The new dietary guidelines from the Dutch Voedingscentrum when climate activism gets in the way of nutritional education

A few weeks ago, the new *Schijf van Vijf* was released in the Netherlands, which is the name for the dietary guidelines of the Dutch Voedingscentrum (Nutrition Centre). In the past, this was sometimes mockingly referred to as the *Nutrition Unilever Centre* because it recommended a lot of processed food produced by the food industry, of which Unilever is one of the key players. Additionally, there was often cross-pollination: many former Unilever employees went to work at the Nutrition Centre and vice versa. Conflicts of interest are certainly lurking in the background.

Currently, the accusations against the Nutrition Centre are of a different nature, namely that they allow themselves to be influenced by climate targets and, partly for that reason, advise the population to consume much less meat and dairy than is useful or even desirable for health purposes.

In contrast, we are advised to consume more legumes.

We have actually been doing this ourselves more often in recent years because it is a tasty and affordable way to consume both more fiber and protein. However, there is a group of people who do not tolerate legumes very well. We have written about this before in an article about the FODMAP diet.

Two Dutch health gurus have set out their objections in a short column (Ralph Moorman) and a longer article (Juglen Zwaan), respectively.
I thought it would be useful to include these worthwhile articles on our own blog and also make them available in English.

Ralph Moorman wrote this short column

The new Food Pyramid with a side dish of guilt!

The time has come. The new Food Pyramid from the Netherlands Nutrition Centre has been published, based on the guidelines of the Health Council. On paper, it seems like a logical process: science translated into practical advice. In reality, something fundamental has shifted. For the first time, sustainability has been explicitly woven into dietary advice intended for human health. And that is precisely where the problem begins. For where does health end, and where does ideology begin?

Adding sustainability to the Food Pyramid creates a diffuse mix of goals. Is dietary advice given because it is demonstrably better for the body? Or because it is supposedly better for the climate? Those two are now uncomfortably intertwined, and that undermines the clarity upon which dietary advice should ideally rest. Even more fundamentally: it compromises scientific purity. As soon as multiple agendas—in this case, health and sustainability—are brought together in a single piece of advice, the risk of bias increases. That is not an opinion, that is a well-known phenomenon within science:

• Confirmation bias: selecting evidence that supports the desired direction
• Halo effect: one positive characteristic (such as sustainability) colors the overall judgment
• Selection bias: comparing studies that are not actually comparable

Anyone who thinks this is not an issue here overestimates the neutrality of policy and underestimates the influence of political pressure. What stands out is that the societal reaction is unprecedentedly sharp. Not only from critics, but especially from people who for years had blind faith in institutions. When even an 80-year-old gym-goer says to me this morning: “Leave my plate alone, always this patronizing,” then something fundamental has gone wrong. That sentiment is not ignorance. It is a signal that the Netherlands Nutrition Centre (and politics) is venturing onto a slippery slope with this. The authority it held in the field of health was already under pressure and now threatens to crumble further because it is interfering in a debate that is not primarily health-preventive, but politically charged.

Sustainability should not be hidden in general health guidelines. Anyone who wants to follow a sustainable diet deserves a fair and transparent framework. Those who do not want this should not receive an implicit moral disclaimer with every piece of dietary advice. Then create two Food Pyramids:

• one for optimal health
• one for the best possible combination of health and sustainability

But do not mix them. For when everything has to be served at once, everything ultimately loses sharpness and credibility. It is to be hoped that the Nutrition Centre realizes this in time and that it can still regain its course.

Juglen Zwaan of A Healthy Life articulated it in a more detailed (Dutch) article 

The new Food Pyramid: what is good about it and what could be better?

After 10 years, the Netherlands Nutrition Centre has updated the Food Pyramid (Schijf van Vijf). Some changes are positive, while others raise questions.
The Food Pyramid has existed since 1953 and aims to show the average Dutch person without knowledge of nutrition what constitutes a healthy diet. The Nutrition Centre translates the scientific guidelines of the Health Council into practical advice. However, in this new version, the Nutrition Centre goes further than the Health Council advises on some points.

What has changed?

The biggest shifts are in the section regarding protein sources. The guideline for the amount of meat has dropped significantly, from a maximum of 500 grams per week to 300 grams. Of that, only 100 grams may be red meat, such as beef or pork. The remaining 200 grams are then for white meat such as chicken. The recommendation of one portion of fish is separate from this and has remained unchanged.

It is striking that the Health Council itself advises a maximum of 200 grams of red meat per week, but the Nutrition Centre halves that to 100 grams. The average Dutch person currently eats more than 600 grams of meat per week, so the difference with reality is significant. Processed meats such as sausage, ham, and bacon are moving from a daily choice to a weekly choice. This means that a sandwich with liver sausage should only be on the menu at most once a week. The advice is now to eat mainly legumes. The recommended amount goes from 120 - 180 grams to 250 grams per week. For some groups, it goes much further, as women who eat little bread are advised to eat as much as 525 grams of legumes per week, and for male vegans, it can rise to 795 grams. Cheese intake is also being restricted, from a maximum of 40 to 20 grams per day, which amounts to a halving and, in practice, means two thin slices from the cheese slicer. Furthermore, the advice is to replace dairy more often with plant-based alternatives.

What is good about it?

There are certainly positive aspects to the new Food Pyramid. For instance, food safety is being structurally incorporated for the first time. The Netherlands Nutrition Centre has examined exposure to harmful substances such as PFAS and now takes this into account in its recommendations. This is a good thing, as these substances are widespread in the environment (and consequently in our food chain) and more and more is becoming known about their harmful effects. In addition, the approach is now broader. The Nutrition Centre looks not only at health, but also at the environment and sustainability. You can have all kinds of opinions about that, but the fact that they examine these three pillars together makes the advice more comprehensive in any case. The fact that more legumes and less red meat have a positive influence on both health and the environment is well-substantiated scientifically.

A lot of negativity on social media

On social media and in public discourse, the criticism is harsh. Many people feel that the Nutrition Centre is going too far and that they have lost their way. If you follow the hashtag #schijfvanvijf on social media, you will see that there are remarkably few positive voices. The new guidelines are literally being torn to shreds. Some call it "the climate disc" and feel that health has been subordinated to sustainability. Others speak of paternalism and fear that this is the prelude to a meat tax. There is also distrust directed towards the Nutrition Centre as an institution, with people questioning its independence and pointing to historical ties with the food industry. And then there is the more substantive criticism that the Disc still relies too heavily on carbohydrates, is too cautious with fats, and too negative about animal products. I agree with some of that criticism, but I also get the feeling that the Nutrition Centre can never do it right with some people. There is a group that simply does not want to be told what they ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ eat. The guidelines lead to resistance within this group, meaning there is no fair view of the advice. The positive points are then, by definition, overshadowed. The Five-Food Group is not a diet, but a guideline. Nutrition is custom-made, and you can never create a single dietary pattern that suits everyone.

Juglen Zwaan´s vision

I think that if the majority of the Dutch population were to switch to the Food Pyramid, their dietary patterns would likely improve, if only because about 80 percent of the Dutch do not even meet the standard for fruit and vegetables. Nevertheless, I see plenty of room for improvement:

Plant-based proteins not a full-fledged substitute

Proteins from meat naturally have a different composition and contain all essential amino acids in proportions that the body can easily utilize. They also contain minerals in a form that is better absorbed. Therefore, plant-based protein sources such as legumes cannot be directly equated with animal proteins. Additionally, plant-based food does not contain vitamin B12. You can only obtain that from animal products, or you must obtain it via supplements. It is also difficult to obtain sufficient long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, and vitamin D from plant-based foods. You could argue that some meat substitutes are enriched with this, but many of these products fall under the category of highly processed foods and contain additives that definitely do not belong in a healthy diet.

Red meat and nitrites

Is red meat unhealthy in itself, or does the problem lie with the nitrite salt added to much processed meat? Nitrite salt, also known as sodium nitrite, is used to prevent discoloration and inhibit bacterial growth. Many studies link this substance to a significantly increased risk of cancer. Yet, the Dutch Food Pyramid (Schijf van Vijf) does not make a clear distinction between unprocessed red meat and meat full of additives, including nitrite salt.

Pesticides and organic farming

Another point completely missing from the new Food Pyramid is attention to pesticides and the benefits of organic or biodynamic farming. Not a word is said about it, even though it definitely matters whether you eat fruit and vegetables that have been sprayed or not. Organic farming is not only better for your own health, but also for the soil, biodiversity, and the planet. It is striking that the Netherlands Nutrition Centre has made sustainability a key priority, yet subsequently fails to mention the most obvious sustainable choice. Instead, the emphasis is mainly on legumes as a meat substitute, as if that were the only knob you could turn.

The problem with legumes

And then there is another very practical point that I find concerning. Legumes are known to be full of FODMAPs, carbohydrates that ferment in the intestines and cause symptoms in many people such as bloating, stomach pain, and intestinal cramps. There is a significant group of people who do not tolerate legumes well at all. If you also have to eat less meat, you are quickly left empty-handed. What do you eat if you are barely allowed to eat meat and cannot digest legumes well? That is a question the Food Pyramid does not provide a good answer to. I think it is fine in itself that we, as a country, are going to eat more legumes (lentils, chickpeas, and beans are very nutritious and high in fiber), but the amounts currently recommended are not feasible for everyone.

Where is the fermented food?

What I also miss in the new Food Pyramid is attention to fermented vegetables. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear how important the microbiome is for good basic health. A healthy microbiome can inhibit inflammation in the body and influences the entire organism, from the brain to the immune system.

It ensures a stronger intestinal wall, a better mucous membrane, and fewer toxic substances in the bloodstream. Fermented vegetables (such as sauerkraut and kimchi) are ideally suited as a side dish to nourish the microbiome. Yet, many of these products are not included in the Food Pyramid because they supposedly contain too much salt. I find that unfortunate and also a bit inconsistent.

Bread, for instance, is prominently listed at number one in the Pyramid, even though it contains quite a bit of salt. That is allowed, partly because baker's salt contains iodine. But if you make fermented food with sea salt to which iodine has been added, you could use the same argument. I would have preferred to see the Netherlands Nutrition Centre encourage people to start fermenting themselves and also mention other sources of iodine, instead of dismissing fermented foods as being too salty.

Laying behind the times

Another point that has been bothering me for a while is that a revamped Food Pyramid (Schijf van Vijf) quickly lags behind the science. Around a million new health studies are published worldwide every year. But before that knowledge ends up on your plate, a lot has to happen. First, the wise men and women of the Health Council have to look into it, often retroactively. Only then does the Netherlands Nutrition Centre get to work translating those guidelines into a new dietary pattern. There is delay upon delay involved. The advantage is that they can thus sift through what is and isn't solid evidence, but the disadvantage is that making quick adjustments based on new insights is not possible. Ten years between two versions is simply too long. Science does not stand still during that time, so the Food Pyramid is essentially always playing catch-up.

The gap between advice and reality

Most Dutch people do not eat according to the Food Pyramid (Schijf van Vijf). Figures from the RIVM show that at most one in three Dutch people meet the recommended amounts. The average Dutch person currently eats less than 50 grams of legumes per week, which translates to about twice a month. It was already difficult to eat according to the previous Food Pyramid, and it is becoming even harder now. The Netherlands Nutrition Centre itself acknowledges this gap and emphasizes that it is a direction, not a strict prescription.

In practice, therefore, the Food Pyramid exists mainly on paper. Health fanatics often go much further than the guidelines and usually eat organic, completely unprocessed food, and lots of vegetables and fruit.

Meanwhile, the average Joe simply grabs a hamburger or hot dog from a vending machine and pays little attention to what the Food Pyramid prescribes. These two worlds barely touch, and the Food Pyramid sits somewhere in between.

The Unilever Connection

What has surprised me for years is that the directors of the Nutrition Centre invariably come from Unilever. For instance, the current director, Petra Verhoef, worked at Unilever for nearly twelve years. Her predecessor, Gerda Feunekes, also came from Unilever. And the director before that, Yvonne van Sluys, had likewise worked at Unilever for years before she was at the helm of the Nutrition Centre for eleven years. Three directors from the stable of the same food giant! I visited the Nutrition Centre in 2016 and had a very good conversation with them. I got the impression that sincere people work there who do their best, but I keep wondering why those directors always have to come from the food industry. I raised this issue back then. The Nutrition Centre is already struggling with a credibility problem, and this pattern doesn't help matters. I find it incomprehensible that it has to be a director from Unilever time and time again..

Millions of euros, but where are the results?

The Netherlands Nutrition Centre has always operated on around 12-13 million euros in government subsidies per year. Starting this year, over 3 million euros is being cut from that budget, resulting in 21 employees losing their jobs and extra activities being discontinued. That is unfortunate, of course, but it also raises questions. All those years and all those millions have had a very limited effect, because only a small minority of the Dutch population eats enough fruit and vegetables. The range in supermarkets consists of about 70 percent refined foods, and sugar is added to half of the products. So where is it going wrong? In my view, the Netherlands Nutrition Centre should be focusing much more on a healthier range in supermarkets instead of offering non-binding advice that almost no one follows. They should force change through political pressure, rather than the other way around. In my view, it is simply ridiculous that we in the Netherlands need an organization like Foodwatch to advocate for the health value of our food, while the Nutrition Centre pays no attention to it.

Concluding remarks

The gap between the Food Pyramid and our plates was already very large, and with this adjustment, it has only widened. The Nutrition Centre, which has had ten years to come up with this adjustment, could have refined the recommendations a bit further as far as I am concerned. All in all, I consider the new Food Pyramid to be two steps forward and one step back; on balance, therefore, a small improvement.

At the same time, I see plenty of room for improvement: less wheat in the form of bread and pasta, more attention to fermented foods, what you can eat if you cannot tolerate legumes, and attention to organic products. Hopefully, this will be included in the next version, but we will probably have to wait another ten years for that.

Summary

The Netherlands Nutrition Centre recently released its updated Schijf van Vijf (Food Pyramid) dietary guidelines. While previous versions faced criticism for ties to the food industry (notably Unilever), the new version is accused of prioritizing climate sustainability over optimal human nutrition.

Key changes include sharply reducing meat intake—from a maximum of 500g to 300g per week, with red meat limited to just 100g—and halving cheese recommendations to 20g daily. Legumes are heavily promoted (up to 250g+ per week, or far more for certain groups), alongside more plant-based dairy alternatives. Fish recommendations remain unchanged.

Critics Ralph Moorman and Juglen Zwaan argue that intertwining health advice with environmental goals introduces bias, confirmation bias, and ideological influence, undermining scientific credibility. Moorman calls for separate guidelines: one for pure health, another combining health and sustainability.

Zwaan acknowledges positives, such as incorporating food safety (e.g., PFAS) and a broader perspective, but highlights shortcomings: animal proteins are nutritionally superior and better absorbed than plant-based ones; legumes cause digestive issues for many (FODMAP intolerance); no emphasis on organic produce or fermented foods for gut health; and failure to distinguish clearly between processed and unprocessed meats.

The guidelines face widespread public backlash for paternalism, with low adherence rates among the Dutch population. Critics note the advice lags behind emerging science and has limited real-world impact despite significant funding.