” said Brandon Lipps, USDA’s undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services in the Trump administration.
One of the expected fights will be over a proposal put forward by committee members last month to “emphasize plant-based sources” of protein as part of a broader recommendation to “transition” to a more “nutritious plant-based diet” .
On the campaign trail, Trump accused his rival of “wanting to stop people from eating red meat.” In a statement last month, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association called the recommendations “invalid” and “impractical.”
According to the draft, vegetables as well as beans, peas and lentils could be listed as sources of protein. Red meat would rank lower among protein foods than health concerns such as cardiovascular disease.
The committee’s analysis found that red meat is often the most common replacement in the American diet to meet nutritional goals while reducing health risks.
“Red meat, whether processed or not, was a meat that was reduced more than poultry or eggs, so it would have been put in last,” said committee member Christopher Gardner.
How can Trump administration officials change the guidance?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made the commission a key part of “Making America Healthy Again.” platform.
“What we need to do is change the panel so they are making good recommendations and telling people not to eat these foods,” Kennedy said last September.
They may also provide a means to achieve Kennedy’s goals, such as curbing ultra-processed foods from school lunches. If confirmed as secretary, Kennedy and his colleagues at USDA will have final authority on what is included in the guidance.
“If Congress had wanted a group of scientists to write dietary guidelines, they would have put that into statute. So the committee would make the recommendations and the secretary would take the comments in the report,” Lipps said.
Total disregard for the work of the committee would be unprecedented. But in the past, departments often led by career civil servants sometimes disagreed with some of the recommendations.
“The process is not perfect. There is bureaucracy there, but I believe the best way is to have a transparent scientific committee where everyone knows where it comes from,” Giroir said.