We're eating too much sugar. There are ways to change that. | Opinion
The federal government should pay attention to what states and localities are doing with taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, which are the single largest source of added sugars in children's diets.
In January, the Trump administration released new dietary guidelines for Americans, calling for children to avoid any added sugar until age 11. It was the most ambitious stance on children's sugar intake in at least a decade ‒ and a recognition of how seriously added sugar is harming kids' health.
As a researcher who studies how American families eat, I welcomed this new guidance. However, as a mom of a 6-year-old, it felt impossible to follow.
Added sugar isn't just in candy and soda. It's pervasive, hiding in everyday staples families depend on ‒ from bread and yogurt to tomato sauce and cereal. Because of this, reaching the guidelines' target requires more than asking parents like me to cut back on desserts and sweets. It demands comprehensive policy action to transform the food environment we navigate every day with our children.
Yet six months after the guidelines' release, the administration has yet to take such action.
That's why I recently released a policy brief with colleagues at the Global Food Institute that offers a road map for how to reduce the amount of sugar in our diets. It focuses on three areas where the federal government has the authority to act right now, and where the window to do so is unusually open.
Several ways to reduce our sugar fix
First, the administration should set stricter standards around added sugar in the places where children learn and play, from childcare and schools to aftercare programs. School meals reach roughly 30 million children on any given school day, and current law requires those nutrition standards to align with the dietary guidelines.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to release updated nutrition standards for school meals. It should use this opportunity to make good on the requirement to reduce sugar.
Right now, a single school lunch can contain more than half of the added sugar the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends for an entire day. Even under new sugar limits set to take effect in 2027, that won't change enough.
USDA should further reduce how much added sugar is allowed, while investing in kitchen infrastructure so schools can prepare more food on site and move away from prepackaged products that are often high in sugar.
Getting added sugar out of childcare, where roughly 11 million young children spend their days, is equally critical. Exposure so early in life shapes children's food preferences for years to come, with excess sugar intake linked to higher rates of diabetes and hypertension later in life. Yet federal nutrition programs that fund meals in childcare centers and homes impose no overall cap on added sugars.
Under current rules, a toddler could finish a compliant breakfast having consumed more added sugar than the AHA recommends ‒ because limits apply by food category, not by meal.
USDA should close that gap. And because Head Start, which serves roughly 800,000 of the lowest-income children under age 5, is required to follow federal childcare nutrition standards, that update would automatically reach the children who need it most.
Warning labels could change consumer behavior
On the supply side, the Food and Drug Administration should act on its stated intent to work with food manufacturers to set targets for how much added sugar they should reduce in their products, from breakfast foods to packaged snacks. This voluntary approach can be a workable starting point, but mandatory targets would have the greatest public health impact in the long run.
On the demand side, the federal government should pay close attention to what states and localities are already doing with taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, which are the single largest source of added sugars in children's diets. Cities that have enacted these kinds of taxes have seen a 15% reductions in sales, with measurable effects on children's weight. That growing body of evidence is worth monitoring for a potential federal tax down the road.
Finally, parents deserve clear, accessible information about where and in what amounts added sugar exists in the foods they're buying. Currently, that information is buried on the back of food packages in numbers hard to quickly interpret.
There is a better way. In 2025, the FDA proposed mandatory labels on the front of food packages that would clearly flag products as high, medium or low in added sugars. Other countries, including Chile and Canada, already require front-of-package warning labels.
The evidence shows warning labels work, both shifting what consumers buy and pushing manufacturers to reformulate their products. The FDA should finalize its rule to bring that transparency to American families.
Each of these changes would make it a little easier for parents like me to do what the guidelines are asking. The guidelines set an ambitious target, but ambition without policy follow-through isn't enough.
Parents across the country, myself included, are counting on the administration to deliver.
Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the Global Food Institute of the George Washington University, is the author of “How the Other Half Eats: The Untold Story of Food and Inequality in America.”