Scroll through social media or open a news site, and opinions on what to eat or what to avoid are everywhere. Keto, paleo, intermittent fasting, and plant-based diets dominate the conversation, each promising better health, more energy, or a longer life. At the same time, headlines about food recalls, hidden additives, and ultra-processed foods remind consumers of the risks and uncertainties in their daily choices. While these trends highlight a move toward healthier diets, it is policy that ultimately determines which ideas take hold across the nation. 

Evolving U.S. Dietary Guidelines 

First established in 1980, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) is updated every five years and serves as the backbone of U.S. federal nutrition policy. These guidelines influence institutional food systems, including school lunch programs, military meals, food assistance programs like SNAP, and hospital dietary protocols. While the guidelines themselves are not laws, they profoundly impact the dietary choices offered to millions of Americans, shaping both private and public sector food offerings.

For 2025–2030, the DGAC has emphasized a stronger focus on health equity, considering diverse socioeconomic, racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and utilizing novel diet simulations. It also recommends greater inclusion of plant-based proteins, previewing a more inclusive and sustainable approach to national nutrition. It is in this sense that these guidelines are different from their preceding examples. 

While the full release is pending, the trajectory indicates a move toward culturally responsive, environmentally informed recommendations.

How does this impact you?

Environmental

The DGAC has proposed reducing the consumption of both red and processed meat and emphasizes plant-based proteins. Diets aligned with previous DGAs that emphasized vegetarian or plant-forward eating patterns showed 42–84% lower environmental impacts (such as climate change, land use, freshwater eutrophication, marine water eutrophication and particulate matter or respiratory inorganics) compared to U.S.- or Mediterranean-style diets. 

A separate analysis in PNAS found that nationally recommended diets in high-income countries can reduce emissions, eutrophication, and land use by 13–25%. However, the current U.S. dietary patterns still rank among the most carbon-intensive globally. 

Social 

For the first time, the DGAC explicitly applies a health equity lens, acknowledging that nutritional needs differ by race, income, culture, and geography. Plant-based diets not only align with climate goals but also show promise in improving public health outcomes, as a higher intake of legumes, whole grains and vegetables is linked to lower rates of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, certain cancers and exposure to harmful compounds. 

On the other hand, industrial livestock and dairy production pose significant public health risks, including air and water pollution, disease outbreaks like H5N1 bird flu, and antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Moreover, these facilities are often located in low-income communities, worsening health inequities. 

Shifting to healthier food choices can help address these systemic issues, and institutions such as public schools and hospitals will play key roles in implementing these standards. If done equitably, these policies could reduce long-standing disparities in diet-related health outcomes and improve the well-being of vulnerable populations.

Governance

While the DGAC has called for sustainability to be included, both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have resisted this integration, citing it as “outside the committee’s scope.” As a result, the 2025 DGAC report does not address key sustainability issues like water use, biodiversity, or even ultra-processed foods, which were excluded due to “definitional ambiguity” and data limitations. 

Furthermore, concerns persist about conflict of interests, as some advisory committee members have ties to the food and agricultural industries. These relationships risk undermining public trust and may dilute strong recommendations on sustainability or public health.

Ban on Synthetic Food Dyes

In parallel with these dietary updates, the FDA has committed to phasing out petroleum-derived synthetic food dyes. Here are the key points about the FDA’s actions and the status of various artificial food dyes:

Formal ban: The FDA has requested that food companies remove Red No. 3 from foods like flavored Jell-O and other products sooner than the previously set 2027-2028 deadline.

Working to Eliminate: The FDA is collaborating with the food industry to eliminate six dyes by the end of 2026. These dyes are found in a wide range of products, including:

• Cereals: Cap’n Crunch, Fruity Pebbles
• Snacks: Cheetos, Skittles, Hamburger Helper
• Beverages/Dressings: Gatorade, Kraft Green Goddess Salad Dressing
• Desserts: Pillsbury Funfetti Frostings, Jell-O

Initiating Revocation: The FDA is starting the process to revoke authorization for two dyes, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, which are used in citrus peels and sausage casings, respectively.

How does this impact you?

Environmental

Many commonly used food dyes are synthesized from petroleum, contributing to pollution, toxic byproducts, and fossil fuel dependency. While no single source explicitly traces the lifecycle from oil extraction to factory production, the FDA’s recent initiative regarding synthetic dyes highlights growing concern about their environmental impacts suggesting implications across their entire lifecycle and the lack of transparency in labeling. 

By shifting toward natural colorants, such as butterfly pea flower extract or gardenia blue, the FDA is signaling a broader shift toward biodegradability and resource renewability. These approvals create credible substitutes for many high-volume synthetic dyes even though adoption challenges remain (stability, pH sensitivity). Although natural dyes also have environmental trade-offs (such as high energy and water consumption), the overall impact is expected to be significantly lower than their synthetic counterparts.

Social

Synthetic food dyes are synthesized from petroleum-based chemicals and have long been controversial due to their links to hyperactivity in children, allergic reactions, and even reproductive toxicity in some cases. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), American children, particularly those from low-income communities, consume higher amounts of these harmful additives through ultra-processed foods. 

By fast-tracking the approval of natural dyes and encouraging earlier phase-outs (particularly of Red No. 3), the FDA is pushing food companies to meet global standards and increase transparency around food additives.

Governance 

The FDA has engaged with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to review the long-term safety of food additives and is now actively prioritizing public health over industrial convenience. The FDA’s efforts are bolstered by industry pledges, like the Consumer Brands Association’s 2027 target and state actions such as California’s school dye bans. These combined efforts accelerate reformulation, set market norms, and pressure national brands, creating a layered approach that reduces the risk of petroleum-based dyes persisting in public institutions.

What’s on Your Plate Is What’s at Stake

In 2025, the convergence of health policy, environmental advocacy, and corporate responsibility is reshaping the U.S. food system. The anticipated 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines and the FDA’s synthetic dye crackdown represent a watershed moment in food governance, one that has the potential to reduce chronic disease, lower national emissions, and promote equity.

But intention is not implementation. Without explicit sustainability mandates, greater transparency, and broader institutional adoption, these progressive ideas risk becoming symbolic rather than systemic. Ultimately, food is no longer just a personal or cultural matter—it’s a policy, a climate issue, a justice issue, and a governance challenge. As citizens, consumers, and investors, we all play a role in ensuring that what’s on our plate reflects the values our nation needs to protect our health, our planet, and our collective future.

For more insights and guidance on navigating the evolving landscape of food regulations, sustainability and other related issues, stay tuned to our blog for future updates and expert analyses. And help us build a more sustainable and prosperous world through responsible investment practices by becoming a member of the Advance ESG community. It’s free to join and there are no future financial obligations. Together, we can make a difference in safeguarding our planet for future generations.