A lawsuit seeking withdrawal of the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans alleges that the nutrition recommendations were assembled by a conflict-riddled committee that operated largely in secret, in violation of federal administrative law.

The complaint, filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in US District Court in Washington, DC, raised issues similar to those in ongoing litigation challenging changes to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). That case alleged, among other things, that panelists lacked the experience required under the committee’s charter and that the committee’s process violated federal administrative law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In that case, which is pending appeal, a federal judge temporarily halted the panel’s recommendations after finding that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had unlawfully appointed ACIP members.

The lawsuit challenging the dietary guidelines has a “potential chance of success,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, distinguished university professor at Georgetown Law in Washington, DC.

According to the APA, the federal government “can’t act in an arbitrary and capricious way,” Gostin told Medscape Medical News.

He said that in developing the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines, HHS had, among other things, “overturned decisions by a scientific committee without providing any good reasons and without citing any persuasive evidence.”

A committee of 20 independent nutrition experts had spent nearly 2 years weighing evidence and public comments before issuing a Scientific Report intended to serve as the foundation of the 2025-2030 guidelines.

Instead of relying on that report, HHS, “without any oversight or public input, hastily assembled a handpicked panel of meat, dairy, and fad diet industry insiders,” alleges the Physicians Committee, a nonprofit that promotes preventive medicine and higher ethics standards.

The lawsuit alleges that the guideline panel was not “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented,” as required by federal law. It also alleges that the government did not publish a charter or meeting notices, nor did it provide public access to meetings or related materials.

“The government allowed the meat and dairy industries to ghostwrite the Dietary Guidelines,” Physicians Committee President Neal D. Barnard, MD, said in a statement. “They put money in industry’s pocket and cholesterol in Americans’ arteries.”

The Physicians Committee wants the court to direct the federal government to withdraw and reissue the guidelines using a process that complies with the law.

Guidelines Draw Broad Criticism

The federal dietary guidelines, updated every 5 years, are widely used by clinical organizations, policymakers, the food industry, and the public. They also help set standards for federal child and adult nutrition programs, including school meals, military food programs, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Dietary guidelines have long generated debate, but the criticism following the January 2026 release appeared particularly widespread, in part because of concerns about transparency and reported ties among the guideline-writing panel to the beef, dairy, and supplement industries.

More than 200 members of the medical and research communities wrote to HHS and the US Department of Agriculture expressing concern that the guidelines were not evidence-based and could adversely affect public health.

The new guidelines also replaced the “My Plate” graphic with the food pyramid, a format that had been retired in 2011. The redesigned pyramid placed meat and whole-fat dairy at the top and whole grains at the bottom, reversing their relative prominence in previous federal dietary guidance.

The general public also appears divided over the new guidelines. In a March 2026 poll published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, half of US adults said they did not trust that the recommendations were based on sound scientific evidence, and 44% described the guidelines as “not useful.”

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, emerita, at New York University, applauded the guidelines’ recommendation to “eat real food” and limit processed foods in a series of 2026 blog posts. However, she took issue with their emphasis on protein and saturated fat, as well as their omissions and errors.

In a post about the lawsuit, Nestle described the allegations about the “hasty” and secret process and the panelists’ industry ties.

“I can’t wait to see what happens,” she wrote.

Gostin reported no disclosures.

Alicia Ault is a Saint Petersburg, Florida-based freelance journalist whose work has appeared in many health and science publications, including Smithsonian.com. You can find her on X @aliciaault and on Bluesky @aliciaault.bsky.social.