The 2025-30 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) issued by the Trump administration in January 2026 may arguably be the most talked-about DGA ever. In some ways, they are also the most simplified, containing just 10 pages of official guidance under the catchphrase “eat real food.” Digging beneath the headlines, though, reveals a very complicated picture – particularly when it comes to understanding the DGA’s impact on real sugar.
Overall, the DGA emphasize a diet of “whole, nutrient-dense foods.” They do not address whether the administration considers real sugar a “real food,” but the DGA website specifies: “Added sugars are not part of eating real food and are not recommended.” Launching the DGA, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. used even more extreme language – declaring “war” on added sugars.
These DGA’s recommendations on added sugars represent a significant departure. Whereas the 2020-25 DGA recommended Americans over age 2 limit added sugars to less than 10% of total calories, the new DGA state: “No amount of added sugar or nonnutritive sweeteners is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet.”
Despite omission of daily guidance for added sugars as a proportion of total calories, and indicating Americans should eliminate all added sugars, the DGA elaborate that “one meal should contain no more than 10 grams of added sugars” and snack foods should follow added sugars limits associated with making “healthy” claims. That would mean, for example, that grain snacks should not contain more than 5 grams of added sugars (10% of the daily value) and dairy snacks should not contain more than 2.5 grams (5% of the daily value). Note that, confusingly, the daily value for added sugars is based on the now-obsolete 2020-25 DGA recommendations.
In specific guidelines for certain age groups and subpopulations, the new DGA advise to “avoid added sugars during infancy and early childhood” (birth to 4 years) and say “no amount of added sugars is recommended” up to age 11.
Eliminating all added sugars would mean never adding honey to yogurt or brown sugar to oatmeal; never baking bread that requires sugar to rise and brown; having birthday steak instead of birthday cake (as Kennedy does, according to his social media).
The DGA provide no evidence to support such extreme recommendations. In fact, the author of the only added sugars systematic review published in the DGA scientific foundations said that the recommendation for children to entirely avoid added sugars is not “realistic, sustainable or aligned with the strength of the evidence.” The systematic review found the only evidence of negative health outcomes associated with added sugars intake comes from sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, not from added sugars in food.
Nor do the DGA address the reality that when added sugars are removed from food, they are almost always replaced by industrial additives such as artificial sweeteners that aren’t clearly labeled and which large majorities of Americans prefer to avoid. It is simply not feasible for Americans to do as the DGA say – avoid both added sugars and nonnutritive sweeteners. The Sugar Association’s petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking transparent disclosure of artificial sweeteners on labels – publicly supported by approximately 28,000 Americans – has been ignored for more than six years.
Beyond the DGA and the currently loud rhetoric, this disproportionate attack on real sugar despite the consequences will mislead consumers and shape rules and regulations for many years to come. For example, the administration intends to align federal School Nutrition Standards with the DGA, which on its face would mean eliminating all added sugars from school meals for children under 11. That would cost sugarbeet and sugarcane farmers the opportunity to sell 133,000 short tons of sugar per year – without any evidence this is necessary or healthy.
While it’s reasonable to limit added sugar intake as a proportion of total calories, particularly for children, studies demonstrate that very-low added sugars recommendations may be “overly restrictive” and could “potentially lead to reduced intake of some nutritious foods … such as flavored yogurt or whole grain cereals.” USDA data show added sugars consumption is at its lowest point in 40 years (around 13% of total calories) and near the lowest level ever recorded (12% in 1909). During the same time that added sugars consumption declined by 30%, rates of obesity and chronic disease have shot up 40% for adults.
Nevertheless, the administration appears determined to continue demonizing real sugar, for example, by proposing new front-of-package warning labels, mandating added sugars reduction targets, including added sugars as a criterion for defining “ultra-processed food,” and creating “no sugar” and “low sugar” claims – all of which are likely to further skyrocket the reengineering of food to contain industrial additives like artificial sweeteners that the FDA does not even require companies to transparently label or quantify.
In Chile, which has been lauded for introducing front-of-package warning labels, even the most favorable studies hypothesize Chileans only reduced calorie intake by about one and a half baby carrots per day (6.4 calories). Meanwhile, Chile reportedly has more products containing artificial chemical sweeteners than other countries, and consumption of these industrial additives rose after labeling took effect.
Americans very clearly would not support similar outcomes here. Sugar Association polling in 2025 found that 83% of "Make America Healthy Again" supporters believe real sugar is safer for adults than artificial sweeteners, and 89% believe it’s safer for children. Overall, 83% of Make America Healthy Again supporters prefer real sugar. Polling in 2020 found that only 14% of Americans want to reduce their added sugar intake using artificial sweeteners, and 73% of parents want to know the amount of low- and no-calorie sweeteners in their children’s food.
Americans deserve sound nutrition advice, not unsubstantiated, unscientific rhetoric about real sugar – which is real food and comes from real plants. That’s why the Sugar Association remains committed to evidence-based communication about how moderate amounts of real sugar can fit in healthy diets and balanced lifestyles.
