…because this documents impacts far more than just human health.
Now that I’ve finally recovered from the holidays and my Heated Rivalry-related psychosis (if you know, you know!), I’m back to talk about sustainable nutrition!
You might have heard that the latest version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans was released earlier this month—and that it has made quite a splash across the healthcare community.
There’s no shortage of opinion pieces and dialogue about this version of the guidelines—which are released every five years. There’s the perplexing inverted pyramid, conflicting messaging around saturated fats, liberalized alcohol recommendations, minimal mention of fiber, confusion around portion sizes, and a lack of representation for individuals with dietary restrictions, food allergies, or culturally specific food practices in both the main report and the RealFood.gov website. Though, some of this information does appear in the lengthy downloadable scientific foundations report or daily servings guide.
However, when I saw that thick cut of meat at the top of the highly publicized pyramid, I immediately thought about the environmental implications of these updated guidelines—not to mention the overall lack of discussion about sustainability in the report. So let’s dive right into the potential environmental ramifications of these guidelines!
Previous Dietary Guidelines and Sustainability
Research has actually been done on the environmental impacts of different global dietary guidelines over the years. In fact, a 2018 study found that if citizens in every nation were to follow their respective dietary guidelines, the resulting projected greenhouse gas emissions would make it impossible to avoid exceeding the 2°C global temperature rise associated with catastrophic climate change.
This study analyzed the environmental impacts of the dietary guidelines of the World Health Organization, USA, Australia, Canada, Germany, China, and India. The Indian guidelines were associated with the lowest emissions, at 687 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e) per capita per year. Meanwhile, the U.S. guidelines ranked highest, at more than double that amount—1,579 kg CO₂e per capita per year.
When compared side by side, one of the biggest differences between these two ends of the spectrum is the recommendations around animal-based foods.
From the plate representation of the Indian guidelines above—though updated from when the study was initially done—we can see that “flesh foods” and other animal-based food products are recommended in very low amounts. Compare this to the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines, also slightly updated since the study, which recommend up to three servings of dairy per day and a total of 34 ounces of animal-based protein (meat, poultry, eggs, and seafood) per week.
Why Focus on Animal-Based Foods?
Taking a closer look at animal-based food recommendations is essential when considering the environmental impacts of any dietary guidance. In general, animal agriculture is linked to several troubling realities that complicate efforts to build a more sustainable future.
Of the 26 to 35 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions tied to the food system, at least 12 percent of those emissions are tied to animal agriculture. This is due not only to the emissions from farming operations but also to the emissions from the cows themselves—specifically, cow burps in the form of methane, a GHG with over 85 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Over 80 percent of all farmland on the planet is dedicated to animal agriculture as most livestock is started (and sometimes finished) on pasture. In turn, the industry has been a major driver of deforestation across the globe, with one of the most infamously affected areas being the Amazon rainforest. This is a one-two punch environmentally: not only are we losing precious ecosystems with rich biodiversity, but the carbon sequestration capacity of forests is astounding and plays an important role in addressing the climate crisis.
Plus, anywhere between 40 and 60 percent of the corn and soybean production in the US goes directly to livestock as feed—not to us, as humans. This alone shows a massive missed opportunity in addressing the complex issue of increasing American access to nourishing, plant-based foods like fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, legumes, and more.
Livestock production, particularly feedlot operation, is also notorious for polluting local land, air, and waterways. And speaking of water, agriculture uses 70 to 90 percent of the globe’s freshwater resources, with meat and dairy account for a whopping 40 percent of that.
How These Dietary Guidelines Impact the Environment
The 2025-2030 updated version of the Dietary Guidelines have cause quite a stir across the healthcare community. While much of the content is similar to that of previous guidelines, there are a few key differences. You can check out this Oprah Daily story for my thoughts on the guidelines as a whole, but we’re here to talk sustainability!
One of the most press-worthy elements of these new guidelines is the highly publicized inverted pyramid, showing plenty of animal-based foods towards the top, including a honking cut of steak. The guidelines speak highly of meat, full-fat dairy, beef tallow, and other animal-based foods—making it challenging to keep saturated fat to the recommended 10 percent of daily calories.
While the guidelines themselves aren’t very descriptive about portion sizes, you can download a Daily Servings Guide. This recommends that someone following a 2,000 calorie diet should aim for up 63 to 84 ounces of animal-based protein—if one were to choose only animal-based proteins—and three servings of dairy per day. These boosted amounts are in line with their updated protein recommendations. That said, the guidelines do recommend choosing a variety of protein options—not just animal-based choices. This means that this number of recommended animal-based foods could reasonably be much lower for many Americans.
Side note: it’s also worth mentioning that the protein serving recommendations are all over the place: they read “3 oz cooked meat, poultry, or seafood; 1 egg; ½ cup beans, peas, or lentils; 1 oz nuts or seeds; 2 tbsp nut or seed butter; 3 oz soy” as protein options. These examples all contain varying amounts of protein but are still counted as “one serving.”
However, the real problem here is that the inverted pyramid highlighting animal-based foods—particularly red meats—may lead many Americans to interpret the recommendations as a green light to significantly increase their animal-based food intake without fully understanding the implications. Based on the environmental impact research of previous guidelines, it’s reasonable to conclude that this updated version could have even worse implications—if people were to actually follow it, which historically fewer than 10 percent of the population has.
There were also discussions—before the current administration took office—of including sustainability in future US Dietary Guidelines, and that is obviously missing from this version.
Why This Matters
Protein intake from a diverse array of sources is undoubtedly important for many aspects of overall health, including satiety, metabolism, and the health of tissues, hormones, enzymes, and muscles. However, the source really matters. While all protein foods—red meat included—can fit, I do think these guidelines are selling Americans short by not noting research that ties red meat intake to increased risk for chronic diseases like heart disease, colon cancer, and diabetes.
In my opinion, this version also has a significant gap regarding the importance of fiber—and how choosing plant-based foods, including high-protein options, can help people obtain both fiber and protein while minimizing risks to other aspects of health. In fact, a diet richer in plants is tied to decreased risk for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and even early death.
However, the biggest elephant in the room is that environmental health effects human health MASSIVELY. The more monocropping—that is, growing the same crop repeatedly, as seen in the large swaths of American farmland devoted to corn and soy, often accompanied by fertilizers and pesticides—the worse our soil health becomes. As our soils continue to be stripped of nutrients and microorganisms, we as a global community increasingly lose secure access to healthy food and become more reliant on agrochemical inputs that harm human and ecosystem health, pollute our air and water, and further exacerbate the soil degradation we already face. In fact, experts predict that we have less than a lifetime’s worth of harvest seasons left with how severely depleted global soils are.
As already mentioned a few times, our current way of growing food also compromises the quality and availability of healthy air to breath and water to drink. Let’s also not overlook the other wide-ranging health impacts of climate change, including escalating natural disasters, extreme heat, and the financial burdens they create—factors that increase stress, taking a serious toll on immune health.
Taking Positive Action
If these stats worry you, they worry me too. But the best part about eating with sustainability in mind is that it’s one of the most effective, tangible actions we can take for the climate—not to mention our overall health. Here are some practical ways to move toward a more sustainable diet—and a better future:
- Look Up the Planetary Health Diet: If you’re looking for an environmentally-friendly alternative to the US Dietary Guidelines, check out the Planetary Health Diet—it’s comprehensive and effective at promoting both personal and environmental health.
- Opt For Lower-Impact Protein: While everything can fit in moderation, consider opting for lower-impact proteins if you frequently eat red meat. This could mean swapping red meat for chicken, eggs, or sustainably sourced fish; choosing small-school fish like anchovies or sardines instead of larger species such as salmon, tuna, or swordfish; or replacing an animal-based option with a plant-based alternative—ideally whole foods like nuts, seeds, legumes (beans, peas, lentils), whole grains, and soy.
- Look for Regeneratively-Raised Meat: While the environmental impacts of the livestock industry is broadly negative, there are some ranchers whose operations are dedicated to regenerating soil health. You’ll be clued into this by seeing the term “regenerative” on food packaging. One of the core tenants of the regenerative movement is to draw carbon from the atmosphere into the soil—and keep it there. While these products tend to be pricier, they’re worth it for those committed to reducing their footprint when still enjoying animal-based products.
- Adopt Meatless Monday (or Something of the Like): Even reducing your meat intake by one meal per day or week can make a huge impact long-term and start your palette on a new journey of plant-based discovery.
- Meat as a Garnish: If you’ve read The Third Plate, then you’re aware of this notion of using meat as more of a pièce de résistance than the star of the show.
- Grow Your Own Food: Whether in a window box, indoor hydroponics system, or traditional garden outside, growing your own food is one of the best ways you can positively impact your health and local environment. And as an added bonus, it allows you to know exactly how your food is grown.
- Plan Your Meals: Meal planning is a great way to reduce any food waste that might be created at home—more on food waste to come!
- Shop Seasonal and/or Local: Choosing local and seasonal foods reduces the distance your food travels—and the associated emissions—before it reaches your plate. These foods also rapidly lose nutrients on the way to your grocery store. Plus, local food purveyors are often excellent stewards of Mother Earth!
Though the current guidelines are controversial, they present a prime opportunity to discuss nutrition…and, in my case, sustainable nutrition! While we’ve only scratched the surface, there’s plenty of food for thought here. Always approach everything you read with curiosity and caution—especially documents like the Dietary Guidelines, which have historically been influenced by industry and often fail to consider the full picture of health—not just for humans, but for plants, animals, and the broader environment.
