This piece is part of the weekly series “Growing Forward: Insights for Building Better Food and Agriculture Systems,” presented by the Global Food Institute at the George Washington University and the nonprofit organization Food Tank. Each installment highlights forward-thinking strategies to address today’s food and agriculture related challenges with innovative solutions. To view more pieces in the series, click here.
“Dietary guidance–including what to eat and how much—can be meaningful and usable for everyone,” says Dr. Sameera Talegawkar. A nutritional epidemiologist, professor at the George Washington University, and affiliate faculty member at the Global Food Institute, Talegawkar has spent the past two decades studying how nutrition impacts health outcomes across diverse populations. Most recently, she served on the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, chairing its first-ever Health Equity Working Group. The Global Food Institute’s Priya Fielding-Singh spoke with Dr. Talegawkar about how complex science becomes practical nutrition guidance—and why equity must be central to the process.
What first drew you to focus your research on the connections between nutrition and health equity?
Over the past two decades, I have built a research program focused on dietary patterns, aging, and health disparities across diverse populations. But my interest in nutrition and health equity started with something personal—my mother was diagnosed with diabetes in the mid-1990s.
At her endocrinologist’s urging, she met with a registered dietitian to help manage her condition through diet and oral medication. That was the first time I truly understood the role an Registered Dietician can play in health and wellness – and it led me to train to be one. But nutrition research largely centered on undernutrition and treatment after a major incident—not on preventing chronic disease.
Prevention, however, was what I was most interested in.
When I came to the U.S. to pursue my PhD in nutritional epidemiology at Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, I found a way to make that my focus. I worked on the Jackson Heart Study, which looked at heart disease risk in African Americans. That introduced me to the field of health disparities and sparked my interest in equity in nutrition research. Since then, I’ve continued studying the nutritional experiences of different population groups through that lens.
You served on the most recent Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which provides the scientific report that informs the federal dietary recommendations. The final Guidelines, issued by USDA and HHS, are expected later this year. What was that experience like—and what do you think people often misunderstand about how the Guidelines are developed?
Serving on the committee for the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans was a rigorous and highly structured experience. One of the things I think the public often misunderstands is just how much transparency and peer review are built into the process. There’s a public docket, open comment periods, and the scientific questions we examine are shaped by both public input and previous dietary advisory committee recommendations.
Committee members are chosen through a careful nomination process with strict criteria for selection and conflict of interest disclosures. The evidence itself goes through multiple rounds of peer review and the data we use are independently analyzed by federal staff. Each step is documented, full committee meetings are open to the public, and there are clear separations between different subcommittees and working groups to maintain objectivity.
There’s a perception that still exists, though—that the process is easily influenced or swayed by industry. But I didn’t see that when it came to reviewing the evidence and writing the report: the review was entirely separate from guideline writing, and everything was grounded in publicly available, peer-reviewed science. Once the committee makes its science-based recommendations, the federal team works with the Administration to translate the science-based recommendations into the guidelines. This is a point in the process where stakeholders likely give input.
Another common misunderstanding is just how high the bar is for making a recommendation. Sometimes, there simply isn’t enough strong evidence to support one. For example, this year the committee couldn’t make a recommendation on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) due to methodological challenges, including the lack of a widely-accepted definition of what constitutes a UPF.
For the 2025 update to the Guidelines, you chaired the Committee’s Health Equity Working Group. How did that focus on equity show up in the final report—and how was it different from past versions of the DGA?
Health equity was a central focus for the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in a way it hadn’t been before. Past committees certainly considered sociodemographic factors, but this cycle made health equity a guiding principle from the very beginning. Our mandate was to examine the relationship between diet and health across all life stages—while actively considering how factors like income, race, ethnicity, education, and culture influence both nutrition and health outcomes.
That matters because we know from the data that disparities in nutrition-related conditions are stark. For example, rates of obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes are consistently higher among adults with lower incomes or less education, and the prevalence of obesity varies significantly by race and ethnicity. If we don’t address those realities in how we interpret the science, we risk producing guidance that’s not meaningful or accessible for everyone.
This committee made several changes. We looked more deeply at how dietary patterns and chronic diseases show up across different population groups. We revisited reviews to make sure the studies we included were representative. For example, if the studies only looked at white, middle-aged women with high incomes, it would raise questions about whether we could reasonably extrapolate those findings to other populations.
And for the first time, we used diet simulations to test how proposed eating patterns might work across different cultural and economic contexts. All of that helped us ensure that the guidance being developed will be relevant, inclusive, and able to reach people where they are—ultimately increasing its potential to reduce disparities and improve health for everyone.
The Guidelines influence everything from school meals to nutrition education for SNAP recipients. Where do you think there’s the most potential right now to use that reach to improve nutrition security across the United States?
The Guidelines have enormous influence—on school meals, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) education, WIC, and more—which means they’re one of our strongest levers for improving nutrition security at scale. But to fully realize that potential, we should make sure the guidance reflects the realities and needs of the populations it’s meant to serve.
One way we moved toward that in this cycle was through the use of diet modeling and simulations. We ran two simulations: one modeled typical U.S. diets using foods and beverages reported in national dietary intake surveys, and the other was a pilot that modeled foods identified by experts as part of select American Indian and Alaska Native diets.
These simulations helped us see how different dietary patterns might actually work across cultural and economic contexts. It’s a systems-level approach that helps ensure the Guidelines are not only scientifically sound, but also more inclusive and actionable—especially for communities that have long faced barriers to healthy eating.
That’s where I see the biggest potential: in tailoring implementation strategies—like school meals and SNAP education—to reflect this broader, more equitable understanding of dietary needs. Our policies and programs have to meet people where they are, with options that are both nutritionally sound and culturally relevant.
Looking ahead, how would you describe a food system that truly supports nutrition security for people across the lifespan and from all backgrounds?
A food system that truly supports nutrition security across the lifespan will ensure that everyone has consistent access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally relevant foods. In our work—especially during this cycle of the Guidelines—we focused on the idea that people eat in many different ways. Developing strong science-based guidelines are important, but it only helps if the advice makes sense in people’s real lives. A supportive food system will take that to heart—integrating flexibility and cultural inclusivity into school meals, food assistance programs, and public health messaging—so that everyone has the opportunity to eat well.
Photo courtesy of Ella Olsson, Unsplash
