One step forward, two steps back in nutrition conversation

In early December, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) released its 2025 Scientific Report. This report was created by a group of academics and other experts as a first step in rewriting the federal government’s advice to Americans on what a healthy diet looks like.

Though it took two years to develop, there are some recommendations within it that undermine the “scientific” part of its title and are head-scratching, to say the least.

Now, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (HHS) have the responsibility to accept, reject or amend this document. This is an excellent opportunity to restore scientifically grounded, common-sense advice in whatever is ultimately finalized.

WELCOME REJECTION OF RECLASSIFICATION

Early in the process, observers became concerned about the questions the government and these academics were asking and where those ideas might lead. A glaring one was the notion that potatoes could be reclassified out of the vegetable category or made interchangeable with grains.

This suggestion was made by anti-potato activists in the past. Fortunately, this time around — after the idea became an international viral sensation that ended up in global media, including as part of The Tonight Show’s opening monologue as an example of absurd government overreach — the committee discarded that notion in its submitted report.

Moving potatoes into the grains category could have had cascading and long-lasting effects on schools and feeding programs reliant on cost-effective, nutritious options. For the millions of Americans served by these programs, potatoes remain a vital part of the diet — as much for their affordability as for their nutritional value.

Thankfully, sound judgment (and common sense) prevailed, and the committee reaffirmed that potatoes are indeed a vegetable — a decision grounded in horticultural and nutritional science.

CONTRADICTION IN CONSUMPTION

While the notion of reclassifying potatoes was discarded, the report unfortunately included a perplexing recommendation: a reduction in the consumption of starchy vegetables. In short, for a country that does eat enough vegetables, this report’s bizarre remedy urges further reductions in vegetable consumption.

For a nation struggling with food insecurity and chronic diseases linked to poor nutrition, advising a decrease in consumption of any vegetable category is neither good science nor good policy.

Potatoes and other starchy vegetables are nutrient-dense powerhouses. They’re rich in potassium, vitamin C, fiber and other essential nutrients, all at a low cost to consumers. For children, in particular, potatoes can serve as a gateway food, helping to incorporate other vegetables into their diets. Research supports that when potatoes are included in meals, children are more likely to consume a greater variety of vegetables, helping to instill lifelong healthy eating habits.

WEIRD SCIENCE?

One deeply concerning aspect of the DGAC’s process was its seeming detachment from robust nutritional science, replaced instead by issues that are more political in nature. In simple terms, the nutrient content of a commodity was de-emphasized, while the way in which the commodity is produced (sustainability, social justice ideals, etc.) was introduced.

For potatoes specifically, the committee’s recommendation to reduce starchy vegetable consumption was unsupported by existing data and undermines public health goals. However, it was recommended previously by food activists, dating back to the Congressional battles during the Obama Administration, with a goal to keep potatoes out of school meals.

Instead of resurrecting these old battles and decreasing vegetable consumption, efforts should pivot toward the nutritionally valid goal of increasing vegetable consumption overall. In fact, research shows us that potatoes actually incentivize the consumption of other vegetables.

Should we be surprised by these efforts? No. Activist groups were very bold as the committee was being formed in seeking to populate the committee with individuals who were likely to carry their political agendas. Interestingly, media outlets were highly critical of the agriculture industry seeking representation on the committee but didn’t say a thing about the activists.

The government’s choice to tilt representation on the committee toward political/activist voices may explain the initial questions and recommendations that depart from nutrition science. When decisions as influential as federal dietary guidelines are made, it is critical that the government is getting actual advice based on the evidence, not the view that is the most popular. Guidelines need to be evidence-based, balanced and actionable.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND COMMUNITIES

The release of the DGAC report marks the beginning of a political process where USDA and HHS Secretaries will shape the final version of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. While the existing report has set the stage, the possibility for adjustments, particularly with an entirely new set of Administration decision makers remains.

Those individuals should view this as an opportunity to consider the more exotic recommendations for what they are, incorporate stakeholder feedback and correct the document’s glaring inconsistencies.

As the National Potato Council and our state and national partners have affirmed, potatoes are crucial to America’s food system, offering unparalleled nutritional and economic value. We will continue to urge policymakers to consider the broader implications of these recommendations as they work to align federal dietary policies with science-based facts and common sense.

Kam Quarles is CEO of the National Potato Council.