A monthslong process to decide the federal government’s food recommendations for the next five years is now set to stretch well into 2025. That timing means Biden officials will miss their opportunity to lock in new guidelines before the Trump administration takes over. 

Switching terms in the middle of an update is unprecedented in recent history, though previous versions have come close: an update in 2005 was finished days before the inauguration and the 2020 revision came a month before Biden took office.

The guidelines are hotly contested in Washington because they influence a broad array of federal programs, ranging from rules on nutrition labels to standards for school lunches. They are traditionally based around a scientific report from outside experts. 

That committee has been meeting since last year, wrestling with an array of controversial questions, and is not expected to issue its recommendations until mid-December. It usually takes several months after their report is done for officials to publish their guidelines. 

This timeline was decided long before Election Day, one person familiar with the process told CBS News. 

A spokesperson for HHS did not comment on the timing of the report, except to confirm that it is expected “later in the year.”

“HHS and USDA continue to demonstrate their commitment to transparency, equity, and scientific integrity throughout the entire process,” the spokesperson said.

It is virtually impossible for the Biden administration to finish an update before leaving office, former officials said. Too many tasks remain, like vetting the findings and developing and testing updated messaging through tools like MyPlate, which replaced the food pyramid. 

“This is a very heavy lift, given the complexity and given the points of view of the different departments,” said Dr. Brett Giroir, who served as assistant secretary for health in HHS under the Trump administration’s last revision.

Input from the public and agencies also must be worked into the guidelines, before the agriculture and health departments can come to an agreement.

“My belief is that when Congress tells two agencies to collaborate on something, that is an intended tension, hopefully to move the final product in the right direction. And I think certainly folks would agree that HHS and USDA often come from different constituencies, different perspectives,” said Brandon Lipps, who was the USDA’s deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services under Trump.

One expected fight will be over proposals floated last month by members of the committee “to emphasize plant sources” of protein, as part of a broader recommendation to “shift” to more “nutrient dense, plant-based meals.”

On the campaign trail, Trump had accused his rival of wanting to “stop people from eating red meat.” In a statement last month, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association denounced the recommendations as “unhinged” and “impractical.” 

Under the drafts, beans, peas and lentils could be listed as protein sources too, not just vegetables. Red meat would be moved down the ranking of protein foods, over health concerns like cardiovascular disease.

Red meats often needed to be substituted the most in American diets, analyses by the committee concluded, to cut health risks and still meet nutritional goals.

“Red meats, whether they were processed or not, were the ones to reduce more than the poultry or the eggs. So I would’ve put them very last,” said Christopher Gardner, a member of the committee.

How Trump administration officials could change the guidelines

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made changes to the committee a central part of his “Make America Healthy Again” platform. 

“What we need to do is change the panel, so they’re making good recommendations and they’re telling people don’t eat these foods,” Kennedy said in September.

They could also offer Kennedy a vehicle to accomplish his goals, like curbing ultra-processed foods in school lunches. If confirmed as secretary, Kennedy and his counterpart at USDA would have the ultimate authority over what goes into the guidelines.

“If Congress wanted a group of scientists to write the dietary guidelines, they would have put that in statute. So the committee makes recommendations, and the secretaries take the input from that report,” said Lipps.

Completely ignoring the committee’s work would be unprecedented, though departments in the past – often driven by career civil servants – have sometimes disagreed with some recommendations.

“The process is not perfect, there’s bureaucracy in there. But I do believe having transparent scientific committees that everybody knows where it’s coming from is the best way to go,” said Giroir.