Written by: Alexina Cather

At Wellness in the Schools, we spend every day thinking about how to improve school meals across the country and how national policies show up on kids’ plates. That’s why the release of the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) feels like a meaningful moment, and also a missed opportunity.

For twenty years, we have long touted the importance of feeding kids real food; in fact, it’s our tagline. However, for the first time, the DGAs are also clearly encouraging Americans to eat real food and less highly processed food. That shift reflects years of research and advocacy, and it matters. Ultra-processed foods now make up nearly 70 percent of calories in the U.S. diet, and their overconsumption is linked to diet-related disease, especially among children. Acknowledging that reality at the federal level is an important step forward.

However, one of the most striking omissions in the new DGAs is the lack of a clear, accessible definition of what “ultra-processed” actually means. The DGAs tell us to reduce these foods without offering a shared framework that policymakers, schools, or families can realistically use. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are actively working toward a definition, but until that work is complete, there is a gap between what the Guidelines recommend and how people can take steps to follow their advice.

That gap has real consequences. Without an agreed-upon definition, it becomes difficult to measure consumption, align research, or consider meaningful standards for schools and other national feeding programs. Just as importantly, it leaves families and individuals confused rather than empowered. Telling people to eat less of nearly 70 percent of the food supply without giving them clear tools to identify those foods sets an unrealistic expectation. And when children are served ultra-processed foods at school, even as families work to limit them at home, it undermines broader efforts to improve health.

If the goal of the Dietary Guidelines is to improve population health, especially for kids, then clarity and education should be central, not optional. Instead, the current language places most of the responsibility on individuals, as if healthier choices are simply a matter of willpower or knowledge, without addressing the broader forces that shape what food is available, affordable, and marketed as normal.

There is very little in the DGAs that takes into account affordability and how our current food system and its subsidies, corporate practices, and economic inequities drive the overconsumption of ultra-processed foods. These products dominate shelf space, advertising, and price promotions not because families are choosing them freely, but because they are engineered to be cheap, convenient, and profitable, particularly in communities with fewer healthy options. A public health approach that doesn’t account for those realities falls short.

At Wellness in the Schools, we see both the opportunity and the challenge of this moment. Schools are a powerful lever for change, but they need clear guidance, training, sustained investment, and policies that align nutrition goals with operational realities. Asking schools and families to do more with less clarity and support is not a recipe for success.

Our work continues to focus on what we know makes a difference: real food, cooked with care, supported by policy that meets families and schools where they are. We’re grateful to be doing this work alongside educators, advocates, and communities who believe, as we do, that kids deserve better.

We recently shared these insights about the Dietary Guidelines in The Hill, ABC News/Good Morning America, and PIX 11.