Understanding Protein's Role in the Updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans
In this editorial, Daniel Berg, Senior Analytical Services Manager at Eurofins Food Chemistry Testing in Madison, WI, explores how the latest updates to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) influence recommended protein intake. Read on to see how these changes may affect food and dietary supplement brand owners and manufacturers as they formulate products to align with the new guidance.
There has been a lot of talk about the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) that have been recently published. Despite being promoted as a major departure, the updated guidelines mix a few foundational changes with many recurring themes from earlier publications. Protein takes top billing in the DGA, with prominence at the top of the now inverted pyramid. One stated goal of the publication was to make it simple, and that was accomplished in a simple message that protein should be a key part of each meal. Digging deeper into that simple message, what do the new recommendations mean for food manufacturers, especially for labeling and claims on proteins.
The newest DGA recommends we consume a range of 1.2 – 1.6 g protein / KG body weight.
This is an increase of 50-100% from the 0.8 g / KG body weight current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). The guidance does not change food labels. At least for now, FDA and / or USDA would need to implement rule changes to directly change how protein is claimed on labels. So far there has been no indication, but we will see how this plays out. The DGA are recommendations for Americans in general and serve the framework for schools, military and hospitals meal plans. Nutrition Facts Labeling rules (and Supplement Facts) follow separate rules and this change does not impact food labeling.
How much protein is 1.2 – 1.6 g / KG body weight?
Let’s consider an example 80 KG (176 lb.) adult: 80 X 1.2 to 1.6 = 96 to 128 g of protein suggested. So roughly 2 – 2.5X of the current nutrition label 50 g Daily Value (DV). The guidance prioritizes meats, dairy, eggs; foods that often have a PDCAAS of 1.0 or close to that. If fully embracing their top choice on sources, this is a significant increase. Other protein sources such as nuts and beans are suggested to complement the animal sources. They have generally lower PDCAAS values, which means you would already need to consume more than 50 g of crude protein to meet your daily value. More on that later. The other large source of protein in American diets is grains (wheat, rice, oats, corn), which were mostly demoted in the pyramid, with recommendation to include whole grain foods in your diet and avoid processed grains. We will see if grains become less of our diets, but for the time being, grains are a significant source of protein in our diet, albeit with generally lower protein quality.
An important consideration is that the Nutrition Facts are quite limited to grouping nearly the entire population under 1 standard Daily Value (Children ages 4 through all adults, except pregnant and nursing mothers). That’s a big range, with varying age, sex and weights, and differing nutritional demands. That Daily Value is 50 g of protein, but unlike other nutrients, that 50 g is specifically 50 g of complete protein. If a protein is incomplete, meaning it has either amino acid or digestibility limitations that give it a PDCAAS less than 1.0, then its daily value will be proportionally reduced. As an example, if your diet was from proteins that had a PDCAAS of 0.5, then you would need to consume 100 g of those proteins to meet that 50 g daily value.
Learn more on PDCAAS and protein claims below:
Understanding Protein Quality: How PDCAAS Shapes Nutritional Claims
Understanding Protein Analysis for Label Claims and Characterization On-Demand Webinar
The RDA’s for protein consider age and sex, and those vary from 19 – 56 g (for children age 4 – adults). DGA considers the consumer’s weight in the recommendation and provide a range to allow for other difference such as age, sex and activity. Conveying the amount of protein for an individual is not easily communicated on the limited space of a food label, and for standardization, the FDA’s Nutrition Labeling rules consider a single daily value intake of 50 g protein for adults and children age 4 or older. Americans generally already consume well above the 50 g DV. The 2016 Final rule on Food Labeling suggested no change was needed in that DV and that % declarations remain voluntary, unless claims are made or for specific target populations.
DGA is guiding a larger portion of your diet to protein.
The 50 g DV is only 200 Kcal, equal to 10% of an overall 2000 Kcal general diet. The DGA suggests protein at 15-20% calories, with processed grains and added sugars as targets for exchange of those calories. The carbohydrate daily value of 275 g equates to 1100 Kcal or 55% of a 2000 Kcal diet, setting aside that less digestible carbohydrates have a calorie density less than 4, so the actual calories would be something less following suggested dietary fiber consumption. Considering the optics of the new pyramid, it does seem that a shift in Daily Values may be in mind, as it differs from the current 10% / 55% / 35% calories from protein / carbohydrates / fat distribution in Daily Values. The DGA is very purposeful in not considering health equity, factors that previous DGAs considered in what populations could afford and access. The supportive “Scientific Foundation” to DGA casts blame on the equity lens as a contributor to our poor health, and that DGA should put forward the best health advise, and the concerns of affordability, is acknowledged but to be addressed elsewhere. Sustainability of increased animal-based meat, fish and dairy is also major critique, in whether there is sufficient agricultural capacity to produce the more intensive production of meats and dairy with land, water and CO2 concerns.
What do the new DGA protein recommendations mean for dietary supplement and food brands?
With every update to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the industry inevitably asks how much these recommendations will influence consumer behavior and how much they will reshape product development. While the DGA primarily guides federally funded nutrition programs, its ripple effects extend far beyond school menus and government purchasing. For brand owners and manufacturers, these updates often signal where consumer expectations, regulatory scrutiny, and formulation priorities are headed.
One of the most striking tensions in the new guidance is the push for higher protein intake alongside continued limits on saturated fat. Many of the protein sources emphasized in the DGA can quickly exceed those saturated fat recommendations, creating a practical challenge for brands working to align with both messages. This internal contradiction appears to have been debated during development, ultimately resulting in a compromise that maintains the saturated fat limit without fully addressing the difficulty of meeting both targets simultaneously.
For supplement and food manufacturers, the real question becomes how to innovate within these constraints, whether that means leaning into alternative protein sources, reformulating existing products, or adjusting marketing to reflect evolving expectations. Time will reveal how closely consumers follow the new recommendations, but the industry will feel the impact much sooner as brands adapt to stay aligned with the shifting definition of “nutritionally sound.
Start the Conversation
Have additional questions? Ready to get started? We can help.
Additional Resources
Meet the Author
Daniel Berg | Sr. Analytical Services Manager, Eurofins Food Chemistry Testing – Madison, WI
Daniel Berg has a BS and MS in Food Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. He has over 25 years of food industry experience in Quality Assurance, Aseptic Processing, Research and Development, and Technical Services especially related to starches, sweeteners and fiber ingredients. He is currently Senior Analytical Services Manager for Eurofins Food Chemistry Testing Madison. In his role, he helps design and facilitate analytical testing programs for clients across the food industry, with a focus on nutritional and chemical contaminant analysis. Daniel is a Certified Food Scientist, active in the Institute of Food Technologists and International Society of Beverage Technologists and has held a variety of committee leadership roles in those organizations.
