RFK Jr.’s new food pyramid could be an environmental disaster if Americans actually follow it

Trump administration Announce last week that it wants Americans to consume more protein, and produce colorful protein clarification of an inverted food pyramid that prominently features a large red steak, a piece of cheese, and a carton of whole milk at the top, and claims to “end the war on protein.” It may seem so last example From the cartoonish propaganda of the administration Which mainly works on memesBut don’t be fooled: It marks a marked shift from previous advice that encouraged Americans to limit high-fat protein sources like red meat and whole milk for the sake of their health, which could also lead to a reduction in planet-heating pollution from the beef and dairy industries.

“The milk drinker is back,” says one. Share X From the USDA a photo shows President Donald Trump leaning over a glass of milk.

There has been a lot of discussion about How fair is the judgment of individual consumers? The carbon footprint of diets, especially when a person’s choices are limited. In addition, experts say the environmental impact of what we eat depends a lot on the way industries conduct business Edge. Besides, the United States I stopped using it The food pyramid as an official guide in 2011, and The scan data appears Americans don’t follow federal dietary recommendations anyway. But if the Trump administration New dietary guidelines In fact, it leads to real changes in food production and American diets, which could ultimately lead to more pollution that exacerbates climate change.

“I’m a firm believer that everything matters because at the end of the day, it’s true that every action matters, and every ton of greenhouse gases eliminated or not eliminated matters,” says Richard White, director of agricultural initiatives at the nonprofit World Resources Institute (WRI).

White and his team estimated the hypothetical climate impact of Americans eating more protein under updated federal guidelines. The Trump administration raised the recommendation to approximately 1.2-1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day (about 0.54-0.73 grams per pound of body weight per day). Already, Americans eat about 1.0-1.3 grams per day — within the lower range of the new recommendations. However, if they moved to the upper end of this range, it would be a 25 percent increase in protein consumption.

The World Resources Institute estimates that such an increase in Americans’ intake of any type of protein, whether from animal or plant sources, could require up to 100 million acres of additional farmland each year, roughly the size of California. The climate impact of this could be equivalent to hundreds of millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide emissions, according to the World Resources Institute.

White is quick to caution that this is a thought experiment. Federal surveys show that American diets do not meet recommendations for most food groups and nutrientsThis is partly because people eat away from home more often, and those on-the-go meals are usually less nutritious. The cost and availability of healthy foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, can also be a stumbling block.

The environmental impact of a meal varies depending on the sources of protein people eat. Cows and other hoofed animals with similar digestive systems such as sheep and goats are considered A Greater anxiety From chicken or plant proteins. Protein from meat requires more land to raise animals and grow their feed. Cows have a less efficient digestive process at converting feed into food that humans can eat. They also release methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide although it has a shorter lifetime in the atmosphere.

Fortunately, there are plenty of nuances that could potentially prevent a spike in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from protein consumption, according to Frank Mitlohner, a professor in the University of California, Davis Department of Animal Sciences. In fact, Americans have been eating much more chicken recently, while US beef consumption has been relatively stable over the past decade. Even if the Trump administration advises people to drink whole milk, that would not necessarily have a greater climate impact than lower-fat alternatives, according to Mitlohner.

The important question to consider, for Mitlohner, is whether herd sizes will grow and agriculture will start producing more beef and dairy products. He says this is unlikely in the near term, considering the industry is already struggling to meet current demand in the US. Heatwaves and drought have reduced herd sizes, and beef and dairy producers are on alert for potentially devastating consequences. Screwworm parasites Which has already been documented in Mexico near the US border.

“Many producers who leave the industry will not return,” Mitlohner says. “There is no international supplier that can fill this void.”

The number of livestock in the United States has increased Record low levels. This partly reflects significant gains in efficiency in the amount of meat and dairy products you can produce from a single animal. Today, fewer than 90 million cattle are needed to produce the same amount of beef as 140 million cattle produced in the 1970s. According to UC Davis. Industry can breed animals much faster today as a result of genetic and nutritional changes. Certain types of Feed can also reduce the amount of methane A cow belches.

Mitlohner says many ranchers are still working to maintain those gains in efficiency and climate impact, at least in California. The Trump administration, on the other hand, is Roll back greenhouse gas pollution regulations He described any efforts to address the effects of climate change — such as heat and drought affecting livestock — as “Green scamWhile trying to do so burial former Federal research Regarding this issue.

Some scientists, health and environmental advocates are now too Accuses President Trump and Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ignored the recommendations of a previous scientific panel on dietary guidelines. “Relentless“A copy of the new guidelines based on the latest recommendations from the federal government Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Americans would have been advised to “increase their intake of beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds, and soy products and reduce their intake of red and processed meat,” according to a study. a report From the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Center for Biodiversity.

The federal guidelines are updated every five years, and reflect most of the DGAC’s advice in 2020. This time, the Trump administration rejected more than half of the 2024 DGAC’s recommendations, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Many of the committee members involved in drafting this year’s guidelines Disclosure of financial relationships To the beef and dairy industries. It was the presence of the Trump administration’s new scientific review committee and its industrial relations It was first reported by Statistics News.

“No one can guess who chose them, why they were chosen, and by what authority,” says Matthew Hayek, an associate professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at New York University. “This raises serious questions.” Trump administration He says In its supplemental analysis of the guidelines, it noted that “subject matter experts were selected through a federal contracting process based on demonstrated expertise,” a point she reiterated in an email to Edge.

The guidelines also reflect the RFK Promoting cooking with beef tallowthe distinctive feature of “Make America Healthy Again” attack on seed oils Despite decades of scientific evidence showing health benefits Cooking with vegetable oils instead of lard, butter and lard, which are high in saturated fats. Seed oils have gotten a bad reputation because they are often used in ultra-processed foods, which adds to the guilt of the growing hype around cooking with beef tallow. The American Heart Association developed a statement last week warned that tallow consumption is linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (while also praising new federal guidelines that advise people to limit highly processed foods and added sugars).

While the Trump administration takes a wrecking ball to federal scientific institutions and picks and chooses what research it uses, Hayek says Americans can still rely on recommendations based on scientific consensus from Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and American Heart Association.

While most Americans don’t follow federal dietary guidelines closely anyway, some major institutions do, Hayek points out, including federal nutrition programs. “If this were pursued by even a few large institutions like our public school systems, (it) would increase greenhouse gas emissions and potentially reduce the health of the American diet,” he says. “Individuals are also products of the institutions they interact with on a daily basis.”