Red Meat, Real Science, and the Battle for America’s Plate

What Happened

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), a former White House physician, is taking aim at the Biden administration's federal nutrition policy. He has proposed a new bill: the Dietary Guidelines Reform Act of 2025.

Co-sponsored by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), the legislation seeks to overhaul the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). It would extend the update cycle from five to ten years and stripping out what Jackson has deemed 'woke, anti-American' dietary ideology.

The meat and potatoes of the bill (pun not intended) centers around a push to re-center meat and animal-based proteins in national dietary guidance. It also seeks to remove all environmental and social considerations from what is supposed to be a science-based health document.

The bill also calls for more transparency in how the guidelines themselves are created. It insists that all future recommendations be rooted solely in nutrition science as opposed to climate change policies or fickle cultural trends.

Why It Matters

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans have long shaped dietary trends in everything from school lunches and military meals to hospital food and nutrition labeling. Critics argue that if the reasoning behind the guidelines leans too far into a particular ideology or flawed science, millions could suffer health consequences.

A growing number of nutritionists, doctors, and researchers have raised concerns about the increasing emphasis on plant-based diets in U.S. guidelines. While plant-based eating can be healthy, many critics have pointed out that the guidelines downplay the benefits of meat and saturated fats.

A 2023 study published in Nutrients found that beef contains significantly higher levels of bioavailable iron, zinc, and vitamin B12 compared to plant-based meat alternative. These nutrients are crucial for preventing deficiencies, especially in populations with limited access to diverse food sources. Another 2020 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology showed no clear link between red meat consumption and increased cardiovascular risk, challenging decades of conventional wisdom.

Jackson and his supporters argue that reducing red meat consumption based on outdated or inconclusive science undermines public trust in government nutrition policy. They believe it’s time to refocus nutrition policy on proven science and nutrient density, rather than on environmental or ideological goals.

How It Affects You

If passed, the proposed bill would effectively slow the pace of dietary changes, offering more stability to institutions and industries that heavily rely on federal guidelines. It may also lead pivot federal messaging about meat, dairy, and fat, particularly red meats and animal fats, which have been demonized since the 1970s.

For everyday Americans, especially those working in hospitals, schools, or other institutions reliant on federal guidelines, it could mean much greater support for traditional eating patterns. This may reduce the push toward controversial and expensive plant-based alternatives. And for parents, it might lead to more protein-forward options in schools and public programs.

The bill echoes similar sentiments from RFK as well, who has long been a critic of federal nutrition guidelines. The bill represents the fight for control of America’s plate — whether our diets are shaped by science, politics, or ideology. It also raises the question of whether nutrition guidelines should stick to what’s worked for generations or chase modern agendas.