价格与供给数据构成主要背景：截至 2025 年中（原文 mid-2025），美国牛群规模降至至少 50 年来最低；牛肉价格屡创新高；US Bureau of Labor Statistics 数据显示零售牛排价格较前一年上涨近 18%。消费者未明显减少牛肉摄取，而是「降级」：餐厅改用较便宜部位或更小份量，家庭改为超市购买在家烹调；ribeye 通常仅次于 filet 为第二昂贵部位，使其成为指南主图更显与大众现实脱节。
受访者提供可操作的解读与政策张力：Baldor Specialty Foods / Golden Meat Co. 的 Kevin Lindgren 指出在供给不足下宣示「人人需要更多」不具可行性，转而建议 ground beef、pork、chicken；营养科学家 Ty Beal 承认 ribeye 文化上偏向较富裕或健康／影响者族群，且自述约每年一次才吃 ribeye。指南同时提出儿童「不建议任何 added sugars」与「让做饭成为家庭常规」等理想化目标，被描述为生物学上「最优」但与现实相距甚远；在 USDA 食物援助政策（限制购买 soda、candy）与 One Big Beautiful Bill 对援助资金的削减背景下，指南的可负担性论证缺乏公开量化支撑（USDA 未提供所称图表，仅声称有『保守估计』的『数十万』符合选项）。
The piece argues that the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) amplify a practical contradiction: they keep a saturated-fat cap of 10% of daily calories while visually centering a large ribeye steak atop an inverted pyramid, prompting doubts about coherence, process, and conflicts of interest. Officials at Health and Human Services, via spokesperson Andrew Nixon, insist the work reflects rigorous review and independent oversight. The guidelines’ five-year release cycle again produces mixed praise and skepticism.
Affordability is framed by supply and price data. By mid-2025, the US cattle herd is at its lowest level in at least a half-century, and beef prices are repeatedly setting records. US Bureau of Labor Statistics data show retail steak prices up almost 18% year over year. Consumers are not broadly abandoning beef; instead they trade down—restaurants switch cuts or reduce portion sizes, and households shift from steakhouses to supermarket steaks cooked at home.
Sources describe the ribeye image as culturally and economically disconnected: ribeye is typically the second-most-expensive cut after filet. Kevin Lindgren (Baldor Specialty Foods / Golden Meat Co.) argues demand signaling is unrealistic when supply is tight, pointing to ground beef, pork, or chicken. Nutrition scientist Ty Beal calls the image influencer-leaning and says he eats ribeye about once a year. The DGA’s “no added sugars” stance for children and other “optimal” targets collide with policy constraints around food aid (limits on soda/candy purchases and funding cuts tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill), while USDA claims “hundreds of thousands” of compliant meals without publishing the promised cost chart.