The Shelf Life of the New Food Pyramid

Will New Nutritional Guidelines Reshape Our Food Systems?

MAHA’s new food pyramid is the result of one person making a decision and expediting the, often lengthy, bureaucratic process to see that decision through into actionable initiatives. Like so many other issues being addressed under the Trump administration, it seems that we woke up to a new day, complete with a new set of guidelines. In truth, individuals on both sides of the political fence have been calling for shifts in nutritional guidelines for a long time. Now that they are here, we all find ourselves analyzing what this means for food production, market development and consumer behavior in the United States.

Why Did It Take So Long to Change the Food Pyramid?

MAHA’s expedited process has been criticized for disregarding expert insights from the appointed advisory team and moving too quickly for thorough vetting of data. Though the Make America Healthy Again team jumped through the normal hoops of reviewing lengthy reports from the advisory committee and allowing for public comment, they quickly issued their own report which factored in external expert insights.  Perhaps the new food pyramid isn’t a disregard for scientific data, but the opposite; a reflection of what a variety of consumer groups already adhere to nutritionally. 

In truth, while 80% of consumers are familiar with previous food pyramid guidelines, only 10% refer to those guidelines when making food decisions. The health conscious shopper is inclined to collect their own data. Is the “new” food pyramid a reflection of what consumers have already defined as healthy standards through their own research? Is it a long overdue visual to pair with existing behaviors?

The most influential diets since the early 2000s have been built on guidelines similar to what we find on the new food pyramid. Keto, Atkins, Paleo, Whole30 and the South Beach Diet all focus on real rather than processed foods, high protein and vegetable consumption, limits on sugar intake and careful selection of carbohydrate options.  An inverted pyramid containing images of whole food options and absent of distinguishing lines and percentages seems to support the popular nutrition trends without demonizing any particular food group.

A commitment was made by MAHA to address conflicts of interest and their influence on decisions like this.  Speed and minimal adherence to previous decision making practices could be the method MAHA is using to reduce conflicts of interest that made this food pyramid makeover difficult to achieve for too long.  However, completely ridding ourselves of conflicting interests is probably an impossible endeavor. The Trump administration is very interested in bringing production of all types back into the United States, including food production.  A food pyramid prioritizing red meat, fresh vegetables and healthy fats will likely increase demand for these commodities and could create new domestic production opportunities. It could set the stage for more diversified food production here in the U.S.

Will the New Food Pyramid Impact Our Food Systems?

Long before laying eyes on this new food pyramid, companies like PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz began the process of reinventing their brands to appeal to nutrition conscious consumers who defined nutritional as minimal ingredients and processing, whole foods, high in protein, without too much sugar and easier on the environment. The evidence is in products like Fairlife Milk, pre-biotic sodas, NotMayo plant based mayonnaise, a wide variety of beef sticks and protein bars as well as, corporate restructuring aimed at reducing the risks ultra processed foods bring to portfolios these days.  We’ve seen the mega food manufacturing companies buy out brands favored by consumers due to their lack of chemical ingredients. The most noteworthy being PepsiCo’s acquisition of Siete Chips. If food companies were already headed away from ultra processed foods, will the food pyramid make a difference?

We certainly don’t see juice boxes, packaged food items or blocks of Velveeta cheese among the pyramid images. The images and their accompanying guidelines probably tell us more about the types of industries that will be significantly impacted by fiscal policy. A new set of nutritional guidelines could reshape agricultural subsidies and funding for federal feeding programs in schools and food pantries.  We could easily say that the food pyramid and the official guidelines that go with it are of minimal significance, but in reality the pyramid could serve as MAHA’s billboard declaring exactly which industries are most likely to receive financial backing in the coming years.

Since the guidelines prioritizes real food we should see it become more accessible and affordable for consumers. With Avian flu in the mix, the smallest beef inventory in decades and a growing necessity for imported produce some of the most important protein, fruit and vegetable items on the current pyramid are high priced, hard to come by or sourced from a long way away.  Fiscal policy that rewards or assists the production and purchase of these real food commodities will likely develop.  All the better if it supports domestic production.

But the biggest ripple effect is typically felt in schools.  Educating consumers strolling through a grocery store with visuals like a food pyramid can only hope to influence a single person making decisions about individual meals. Using school lunchrooms as strategic ground for reshaping food consumption influences hundreds of thousands of meals at one time.  

Much like we’ve seen with the organic industry where subsidies support growers as they increase production of organic food options and also provide the funding schools need to be able to purchase organic foods to be used in the lunchroom, new nutritional guidelines build fiscal infrastructure.  In the organic sector, supply chains are aided by federal funding until, hopefully, they can stand on their own. The same could happen under the new guidelines and in the name of bringing food production back into the United States.  

Essentially, MAHA’s guidelines are what will build the accounts where federal funds will be allocated to build up new markets and supply chains. Judging from the pyramid imagery we might expect to see beef, poultry, laying hens, dairy and horticulture all benefiting from increased funding. Funding for feeding programs like SNAP, food pantries and school lunch programs will be shaped around purchasing these same items.

Food Pyramid Challenges

MAHA’s food pyramid doesn’t come without challenges. A huge component of food security in the United States is built on foods that do have a reasonable shelf life and supply chains that can safely deliver fresh goods in a timely fashion. The Make America Healthy Again camp isn’t just asking schools to serve more fresh foods or for SNAP recipients to put money towards eggs over boxed cereal.  If they regulate guidelines in these arenas, then they are aiming to build new infrastructure that caters to perishable food items more than packaged food items with long shelf lives.

We tend to think about making nutrient dense food available to more people in terms of the cost of the food and the location of the grocery store.  But in reality it means making sure food recipients have a place to store their perishable items and a way to cook them.  This means access to refrigeration and other kitchen appliances, staff to prepare from-scratch meals in schools and reliable transit so that food is delivered before it expires.  The inverted pyramid could be the catalyst for reshaping the way we produce and move food.