Trust Is Essential

The annual TrustTracker study, conducted for EIT Food,  a European innovation community focused on sustainable food systems, highlights how serious the situation has become. Many consumers genuinely want to eat healthier but lack the trust needed to translate that intention into action.

More than half of Europeans identify healthier eating as the most important change they would like to make to their diet, showing that motivation is not the problem. At the same time, trust in food-related communication is low. Only about 40% of consumers consider information about food to be reliable, and fewer than half know where to find trustworthy information. Just 34% view the Dutch government as a reliable source of information about food and health. Even doctors and medical professionals are not regarded as reliable sources of food information by 24% of respondents.

This combination of high intention and low trust leads to uncertainty and hesitation. Consumers generally know what healthy eating looks like—thanks in part to decades of public communication—but they become confused by contradictory messages, shifting claims, and distrust toward both commercial actors and public authorities. As a result, the desire to eat healthier often remains stuck at the level of intention, without being translated into everyday choices, precisely because a trustworthy and shared reference framework is lacking.

Debate Is Good; Unfounded Criticism Is Harmful

The fierce and polarized criticism directed at the updated Schijf van Vijf is therefore not harmless. Framing the guidelines as ideological, patronizing, or unrealistic further undermines the authority of scientifically grounded nutrition advice. This can lead to confusion, cynicism, and ultimately a decline in public support for healthy and sustainable dietary choices.

At a time when diet-related health problems and climate challenges are escalating, weakening one of the few broadly supported dietary frameworks is deeply concerning.

This article is written from the conviction that the debate surrounding the Schijf van Vijf deserves a different perspective. The central question should not be whether guidelines are “perfect.” They never are—and that is precisely why they are continuously updated as scientific insights evolve.

By placing the Schijf van Vijf in historical, scientific, and behavioural context, this article aims to contribute to a more nuanced debate and a better understanding of why this guideline is particularly important right now.

(For readers interested in history: food historian Jon Verriet has meticulously documented the history of the Schijf van Vijf.)

But what Exactly Is the Criticism?

“It’s Political!”

Many critics question whether, by explicitly incorporating sustainability and climate impact, the Nutrition Centre is still offering purely health-based advice or has crossed into normative policy-making. This criticism assumes that normativity is something new. It overlooks the fact that nutrition guidance has always been intertwined with social and political considerations. Earlier versions of the Schijf van Vijf were never value-neutral.

For example, the prominent position of dairy products in early editions of the guideline was partly driven by policy objectives of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture. Promoting dairy consumption was seen as strategically important for the country’s future and its agricultural sector. This emphasis was therefore only partially rooted in nutritional necessity and also reflected broader economic and strategic interests.

This political lobbying is well documented, including the response of the public nutrition information agency at the time. In a 1958 board meeting, the agency discussed a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture requesting greater emphasis on milk in nutrition education. The board concluded that it should remain objective, avoid strongly promoting a single food product, and clearly distance itself from advertising. One board member noted: “The public no longer believes that milk is healthy. Too much politics has been dragged into it.” (8 December 1958).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the argument that today’s guidelines have become “political” is now voiced most loudly from actors connected to the very same dairy sector.

Seen in this historical light, the current expansion to include sustainability is not a break with the past but a continuation of a long-standing practice in which health advice and normative choices are inseparable—and that is entirely appropriate. The Nutrition Centre aims to promote overall societal well-being. And ultimately, a food system that supports a well-functioning ecosystem is also in the best interest of public health.

“It’s Not Scientifically Sound!”

A second common claim is that recommendations to reduce animal-based products are scientifically controversial or lack consensus. In reality, the opposite is true. Scientific agreement on this issue has only strengthened in recent years.

Major international syntheses, such as the EAT-Lancet Commission report, as well as repeated recommendations from organisations like the World Health Organization and national health councils show that diets with less red and processed meat and more plant-based protein sources offer health benefits while significantly reducing environmental pressure. There is no serious scientific dispute about this. The debate within science focuses on the details: pace, implementation, and context.

The updated Schijf van Vijf aligns with this broad international knowledge base. The choices made are thoroughly documented by the Nutrition Centre. This is not an ideological experiment, but a translation of robust, repeatedly confirmed research into the Dutch context.

“People Can’t Do This!”

Another frequent criticism is that the guidelines widen the gap between advice and daily practice. Higher recommendations for legumes and lower meat consumption are said to require behavioural changes that many consumers cannot realistically make. This concern often underestimates how small the actual gap is for most people.

The updated Schijf van Vijf closely resembles current eating patterns in the Netherlands and does not require radical change. No special cooking skills are needed; the emphasis is on small shifts within familiar meals and routines. Financially, the recommendations are not a barrier either. Eating according to the Schijf van Vijf is not more expensive and, due to the greater emphasis on plant-based staples, is often cheaper than common alternatives.

Feasibility was explicitly considered in developing the guidelines. The Schijf van Vijf does not demand a dietary revolution, but a realistic recalibration of what many people already eat.

“Some People Need Different Food!”

A final recurring criticism is that the Schijf van Vijf does not apply to everyone. For example, older adults or people with specific nutritional needs. This is precisely why it is designed as a dietary pattern, not a rigid or uniform diet.

The Nutrition Centre explicitly recognizes that nutrition advice only works when it aligns with different life stages, health conditions, and daily circumstances. That is why the general framework is supported by practical tools and tailored guidance, including adapted recommendations for older adults, pregnant women, vegetarians, and people with different energy needs. Online tools, sample menus, portion guidance, and budget-sensitive recipes help translate the advice into individual contexts.

The Schijf van Vijf is therefore not a one-size-fits-all prescription, but a flexible instrument designed to accommodate individual differences and enhance real-world applicability.

The Criticism Is Far Less Well‑Founded Than the New Guidelines

Unsurprisingly, much of the criticism does not originate in the scientific community, but from opinion makers, interest groups, and actors with direct economic stakes in preserving the current position of meat and dairy.

A telling—and deeply unfortunate—example was the public appearance of Dutch politician Caroline van der Plas, who attacked the Schijf van Vijf on national television by defending the “honest Dutch meatball,” while ignoring the fact that the cattle used for this production are largely fed imported soy—the very practice she criticizes. I find it hard to believe she is unaware of this. More likely, she understands very well that this narrative resonates strongly with a large segment of voters.

The Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB) party in the province of North Holland went even further by publishing its own version of a “Schijf van Vijf.” I will not share the link, as I would rather limit its visibility. But once political parties begin issuing their own nutrition guidelines, the floodgates truly open. It is worth considering how this initiative fits with the claim that official dietary guidelines are “too political.”

Criticism and public debate are essential for good policy. But when criticism becomes detached from empirical evidence and is primarily used to protect vested interests or gain electoral advantage, it undermines the authority and effectiveness of meaningful, important, and scientifically sound nutrition guidelines.

Nutrition Education Works (Over the Long Term)

Opposing the scepticism about content is a substantial body of empirical evidence showing that nutrition education does work—especially over the long term. The TrustTracker study demonstrates that consumers in most countries have a remarkably consistent and reasonably accurate understanding of which foods they should limit and which they should eat more often. This shared reference framework is no accident. It is the result of decades of guidelines and public communication.

National differences further illustrate this effect. In the Netherlands, attitudes toward dairy are consistently more positive than in many other European countries. This is partly a result of long-standing policy and communication efforts by the Ministry of Agriculture and the dairy sector to position dairy as essential and healthy. This shows how guidelines and communication shape norms and assumptions about food. The impact is rarely immediate, but cumulative—slowly shifting knowledge, imagery, and expectations over time. Nutrition education is therefore not a quick fix, but an investment in long-term change.

The Schijf van Vijf as a Starting Point, Not an End Point

The updated Schijf van Vijf provides the Netherlands with a solid, scientifically grounded foundation for healthy and sustainable eating. We should consider ourselves fortunate to have an institution like the Voedingscentrum.

The debate surrounding the Schijf van Vijf requires maturity and responsibility. Change is inevitable in a world where scientific insights, health patterns, and societal challenges are constantly evolving. This calls not for clinging defensively to the familiar, but for the ability to weigh new knowledge and adapt our behaviour step by step.

Criticism has its place, but only well‑founded debate contributes to improvement. Casting unfounded doubt undermines precisely the trust that is needed to make progress. Anyone who genuinely cares about health, sustainability, and public information should not reflexively resist change, but embrace it as an opportunity—and engage in debate grounded in facts, proportionality, and shared goals.