The FDA Redefines What It Means To Be ‘Healthy’

Written by Alliance for Natural Health USA on January 23, 2025. Posted in Current News

While stricter on sugar, it still allows added sugar in “healthy” foods and excludes some nutrient-dense options like grass-fed beef due to arbitrary limits, prioritizing industry profits over public health

The updated criteria emphasize whole foods — those minimally processed and rich in naturally occurring nutrients — and impose stricter limits on added sugar, saturated fat and sodium.

As has been the case with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the FDA’s “healthy” definition relies on the same outdated science and troubling industry influence that has long marred federal dietary policy.

Outdated science on saturated fat

One of the FDA’s focal points in its new rule is limiting saturated fat to less than 10 percent of daily calories, echoing the Dietary Guidelines. This guidance is rooted in the debunked theory that saturated fat is a primary driver of heart disease.

Yet mounting evidence tells a different story: saturated fat is not only neutral in its effects on heart health but also delivers a host of benefits that we discussed in recent coverage.

Foods like salmon may qualify as “healthy” under the new rules, but the blanket restriction on saturated fat means nutrient-dense options such as grass-fed beef or certain dairy products could still be unfairly penalized.

Americans deserve dietary recommendations grounded in up-to-date science, not relics of an era shaped by flawed research and corporate lobbying.

FDA’s sugar high

The FDA’s updated definition takes a stricter stance on added sugars, limiting their presence in products labeled “healthy” to 5-10 percent of the daily value depending on the food category.

While this is a small improvement, it begs the question: why allow any added sugar at all in foods marketed as “healthy”?

If Big Food decides to capitalize on the FDA’s new criteria and reformulate its ultraprocessed products with added sugars at the top end of this range (10 percent), while still including a battery of naturally-occurring sugars, would a diet based on those foods really be healthy? Of course not!

Numerous studies have shown that sugar is a leading contributor to chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Also, the body actually doesn’t know if sugar is added or naturally occurring.

Highly refined grain-based foods that cause major blood spikes, as well as dairy products, both with added sugars at 10 percent of their caloric value, can still bear the “healthy” label under these new rules, misleading consumers into thinking these choices are beneficial.

The FDA’s allowance for added sugar — even at reduced levels — prioritizes industry interests over public health. It will also further incentivize Big Food to include low-fat dairy and other foods that have been major contributors to the metabolic disease crisis because fats have over double the caloric value of carbohydrates and proteins.

Another problem is that the FDA makes no distinction about the type of sugar. Pure sugars or high-fructose corn syrup will be regarded in exactly the same way as raw cane sugar.

Yet these sugars behave very differently in the body, with raw cane sugar having been established as a much healthier option than pure fructose or high-fructose corn syrup.

Cronyism in dietary policy

To fully understand the shortcomings of the FDA’s revised definition, we must examine the pervasive cronyism in federal nutrition policy. The development of dietary guidelines has long been influenced by major food industry players, who invest millions to sway public policy in their favor.

The 1991 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Pyramid debacle offers a telling example: its release was delayed due to objections from meat and dairy lobbies, and the final version appeased industry concerns. Fast forward to today, and little has changed.

When government agencies tasked with protecting public health succumb to the influence of Big Food, it’s the public that suffers. The FDA’s new “healthy” label rules continue to reflect the undue sway of corporate interests over science.

A call for true holistic health guidance

At the ANH, we believe vibrant health starts with empowering individuals to make informed choices about their well-being. This includes embracing holistic health solutions, proper diet and nutritional supplements — all free from the influence of corporate interests.

It’s time for the FDA to prioritize real science and public health over outdated paradigms and industry profit margins.

True dietary guidance would reject the demonization of nutrient-dense saturated fats and eliminate added sugars entirely from products marketed as “healthy.”

More importantly, it would address the systemic cronyism that undermines trust in federal agencies like the FDA.

This is the promise represented by RFK Jr.’s nomination to be the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and another reason we need to support his nomination so he gets confirmed.

See more here childrenshealthdefense

Bold emphasis added

Header image: Sarah Silbiger / Getty Images

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.