But the implementation of updated dietary guidelines from HHS, introduced earlier this month, may make it harder for many Americans to abide by what the agency has deemed to be healthy. Economists and public health experts warned many of its recommendations are prohibitively expensive for lower-income Americans, laying bare how the K-shaped economy—of the rich thriving while the poor struggle—has found its way into pantries and fridges.

Like its 2025 predecessor, the updated guidelines prioritize less-processed foods, but now emphasize pricier red meat and whole-fat dairy products over plant-based diets. The new guidance also discourages more processed grain products such as white bread, crackers, and packaged breakfast items that many lower-income households rely on to fulfill their dietary needs.

“We know food prices have been top of mind for many consumers over the past few years,” David Ortega, professor of food economics and policy at Michigan State University, told Fortune. “These are items that sell at a higher price point. Animal proteins are traditionally more expensive. Whole milk is more expensive than low-fat or reduced-fat milk. That’s one major concern. There’s certainly affordability issues.”

Under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the MAHA movement has rebuffed medical expertise on a series of well-researched public health conventions, including seed oils and processed foods, which Kennedy has claimed are associated with chronic illness. With a distrust of the current health care system, Kennedy has led an overhaul of the HHS, laying off thousands of agency employees, a move that scientists have warned will endanger the future of public health research. But beyond the controversy about the new dietary guidelines—particularly the focus on animal sources instead of plant-forward ingredients—economists like Ortega are worried Americans and institutions like schools looking to follow these new recommendations won’t have the means to.

K-shaped economy in action

The Federal Reserve’s Beige Book published this month already suggested these new dietary guidelines will present challenges for the bottom half of the “K.” The San Francisco Fed observed low- and middle-income Americans purchasing less protein to accommodate tight budgets. It also reported wealthier Americans continuing to spend, including on luxury items.

Prior to the introduction of the new dietary guidelines, affordability was top of mind for many Americans. Grocery prices rose 2.4% over the past 12 months ended in December, according to Department of Labor data. Beef prices in particular have skyrocketed as a result of tariffs and dwindling cattle herd sizes, a trend expected to continue through this year, according to Omaha Steaks CEO Nate Rempe. As food prices ticked up over the course of the past year, consumer sentiment dropped nearly 20 points, though it’s marginally increasing over the past two months.

Groceries are a major sticking point in the affordability conversation because, for poorer Americans, it makes up the lion’s share of their spending. While the highest-income American households spent the most on food in 2023—nearly $17,500 on average—they spent the lowest share of their income on groceries, about 8%, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. The lowest-income Americans spent only about $5,000 annually on groceries, but it accounted for more than 30% of their spending.

Concerns beyond the food pyramid

The Trump administration, for its part, has insisted it’s possible to buy a healthy meal for just a few dollars. In an interview with NewsNation last week, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins claimed the new guidelines will not require Americans to spend more on their diet.

“We’ve run over 1,000 simulations,” she said. “It can cost around $3 a meal for a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, corn tortilla, and one other thing. So there is a way to do this that actually will save the average American consumer money.”

Following a slew of online backlash over the described meals, Rollins clarified to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday that she had meant to describe a more “robust plate” with a big piece of chicken, a head of broccoli, a baked potato, and slices of bread.

A USDA spokesperson told Fortune that many of the simulations—which also contained foods like canned tuna, tofu, and frozen vegetables—generated meals that would cost Americans less than $10 per day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

But addressing lower-income Americans’ barriers to accessing recommended foods is about more than just the price of groceries. There are structural reasons that may inhibit people from adopting a healthy diet, Ortega argued. 

“Healthy eating isn’t just a choice. There are real constraints,” he said. “If nutritional guidance is going to translate into real-world behavior, we have to account for these things: price levels, inflation dynamics, access constraints, and time costs.”

Prioritizing whole ingredients requires more preparation time, something lower-income Americans working multiple jobs or balancing childcare may not have, Ortega noted. More than 6% of Americans live in a food desert, according to USDA data, meaning they don’t readily have access to a grocery store.

Because the updated dietary guidelines are recommendations, Ortega said, consumers are not necessarily compelled to abide by these suggestions. But institutions such as schools that provide free lunches generally follow federal nutrition standards based on the guidelines. In fiscal 2024, the National School Lunch Program provided 4.8 billion lunches costing $17.7 billion. Some schools are stretched on resources like equipment and employees to prepare the food, meaning new guidelines may require more resources, but it’s not clear at this time how schools will implement the guidelines.

“Many schools are working with outdated kitchen equipment. They’re understaffed because they’re not able to offer competitive wages,” Meghan Maroney, campaign manager for federal child nutrition programs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told The Hill. “They are scrambling to try to put healthy meals together, and they’re doing the best they can with what they have, but if we really want to see fundamental changes in the way we feed kids in this country, then we need to invest in it.”