Shortly after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was sworn in as the nation’s health secretary, he promised to overhaul federal nutrition guidelines. A key step, he said, would be to “weed out the people who were writing the guidelines because of conflicts of interest.”
His own panel, he said, “would have no conflict of interest.” But the new guidelines, released Wednesday and focusing on protein, meat, cheese and milk, were developed by a group of experts with several ties to the meat and dairy industries.
Three of the nine members have received grants or done consulting work for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; one also received a research grant from the National Pork Board and serves as an advisor to the National Pork Board. At least three members – including two who have worked for red meat groups – have financial ties to dairy industry organizations, such as the National Dairy Council. Another is co-creator of a high-protein meal replacement. The experts did not write the guidelines, but produced analyzes of the scientific evidence on which the guidelines were based.
Such conflicts have been a problem “for a very long time,” said Marion Nestle, professor emeritus of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was on the guidelines committee in 1995. Mr. Kennedy and his allies were right to criticize earlier versions for being influenced by industry, she said, but their actions since then have been hypocritical.
“They just did the same thing,” Dr. Nestlé said, adding of Mr. Kennedy: “If he views members of previous committees as sold out to the industries, it’s very difficult to understand why the same designation doesn’t apply to these people, except that these people are associated with the meat and dairy industries, and they like that.”
Andrew Nixon, a Department of Health spokesman, said the guidelines were based on “rigorous scientific review and independent oversight” and that it was “absurd to suggest that anything other than gold standard science guided our work on this presidential priority.”
Unlike previous editions, the experts’ connections were clearly listed in a scientific report accompanying the new guidelines, and Dr Nestlé congratulated the authors. Some experts also welcomed the guidelines as much stricter on the processed food industry than previous editions.
“This is the first time I’ve seen dietary guidelines that really challenge the industry,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University.
But other experts said the guidelines appear to benefit different industries. And organizations including the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the American Society for Nutrition have criticized the lack of transparency during the guideline development process, saying it undermines public trust in the document.
Disclosing conflicts of interest at the end of the process “isn’t really going to be enough,” said Mark Kennedy, senior vice president of legal affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which supports plant-based diets and has filed a complaint with the government saying it should withdraw the guidelines. “Because if no one ever had a chance to give their opinion, and if no one other than the government behind closed doors had a way to evaluate it, there would be no way to ensure a fair balance.” (Mr. Kennedy is not related to the Secretary of Health.)
In late 2024, the Biden administration released detailed recommendations for new guidelines, developed over a two-year process that included public meetings and opportunities for public comment. But when the Trump administration took office, it questioned those recommendations and sought advice from other experts through a faster, less transparent process that did not include the usual opportunities for public comment before the guidelines were released.
It also failed to follow standard procedures to review evidence in a transparent and systematic manner. And there appeared to be no safeguards to ensure that no one person would have outsized influence over any given part of the guidelines, a way of minimizing the impact of conflicts of interest.
Parts of the guidelines represent such a departure from previous versions that it appears the administration has “hand-picked” scientists who might support these conclusions, “instead of undertaking a neutral review of the science,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition professor at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health.
Most of the panel members who revealed financial ties did not respond to requests for comment. But one of them, Donald K. Layman, described the Physicians Committee’s complaint as “a lazy way to discredit a report when they’re not smart enough to read the science.”
Dr. Layman, professor emeritus of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, was one of two scientists who summarized the evidence on protein for the government; he has received honoraria and consulting fees from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Dairy Council. He said the dairy work goes back “at least 10 years,” but he has a current contract reviewing grants for the beef association for an hourly rate he estimates to be about $5,000 a year.
Dr. Layman said the Department of Health contacted him and the other protein expert — Heather Leidy, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin — because it had already determined that reevaluating protein recommendations was a priority.
“The reason they contacted me is because of my research — I mean, I’m known for posting high-protein, low-carb diets,” he said. “My research literally mirrors the new dietary guidelines. They knew who I was.”
He and Dr. Leidy did not set priorities or write guidelines, Dr. Layman emphasized; instead, they submitted a review of the scientific evidence to the government. But the protein guidelines “were very close” to the conclusions of his and Dr Leidy’s evidence report, which he said had been peer-reviewed after submission. (Dr. Leidy, who said he has received research grants from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Board, did not respond to a request for comment.)
On Thursday, even as critics pointed out the financial dealings involved in his own report, Mr. Kennedy denounced the American Heart Association — which has praised parts of the guidelines and criticized others — for urging Americans to minimize foods like red meat and butter that are high in saturated fat.
The association’s advice was untrustworthy, he suggested, because it received funding from industry groups.
