Why the USDA Dietary Guidelines Still Can’t Be Trusted: Nina Teicholz’s Warning from 2019 Deserves a Reread
I recently came back to an article written in 2019 by Nina Teicholz called “USDA Gets a Failing GRADE on Science,” and I realized it needs to be shared again—loudly.
So many people I speak to about nutrition still believe the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines are trustworthy. They’ll say things like, “They must know what they’re doing,” or “I’m sure they’re using the latest science.” But the truth is, they’re not. And the USDA will never come out and say they’ve been wrong all along—not after shaping public health policy for over 40 years.
As someone who cares deeply about nutrition and public health, I believe our dietary guidelines should be based on solid, up-to-date science—not outdated theories or industry pressure. That’s why Nina’s report is so important. Reading it is frustrating, yes—but also validating for anyone who’s questioned the mainstream advice we’ve all been fed for decades.
If you’ve ever wondered why official nutrition advice feels off, this report helps explain exactly why. The USDA’s guidelines aren’t built on the best science. In fact, much of the most reliable evidence we have is either ignored or left out entirely.
Let’s look at what Nina found—and why it matters to every single one of us.
The USDA Has Ignored the Strongest Nutrition Research for Decades
According to Nina Teicholz’s report, the USDA has repeatedly left out some of the most reliable scientific research—clinical trials—when creating its dietary guidelines. This is especially true for topics like dietary fat, saturated fat, and their connection to heart disease.
This matters because clinical trials are the gold standard in science. They are the best way to figure out what really causes what. These trials are designed to show cause and effect, unlike observational studies (also called epidemiological studies), which only show possible links or associations—not proof.
Shockingly, more than 139 years' worth of clinical trial data involving over 136,000 people has been ignored. Instead, the USDA relies on weaker forms of evidence that are more open to bias, misinterpretation, or even manipulation.
So why would a government agency that's supposed to protect our health leave out the best evidence available? That’s the big question—and one that deserves real answers.
What Is GRADE—and How the USDA Watered It Down
One of the most troubling parts of Nina Teicholz’s report is how the USDA misused the GRADE system. So what is GRADE?
GRADE stands for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. It’s a globally recognized system used in healthcare to rate the quality of scientific evidence. It helps experts determine whether a study is strong enough to guide real-world decisions—like what foods to recommend for preventing chronic disease.
GRADE ranks evidence based on things like study design, consistency, and risk of bias. At the top of the scale are randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—the gold standard. Observational studies rank much lower.
But here's the problem: while the USDA claimed to use the GRADE system to support its dietary guidelines, it changed it so much that the original meaning and purpose were lost. According to Dr. Gordon Guyatt, the scientist who co-created GRADE, the USDA’s version was so altered, it should not even be called GRADE. He stated that their process didn’t allow for proper grading of evidence quality at all—completely missing the point of the system.
This isn’t just a technical slip-up. It means that the USDA could promote weak or biased studies as if they were top-tier science, misleading the public and health professionals. That’s a big deal, especially when these guidelines shape school lunches, hospital meals, and national food policy.
Recommendations Ignored from the National Academy of Sciences
In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) took a hard look at how the USDA creates its Dietary Guidelines. Their findings were clear—and concerning. They said the entire process lacked transparency, didn’t follow proper scientific standards, and failed to use the best methods for reviewing evidence.
They didn’t just make suggestions—they gave a list of necessary changes to fix the system. Yet, most of those recommendations were never put into action.
What does that mean for us? It means the same broken process is still in place. And the guidelines that come from it are still being used to shape school lunches, hospital meals, military rations, and public nutrition programs. They influence what food gets subsidized, what ends up on our shelves, and what people think is “healthy.” That should concern all of us.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
Today, more than 60% of Americans are living with a diet-related illness. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease are everywhere. These aren’t rare conditions—they’ve become the norm. And yet, the official dietary advice that’s supposed to help prevent these problems hasn’t changed much in decades.
The real issue? The USDA continues to ignore some of the most reliable and up-to-date research. Instead of adjusting the guidelines to reflect what science now shows about fat, carbs, and metabolic health, they stick with outdated recommendations that simply don’t work. This isn’t just disappointing—it’s dangerous.
As a result, millions of people are left confused, misled, and dependent on medications to manage conditions that often could have been prevented with better food choices. But how can we make better choices when the national guidelines are built on shaky ground?
We can’t fix our health crisis if we keep following broken advice. It’s time to face the truth, look at the real science, and start asking better questions.
A Call for Real Reform
It’s time we stop accepting nutrition advice just because it comes from an “official” source. The USDA has been setting the dietary guidelines for decades, but that doesn’t mean those recommendations are grounded in sound science—or that they’ve served us well. They haven’t.
We need to start asking better questions and listening to the people who are doing the work to uncover the truth. Experts like Nina Teicholz, Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Ken Berry, Dr. Georgia Ede, and others are challenging the status quo, using real evidence—not outdated theories or industry-funded studies.
We also need to take some responsibility ourselves. That means staying informed, being open to what the science really says, and sharing this information with others. Public policy won’t change unless we push for it.
Final Thoughts
If you’ve ever felt unsure about what to eat, or frustrated that your efforts to “eat healthy” haven’t led to better health—you’re not alone, and you’re not wrong. The system was never built on solid ground.
The truth is, the USDA’s nutrition guidelines have misled millions. But now, more than ever, we have access to the research, the experts, and the tools to challenge these outdated ideas. We just need to pay attention and keep the conversation going.
This is about more than diet—it’s about taking back control of our health.
Let’s keep learning. Let’s keep questioning. Let’s keep talking about it.
👉 Read the full report here:
USDA Gets a Failing GRADE on Science (PDF)
Subscribe for updates at www.mind-body-synergy.com and follow me on Instagram @mindbodysynergyblog for more truth-based, no-nonsense nutrition insight. Let's change the narrative—one post at a time.
This content is never meant to serve as medical advice.
In crafting this blog post, I aimed to encapsulate the essence of research findings while presenting the information in a reader-friendly format that promotes critical thinking and informed decision-making.
