Proposed dietary guidelines promote increased animal fat consumption while ignoring a dangerous truth: Nearly 700 pharmaceutical compounds and pesticide residues contaminate America's meat supply, many of which concentrate in fat.

As the 2025 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans take shape, a serious disconnect threatens public health. Some advocates are calling for higher intake of animal fats and promoting so called ancestral or animal based keto diets, citing traditional wisdom and nutrient density. But these arguments overlook a central fact:

In reality, diets like Keto often rely on meat and dairy from industrial production systems, where contamination with drugs and chemicals is routine. The promise of healing through meat and fat collapses when those foods carry residues of antibiotics, steroid hormones, synthetic preservatives, arsenicals, cocciodiostats, and pesticides. Many of these toxins accumulate precisely in the fats and organs being celebrated as nutrient rich.

There is a stark gap between the idealised narrative of ancestral eating and the toxic burden of modern industrial food. Until the USDA addresses the pharmaceutical and chemical contamination of the meat supply, it cannot credibly recommend increased animal fat consumption in the name of health.

A decade ago, as policy director at the Center for Food Safety, I helped publish a report entitled "America's Secret Animal Drug Problem,” identifying over 450 animal drugs and feed additives used in U.S. meat production. That number alarmed me then.

Today, the Food and Drug Administration has approved nearly 700 veterinary drugs for use in food-producing animals. This figure includes not only growth promoters and antibiotics but also synthetic hormones, beta agonists, coccidiostats, and antiparasitics.

The result is not the clean, pasture-raised meat of an imagined past. It is a supply chain that concentrates drugs and pollutants in the fatty cuts, organ meats, and dairy products most likely to be encouraged under a high-animal-fat dietary model and most commonly found in processed meats served in schools and food banks.

Here lies the fundamental problem: Less than 1% of meat and dairy in the United States is produced in regenerative organic systems on pasture. The remaining 99% comes from animals housed in industrial facilities, fed chemically saturated GMO grains, with minimal space for natural behaviors.

Promoting increased consumption of animal fats through dietary guidelines without addressing this supply reality means effectively promoting increased intake of pharmaceutical residues, not the clean, nutrient dense food advocates envision.

These drugs are not only given to sick animals. They are structural to the factory farming model, used to suppress the consequences of extreme confinement, accelerate unnatural growth, and boost so called industrial efficiency at the expense of health, decency, compassion and family farmer wellbeing and rural livelihoods. The Center for Food Safety report found that FDA has "alarmingly little information regarding the impacts of animal drugs" yet approves substances that "may pose significant threats to humans or animals."

The drug categories reveal the scope of pharmaceutical intervention in industrial meat production.

Growth promoters represent the most egregious category. Beta agonists like ractopamine and zilpaterol rapidly increase lean muscle mass in pigs and cattle while causing severe side effects including aggression, heart issues, exhaustion and the inability to walk due to physical stress.

These drugs cause such horrific suffering that animals often lose their hooves entirely before slaughter. Ractopamine is banned or restricted in at least 160 countries, including the European Union, China, and Russia, due to known impacts on animal behavior and human health. Yet the U.S. allows residue levels in meat that are five times higher than international standards.

If beta agonists can cause aggression, anxiety and massive weight gain in animals, what effects might they have when consumed by humans?

Steroid hormones present equally serious concerns. Synthetic hormones like trenbolone acetate and zeranol are commonly implanted into cattle, where they act as endocrine disruptors linked to cancer and reproductive harm. These compounds can interfere with human hormone function, with research demonstrating that children and fetuses are especially sensitive to steroids, and even small variations may account for significant health effects. Studies have linked exposure to hormone residues in meat to early puberty in girls and reduced sperm concentration in boys whose mothers consumed more beef during pregnancy.

Antibiotics represent the largest category by volume. In fact more than 70% of medically important antibiotics sold are administered to animals. While some uses are therapeutic, the majority of antibiotics are fed to industrially raised animals to prevent disease that would otherwise be prevalent due to overcrowding and weakened immune systems, and to promote rapid weight gain and growth. This widespread non-therapeutic administration creates what researchers now call "foodborne urinary tract infections" as drug resistant bacteria from meat consumption cause antiboitic resistant infections in humans, particularly women.

Feed additives complete the pharmaceutical potion. Ethoxyquin, initially developed as a pesticide, is used in livestock feed despite documented toxic effects. FDA's own correspondence demonstrates that ethoxyquin was well recognized as harmful and poisonous even at the time of approval, with studies showing it increased tumor incidence in rats and caused liver, kidney and intestinal damage, abdominal tenderness, and discolored urine in dogs.

Critically, these chemicals don't act alone.

Meat and dairy often contain traces of multiple pesticides, antibiotics, and veterinary drugs, creating a toxic brew whose combined effects scientists are only beginning to understand. The synergistic impact of hundreds of chemical residues consumed together represents an unprecedented experiment on human health, with children bearing the greatest risk as dietary guidelines influence school food programs nationwide.

Inadequate Testing, Compounding Contamination

Government oversight of this pharmaceutical contamination remains dangerously insufficient. Food & Environment Reporting Network investigations have documented that USDA testing for drug residues covers only a tiny fraction of meat production, with some years seeing fewer than 800 beef samples tested for ractopamine residues despite billions of pounds of production. When testing does occur, multiple drug residues are often found in single samples, including unapproved drugs and residues exceeding legal thresholds.

Beyond directly administered drugs, industrial livestock production exposes consumers to persistent environmental pollutants that accumulate in animal fats through contaminated feed and environmental exposure. Most notably, dioxins are toxic byproducts that accumulate in animal fat. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies dioxins as likely human carcinogens, and the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry identifies dioxins as potent endocrine disruptors. More than 95% of human dioxin exposure comes through dietary intake, with animal fats being the primary pathway because dioxins bioaccumulate in fatty tissues.

The contamination extends far beyond dioxins. Heavy metals like mercury and cadmium concentrate up the food chain, particularly in organ meats and dairy products. Persistent pesticides from the genetically modified corn and soy that feeds industrial livestock create an additional toxic burden. Recent testing reveals the scope of this contamination: in 2023, DDE (a DDT metabolite) was detected in 35% of butter samples tested, while bifenthrin, a neurotoxic insecticide, was found in 37% of butter samples in 2021. This occurs decades after these chemicals were banned or restricted, demonstrating how persistent organic pollutants accumulate in animal fats.

A comprehensive 2024 study examining pesticide exposure through food found that livestock and poultry accounted for 39% of overall exposure to carcinogenic pesticides, while milk and dairy products accounted for 22% of all exposures. Behind every steak or glass of milk lies a chemical supply chain that begins with pesticide intensive crops like corn and soy used to fatten animals quickly and cheaply. These chemicals don't stay in the soil, they accumulate in animal tissue, fat, and milk, eventually reaching consumers' plates.

These compounds bind to fat and accumulate over time, with even background levels potentially exceeding safe daily intake, especially for children and pregnant women, who are particularly vulnerable to the cumulative impacts of these toxic chemicals.

The European Union has long banned ractopamine, growth hormones, and many feed additives commonplace in U.S. production. Over 100 countries prohibit drugs that remain standard in American livestock operations. Rather than reassessing standards, the U.S. continues exporting drug contaminated meat while normalizing domestic consumption through dietary recommendations.

The MAHA Contradiction: Policy vs. Principles

The most troubling aspect of current policy is the stark contradiction between Making America Healthy Again rhetoric and the governmental action led by the Administration and legislature.

Secretary Kennedy has dedicated much of his career to highlighting the failures of intensive animal factories. - He and I first met in Congress when I and CFS hosted an event with screening the documentary “Pig Business.” MAHA at its core stands for freeing animals from industrial confinement and returning them to the land. However, the Administration and Republican Congress at large are actively working against these goals.

While Health Secretary Kennedy focuses on reducing pharmaceutical exposure, the Department of Agriculture continues dismantling programs critical for organic transition while increasing billions in support for chemical intensive industrial agriculture. Recent layoffs of FDA staff tasked with ensuring animal drug safety further compromise oversight.

In April 2025, Senator Joni Ernst introduced the Senate Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S. 1326) with cosponsors including Senator Roger Marshall, chair of the MAHA caucus. Modeled after the failed EATS Act, which family farmers and advocates have been beating back for more than a decade, this bill is driven by the largest industrial agriculture interests, not by independent farmers. It would bar states and localities from enforcing agricultural production standards on products from other states, overturning measures such as California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, and could nullify local protections against pesticides, herbicide drift, and other environmental hazards. The recently introduced “Save Our Bacon Act” by Representative Ashley Hinson targets Proposition 12 directly, seeking to block its requirement that farmers provide pigs enough space to turn around. Under current gestation crate systems, pregnant sows are kept in metal enclosures so small they cannot sit or lie down for four months at a time.

The EATS Act, coupled with the proposed chemical liability shield which would prevent states and municipalities from holding chemical companies accountable for harm, form a coordinated one-two punch.

They would entrench factory farming, strip communities of protections against toxic chemical exposure, and ensure millions of animals remain in extreme confinement. The House and Senate farm bills are due out soon and will likely include these provisions, making it essential to address them now before they become embedded in must-pass legislation.

Thousands of food, farming, and health advocates nationwide are mobilizing to stop them. The entire government was elected on a promise to advance MAHA and continues to benefit from the popularity of MAHA messaging and polling. Many politicians, including Secretary Rollins, are vocally supportive of the movement in public, yet are strongly advancing measures that would weaken current agricultural standards and undermine the rights of states to protect their citizens. This is a pivotal moment for the movement to unite and make clear that protecting public health, animal welfare, and environmental safety requires stopping these provisions before they become law and holding those advancing them accountable.

The cruel irony is that promoting increased animal fat consumption before transforming production systems essentially advocates for more factory farming, more pharmaceutical contamination, and more animal suffering, the exact opposite of MAHA's stated mission. It also means more human consumption of pharmaceuticals and more ill health, as consumers unknowingly ingest the very drug residues that MAHA claims to oppose in healthcare while getting them instead through their dinner plates.

The Mathematical Impossibility

Even if policy aligned with high animal sourced food dietary principles, the mathematics of meat consumption recommendations don't work.

I choose a plant-based diet while supporting and advocating for the consumption of ‘less meat and better meat,’ with the conversion of as much existing animal production as possible to organic pasture and tree range®, high-welfare systems. I worked to create the Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC) with Compassion in World Farming, and the Rodale Institute, which adds animal welfare and soil health indices into advanced organic standards.

However, a 2012 study found that a shift to all grass fed beef in the United States would require an additional 200,000 square miles of land, an area larger than New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio combined. This figure accounts only for converting 2012 beef production to pasture raised systems, not the dramatically increased consumption levels being promoted by current advocates who recommend massive increases in beef, lamb, game, organ meats, poultry, eggs, and full fat dairy.

The land requirements for such dramatic increases in animal product consumption would far exceed even these already impossible numbers.

The push for higher consumption levels of animal sourced foods in U.S. Dietary Guideline reform would drive land demands far beyond what is available for any form of animal production, least of all humane pasture based systems. Meeting this increased market demand would intensify the already harmful impacts on animal welfare, human health, and exposure to agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. These proposals cannot be reconciled with any credible definition of health, whether considered from the perspective of human wellbeing, animal welfare, or environmental integrity.

A Comprehensive Path Forward

Let’s face it, if Americans chose to move away from fake food to whole organic foods, we would see rapid significant health benefits and disease reversal, reduction in chemical exposure and significant increases in nutrition intake.

So, before debating nutritional ideology, we must ensure food integrity through comprehensive reform.

This requires redirecting federal subsidies away from GMO corn and soy toward regenerative organic agriculture (which is different from “regenerative agriculture” a term used by chemical producers unable to meet organic standards), providing the funding and technical support necessary for farmer transitions to clean production methods. We need robust residue testing with full public transparency, so consumers can make informed decisions about the food they feed their families.

The regulatory system itself needs overhaul. FDA must implement mandatory environmental and health impact reviews for all animal drugs, rather than placing the burden on the public to prove harm after approval. The agency should prioritize food quality over food group politics in developing nutrition guidance, recognizing that the source and production method of food matters as much as the food category itself.

We need a cultural shift away from ultra-processed food toward living nourishment that honors both the life consumed and the consumer. This means supporting bio individuality in dietary choices while ensuring that whatever someone chooses to eat, whether plant based or including animal products, is real, uncontaminated, and raised in ways that honor the dignity of all involved from soil to soul.

Most critically, we need animals freed from the factory farm system that treats them as production units rather than sentient beings. This industrial model has created corporate indentured servants of the farmers employed to run these operations, trapping them in cycles of debt and environmental degradation that harm rural communities. True food policy reform must address the wellbeing of farmers, animals, and consumers as interconnected parts of a living system.

The False Promise of "Ancestral" Eating in The Age of Industrial Agriculture

Promoting greater meat and dairy consumption without transforming the production system will not lead Americans to high quality, pasture raised foods. It will increase exposure to drugs, hormones, and chemicals that undermine the very health outcomes these dietary changes aim to achieve. The manifestation of Making America Healthy Again depends on coherence between values and action. We cannot present factory farmed fat as health food or offer a chemically compromised diet in the name of tradition.

Until our food supply is clean, dietary guidelines promoting increased animal fat consumption are not ancestral wisdom, they're industrial harm disguised as nutrition science. The sad truth is, there's no such thing as ancestral eating in today's highly industrialized, cruel, animal production system.

Policies made by this Administration and Congress, despite vocal alignment and promises to Make America Healthy Again, have actually set regenerative organic agriculture back decades, dismantling advances made by the food movement, while increasing subsidies to the largest, most harmful and regressive practices, both increasing toxic load and pharmaceuticals in animal production.

Ancestral eating was based upon the ecological carrying capacity of the land, the wild herding of animals through ecosystems rich in biodiversity stewarded, not dominated, by the human communities living within them. Animals were ritually hunted, honored when sacrificed and consumed. Everything was eaten, nothing was wasted, and the sacred cycle of life, death and return was embodied in this way of life and eating. Humans would also have eaten diets seasonally rich in fruit, nuts and wild medicinal herbs, and most importantly, food choices would have been determined by bioregions and individual needs.

This system bears no resemblance to animals imprisoned in metal cages, pumped full of pharmaceutical cocktails, fed chemically saturated GMO grains, and slaughtered in industrial facilities that process thousands of drugged, stressed, abused animals per day. To call this ancestral is to mock both our ancestors and the animals suffering within this system.

The path is clear: Transform the supply first, then consider adjusting demand. In any case, the only approach that works practically is eating less meat and better meat.