Unlike Brussels’ policies, this new pyramid also indirectly supports farming and livestock—sectors absurdly demonized for decades by far-left environmentalists.
While the EU continues its campaign to get us to eat insects, Donald Trump has turned the iconic 1990s food pyramid on its head, promoting meat consumption while discouraging added sugars, processed foods, and refined flour. The gap between von der Leyen’s EU and Trump’s United States has become so wide that even food policy seems like an insurmountable divide. “Farm to Fork” is a strategy designed to make citizens’ lives harder and undermine agriculture and livestock farming. “The New Pyramid” is a strategy designed to improve citizens’ lives and support farming and ranching. Two different, irreconcilable worlds.
The war on the 1990s food pyramid is no trivial matter. “For decades we’ve been misled by guidance that prioritized highly processed food, and are now facing rates of unprecedented chronic disease,” the U.S. government states. “For the first time, we’re calling out the dangers of highly processed foods and rebuilding a broken system from the ground up with gold-standard science and common sense.” Some may be surprised to see the Trump administration admit we have been misled—especially those unfamiliar with the history of that pyramid.
The 1992 food pyramid, which had a global impact and served as a model for health departments across the West, was based on unverified scientific assumptions and emerged amid significant controversy due to conflicts of interest among the experts involved. No one corrected it since, despite mounting evidence; in fact, the errors and misrepresentations only deepened.
Subsequent research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Journal of Public Health Policy shows that early drafts of the pyramid were modified after formal objections from various sectors of the food industry. Marion Nestle, a highly respected figure in nutrition, participated in drafting the 1988 Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health and later focused on exposing industry influence in public nutrition campaigns. Regarding the 1992 pyramid, Nestle recounts a crucial episode: the guide was originally scheduled for earlier release, but “the meat and dairy industries complained bitterly about how their products appeared in the early drafts, and that forced the USDA to withdraw and redesign the pyramid for a year before its official launch,” underscoring that “it was incredibly political from the start.”
An analysis funded by The Nutrition Coalition of the advisory committee behind the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020–2025—now replaced by the 2026–2030 plan—reveals a scandal of conflicts of interest: 95% of committee members had at least one direct connection to major players in the food or pharmaceutical industries, according to documented professional and financial ties to companies whose products could be affected by official dietary recommendations. The report identified up to 720 instances of conflicts, including research funding, board memberships, and consultancy roles. Many experts had not only received funding from companies like Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, Dannon, or the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), but also held formal liaison roles with them.
Untangling this vast web of corporate and political interests was a priority—not only to restore common sense to dietary guidelines, but also to tackle the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and chronic illness ravaging the West, particularly in the United States, where, as Trump’s new guidelines acknowledge, “90% of healthcare spending is allocated to the treatment of chronic diseases, many of which are related to diet and lifestyle.”
It is remarkable that between 1992 and 2026, no Western government—inside or outside the United States—devoted resources to researching, correcting, or revising recommended dietary guidelines. But, after all, these are the same governments that improvised dubious legal measures during the coronavirus pandemic, relying on nonexistent scientific committees or those with clear conflicts of interest, leaving the door open—as we have seen—to a slew of lucrative opportunities for political corruption.
The new American dietary guidelines emphasize protein, dairy, and healthy fats; maintain the importance of fruits and vegetables; and strongly condemn refined carbohydrates and highly processed products, which, while cheap, ultimately prove costly in terms of long-term health, as the Secretary of Health has noted. Unlike Brussels’ policies, this new pyramid also indirectly supports farming and livestock—sectors absurdly demonized for decades by far-left environmentalists. Will the EU act, or will it keep recommending synthetic meat and cricket flour?
Itxu Díaz is a Spanish journalist, political satirist, and author. He has written 10 books on topics as diverse as politics, music, and smart appliances. He is a contributor to The American Spectator, The Daily Beast, The Daily Caller, National Review, First Things, American Conservative, The Federalist, and Diario Las Américas in the United States, as well as a columnist at several Spanish magazines and newspapers. He was also an adviser to the Ministry for Education, Culture, and Sports in Spain. His latest book, I Will Not Eat Crickets: An Angry Satirist Declares War on the Globalist Elite, is available now.
It’s Not Just Food: Trump Takes the Culture War to the Food Pyramid
Григорий Калюжный from Pixabay
You may also like
Iran, a National Reconquest: What Left Media Does Not Want To Show
What the Iranian people are demonstrating today is something Western leftist frameworks fundamentally struggle to interpret: a nation reclaiming itself without apology.
Germany’s HateAid: Portrait of a ‘Trusted Flagger’
The arbiters of acceptable online speech are not nearly as 'independent' as the EU would have people believe.
Berlin’s Blackouts: Dark Streets, Dim Management
We Berliners now know what life without fossil fuels looks and feels like.
While the EU continues its campaign to get us to eat insects, Donald Trump has turned the iconic 1990s food pyramid on its head, promoting meat consumption while discouraging added sugars, processed foods, and refined flour. The gap between von der Leyen’s EU and Trump’s United States has become so wide that even food policy seems like an insurmountable divide. “Farm to Fork” is a strategy designed to make citizens’ lives harder and undermine agriculture and livestock farming. “The New Pyramid” is a strategy designed to improve citizens’ lives and support farming and ranching. Two different, irreconcilable worlds.
In European Commission publications, you find headlines like, “Sustainable, edible, and nutritious—think about insects again!” Meanwhile, in the U.S. government’s new health guidelines, articles read, “Reducing Saturated Fat Below 10% of Energy and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease.” The contrast feels dystopian. One government—Trump’s—focuses on healthcare, with both successes and failures; the other—Brussels’ bureaucrats—wanders through sustainable food alternatives no one really cares about, whose health impacts remain uncertain.
The war on the 1990s food pyramid is no trivial matter. “For decades we’ve been misled by guidance that prioritized highly processed food, and are now facing rates of unprecedented chronic disease,” the U.S. government states. “For the first time, we’re calling out the dangers of highly processed foods and rebuilding a broken system from the ground up with gold-standard science and common sense.” Some may be surprised to see the Trump administration admit we have been misled—especially those unfamiliar with the history of that pyramid.
The 1992 food pyramid, which had a global impact and served as a model for health departments across the West, was based on unverified scientific assumptions and emerged amid significant controversy due to conflicts of interest among the experts involved. No one corrected it since, despite mounting evidence; in fact, the errors and misrepresentations only deepened.
Subsequent research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Journal of Public Health Policy shows that early drafts of the pyramid were modified after formal objections from various sectors of the food industry. Marion Nestle, a highly respected figure in nutrition, participated in drafting the 1988 Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health and later focused on exposing industry influence in public nutrition campaigns. Regarding the 1992 pyramid, Nestle recounts a crucial episode: the guide was originally scheduled for earlier release, but “the meat and dairy industries complained bitterly about how their products appeared in the early drafts, and that forced the USDA to withdraw and redesign the pyramid for a year before its official launch,” underscoring that “it was incredibly political from the start.”
An analysis funded by The Nutrition Coalition of the advisory committee behind the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020–2025—now replaced by the 2026–2030 plan—reveals a scandal of conflicts of interest: 95% of committee members had at least one direct connection to major players in the food or pharmaceutical industries, according to documented professional and financial ties to companies whose products could be affected by official dietary recommendations. The report identified up to 720 instances of conflicts, including research funding, board memberships, and consultancy roles. Many experts had not only received funding from companies like Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, Dannon, or the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), but also held formal liaison roles with them.
Untangling this vast web of corporate and political interests was a priority—not only to restore common sense to dietary guidelines, but also to tackle the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and chronic illness ravaging the West, particularly in the United States, where, as Trump’s new guidelines acknowledge, “90% of healthcare spending is allocated to the treatment of chronic diseases, many of which are related to diet and lifestyle.”
It is remarkable that between 1992 and 2026, no Western government—inside or outside the United States—devoted resources to researching, correcting, or revising recommended dietary guidelines. But, after all, these are the same governments that improvised dubious legal measures during the coronavirus pandemic, relying on nonexistent scientific committees or those with clear conflicts of interest, leaving the door open—as we have seen—to a slew of lucrative opportunities for political corruption.
The new American dietary guidelines emphasize protein, dairy, and healthy fats; maintain the importance of fruits and vegetables; and strongly condemn refined carbohydrates and highly processed products, which, while cheap, ultimately prove costly in terms of long-term health, as the Secretary of Health has noted. Unlike Brussels’ policies, this new pyramid also indirectly supports farming and livestock—sectors absurdly demonized for decades by far-left environmentalists. Will the EU act, or will it keep recommending synthetic meat and cricket flour?
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
Pope Leo, an Icon of Fashion?
Iran, a National Reconquest: What Left Media Does Not Want To Show
Flag Wars in Twee Town