Currently browsing posts about: MAHA

Michael Jacobson, founder and former president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, is now promoting development of a National Food Museum.  One of its projects is keeping score on administration food policies.

He lists them as positive or negative, like this.

The most recent entry is dated June 26, a negative: the huge cut in SNAP benefits.

Alas, the negatives far outweigh the positives.  Take a look.

Thanks to Food Fix for this collection of tracking sites

• STAT News: Isabella Cueto’s report on MAHA’s minimal progress
• HHS: “MAHA in Action” public health wins (Food Fix says this is more like a campaign site).
• FDA:  Food industry pledges to remove food dyes (promises, but not much action yet)

The big news in my world last week was the leaking of drafts of the forthcoming MAHA strategy report.

At least four reporters sent me copies for comments.

• Leaked version dated August 6 (highlighted to indicate food issues)
• Leaked version dated August 11 (no highlights)

I did not do a careful comparison.  The main difference seems to be that the earlier version had this useful graphic about MAHA’s strategic intentions.

All of this may change when the final report is released, but here are my initial thoughts on its food sections.

First, the background: The first report, despite the hallucinated references, was a strong indictment of this country’s neglect of the health of our children. It stated the problems eloquently. It promised that the second report would state policies to address those problems.

As for this report: No such luck.

It states intentions, but when it comes to policy, it has one strong, overall message: more research needed.

Regulate?  Not a chance, except for the long overdue closure of the GRAS loophole (which lets corporations decide for themselves whether chemical additives are safe).

Everything else is waffle words: explore, coordinate, partner, prioritize, develop, or work toward.”

One good thing: the report mentions marketing to children, but only to “explore development of industry guidelines.”  Nothing about regulation.  This is too little too late.  We know what food marketing does to kids.  It’s way past time to stop it.

A few comments on specific issues mentioned.

• “USDA will prioritize precision nutrition research…”  USDA?  NIH is already doing that, and it is the antithesis of public health research, the kind that really will make Americans healthier.
• The report emphasizes color and other chemical additives (we knew it would), a definition (not regulation) of ultra-processed foods, and a potential front-of-pack label (unspecified).
• It says it will modernize infant formula (really? how?), and will work to increase breastfeeding (again, how?).

And then there are the contradictions:

• Improve hospital food, but the administration is taking money away from hospitals.
• Teach doctors about nutrition (how?)
• Prioritize “whole healthy foods” in nutrition assistance programs (but cut SNAP and WIC)
• Expand EFNEP (but eliminate SNAP-ED)
• Promote healthy meals in child care settings (also defunded)
• Encourage grocery stores in low-income areas (how?)

How are they going to do this?  It doesn’t say.

Are there any teeth behind it?  It doesn’t look like this is anything more than voluntary (and we know how voluntary works with the food industry; it doesn’t).  None of this says how or has any teeth behind it.

And oh no!  MAHA boxes.  I’m guessing these are like what got given out—badly—during the pandemic. 

Resources

• Politico: it published the first leak.  Its current headline: “quite industry friendly”
• Stat News (I’m quoted): This covers the entire report and emphasizes the reneging on trying to reduce pesticides in response to industry lobbying
• New York Times (I’m quoted): also a much longer story emphasizing the pesticide problem
• Washington Post: also emphasizing ag issues
• CNN (I’m quoted): lots on processed foods, as well
• Civil Eats: Should Regenerative Farmers Pin Hopes on RFK Jr.’s MAHA?
• Center for Science in the Public Interest: 

It is striking that the leaked Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Strategy Report, like its AI-assisted predecessor, embodies much of the idiosyncratic beliefs about food and drugs of one person: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He might be right about food dyes, but the report’s recommendations to alter our vaccine framework, restructure government agencies, and promote meat and whole milk are going to promote disease, not health…

The report…seems to twist itself into knots to make it clear that it will not be infringing upon food companies….But we also need to judge the administration by what it does, not what it says. And the administration’s attacks on SNAP, Medicaid, the health insurance exchanges, and the FDA and USDA workforces are poised to make America sicker, hungrier, and more at risk from unsafe food.

• John Oliver on the MAHA movement’s lack of genuine policy initiatives (I’m quoted!)  Do not miss this one.

David Kessler, a physician, lawyer, and former FDA Commissioner, has done a great service for the Make America Healthy Again movement.  He has written a letter to RFK Jr presenting a Citizen’s Petition to the FDA: “Petition to Limit the Exposure of Refined
Carbohydrates used in Industrial Processing in order to Prevent Obesity, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease in Children and Adults.”

His petition argues that processed refined carbohydrates should no longer be considered Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS).

These are:

1) refined sweeteners, including corn syrup, corn solids, glucose syrups, dextrose, invert sugar, xylose, maltose, and high fructose corn syrups; and maltodextrin

2) refined flour and starches that are subjected to food extrusion technology, including wheat, corn, tapioca, oat and potato  flour, and starches that are processed by extraction or similar technology, and

3) sucrose, refined flours, or starches that are used with emulsifiers (e.g. mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids, DATEM, sodium stearoyl lactylate, polysorbates); dough conditioners and strengtheners (e.g. azodicarbonamide, L-cysteine, calcium peroxide); humectants (e.g. propylene glycol); stabilizers and gums (e.g. carboxymethylcellulose, methylcellulose); or modified starches and fillers (e.g. regelatinized starch, modified food starch, dextrins).

The carefully argued and lengthy petition makes a strong case for the unhealthy nature of processed refined carbohydrates.

Wow.

If the FDA agrees—and it has to deal with the petition within 180 days—these ingredients would no longer be GRAS and foods containing them would be considered adulterated and illegal to sell.

Here’s what I said to the press:

• This would cover an extraordinarily large percentage of foods that are ultraprocessed…an extraordinarily impressive document” (New York Times).
• Kessler has given the FDA a way to define the vast majority of ultra-processed foods. In doing so, he has handed RFK Jr a huge gift on the path to regulating these products. It’s just what MAHA has asked for. I hope they take it seriously (CNN).

Can’t wait to see how RFK Jr and the FDA handle this.

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) commission was rumored to be releasing its second report, this one on policy, yesterday, but that did not happen.

CNN reported: “New ‘Make America Healthy Again’ report to be released in weeks”

The commission is “on track” to deliver its report to the White House by August 12, White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “The report will be unveiled to the public shortly thereafter as we coordinate the schedules of the President and the various cabinet members who are a part of the Commission.”

We have had plenty of hints about what it might be promoting:

• Get rid of artificial foods dyes   [ok]
• Cane sugar is better than high fructose corn syrup.  [not when it comes to sugars and calories]
• Beef tallow is better than seed oils [not when it comes to heart disease risk].
• Close the GRAS loophole (the rule that lets food companies say whether the additives they use are safe).  [good idea, about time]

According to Politico, after an

outcry from major food businesses and farm groups that are traditionally allies to Trump, the White House promised to stay away from a crackdown on pesticides and avoid surprising the food industry with new additive targets or regulations.  Industry insiders are expecting the report to…secure more voluntary commitments from companies on the transition to natural food dyes, define “ultra-processed foods,” update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, reform the “generally recognized as safe” designation and limit recipients of federal food aid from purchasing junk food with their benefits.

I love Politico’s quote from a food industry lobbyist: “The White House has certainly gotten the message, both from agriculture and the food sector, that they are on the edge of a nanny state…Like this is Michelle Obama on steroids. The message we’ve gotten from the White House is, ‘Don’t worry, we’re not letting the crazy people run rampant over the food sector.’”

In anticipation of the report’s release, Food and Water Watch issued a statement: “Making America Healthy Will Require Big Ag Confrontation, Not Capitulation.”

The MAHA Commission’s report is a smokescreen designed to draw attention away from the Trump Administration’s dangerous deregulatory agenda. The report will be most notable in what it lacks: any real action on glyphosate, linked to rising cancer rates nationwide…Food & Water Watch research finds that Bayer has spent over $21 million on federal lobbying since the federal Cancer Gag Act…in 2023… — a 43 percent increase over the past ten quarters. State spending is also on the rise. In the past year, Bayer spent more on lobbying than any other year on record in Iowa, a key battleground state where 89% of voters oppose the Cancer Gag Act. The bill failed.

Clearly, much is at stake.  It looks like MAHA versus the realities of MAGA.

I can’t wait to see how this one resolves and hope the wait isn’t too long.  Stay tuned for this one.

Addition August 15: The New York Times seems to have gotten a leaked copy.of the report.  It has plenty to say about this early draft.

USDA Secretary Rollins held a press conference with the dairy industry to announce the removal of artificial color dyes.

This is a voluntary, proactive pledge to eliminate the use of Red 3, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 from ice cream and other frozen dairy desserts by 2028.  “I applaud the International Dairy Foods Association for stepping up to eliminate certified artificial colors,” Secretary Kennedy said. “The American people have made it clear—they want real food, not chemicals. Together with Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, we’re holding the food industry accountable and driving a nationwide effort to Make America Healthy Again.”

In 2029, when the dyes are out of ice cream, ice cream will still be ice cream.  Alas.

Here’s an update on what’s happening with artificial colors.  But before getting to it, here’s the result of my research trip to England: Froot Loops with no artificial colors.   Check out what they look like.

Iceland Food Warehouse, Oxford. Photo Jean Lavigne.

And now for the latest on the cancelling of artificial color additives.

• Synthetic dyes are out. Here’s who’s in and how they’re achieving it:  Major food companies like General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Conagra and Smucker are leading a sweeping shift away from synthetic colours. Here’s where the US food industry stands right now… Read more
• FDA redraws the rainbow to dye another day:  The storm over artificial dyes is clearing and the FDA is ushering in a brighter, cleaner food palette. With Red No 3 fading fast and new colours blooming, brands are now racing to catch the rainbow… Read more
• FDA approves natural blue color, urges accelerated phaseout of synthetic red dye The White House asked companies to remove Red No. 3, an artificial color in candy and cereal, sooner than the 2027 deadline put in place by the Biden administration.
• Texas AG targets Mars over continued use of artificial colours: Despite making a public commitment nearly a decade ago to phase out artificial colours, the M&M’s and Skittles maker is in hot water over its continued use of synthetic dyes in the US… Read more

HHS Secretary RFK Jr says he thinks we need more dairy foods in our diets.

“I grew up in a world where milk was the healthiest thing that you could eat,. There’s a tremendous amount of emerging science that talks about the need for more protein in our diet and more fats in our diet. And there’s no industry that does that better than this industry.

More protein?  Most Americans already consume more than twice the amount required.  Protein is in all minimally processed foods.  If you eat enough calories, you are getting plenty of protein.

The focus on protein is baffling to nutritionists like me.  Surveys report that 70% of us are trying to eat more protein.

This has led to protein madness.

To give just one example (another nutritionally hilarious product):

Plants have less protein than meat, dairy, or eggs, but those amounts add up.  Their amino acid composition is not as close to ours as are animal foods, but eating a variety of plants takes care of the differences.

RFK Jr’s push of protein and fat translates to a push for eating more meat and dairy foods.  Recall Brooke Rollins’ statement about getting rid of leftist ideologies in the dietary guidelines?  I was guessing that meant eating more plants.

We have to wait and see what the guidelines say when they come out, and I’m braced for it.

I have no inside information about what the new Dietary Guidelines will say beyond what I’ve read and what RFK Jr has said: They will be coming out soon and will be short and to the point.

But according to Twitter (X), the source of much leaked information, the new administration “plans to introduce partial bans on alcohol advertising, to bring it ‘closer in line with advertising of unhealthy food.'”

And we now have a Reuters’ Exclusive: US to drop guidance to limit alcohol to one or two drinks per day, sources say

Its summary:

• Americans have long been told to drink two or fewer drinks per day
• New guidelines due as soon as this month
• Expected to include brief statement on limiting drinking
• Alcohol industry faces growing scrutiny of health risks

Reuters’ anonymous sources say “The new guidelines are set to move away from suggesting consumers limit alcohol consumption to a specific number of daily servings, according to the three sources, who asked not to be named to speak freely.”

Reuters also reports:

Major industry players, including Diageo (DGE.L) and Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI.BR) have lobbied lawmakers throughout the review process. Senate records show the companies spent millions on lobbying efforts related to the guidelines and a range of other issues such as tax and trade in 2024 and 2025. Both companies declined to comment.

What is at stake here?

As I explained in January (Alcohol in the Dietary Guidelines: What the Fuss is About), everyone agrees that too much alcohol is bad for you.  The question is whether any alcohol is bad.

The dietary guidelines have advised since 1990 that women have no more than one drink a day and men no more than two, suggesting that such levels are safe.  But are they?

I discuss the recent reports arguing one way or the other on January 7 (The big fight over alcohol recommendations: not over yet) and January 22 (The Alcohol Saga continues).

Neither RFK Jr nor President Trump drink alochol.

And we have evidence that the Majority of Americans Unaware of Cancer Risks Linked to Alcohol Consumption.

Recent research conducted by The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center unveiled that only approximately 40% of American adults recognize alcohol as a cancer risk factor. This stark gap in knowledge persists despite alcohol’s status as a leading preventable cause of cancer, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced public health communication and policy reforms.

Dietary guidelines are a key component of federal nutrition policy.

I can’t wait to see what they say about alcohol consumption (and everything else), in the light of the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) agenda.

I would be remiss not to comment on congressional passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” which takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich (see Paul Krugman’s Attack of the Sadistic Zombies).

For what all this has to do with food, take a look at Kevin Klatt’s “6 Months of MAHA: A Reflection and Call to Action.”

My summary of his summary of what MAHA and MAGA have done so far:

• Cut $1 billion from USDA for local food purchases for school lunch and food bank
• Proposed a 40% cut to the NIH budget (which pays for nutrition research)
• Made huge cuts to SNAP.
• Cut WIC fruit and vegetable benefits.
• Allowed obesity researcher Kevin Hall to resign
• Cut landmark nutrition trials such as the Diabetes Prevention Program.
• Defunded major nutrition departments, like Harvard’s.
• Cut several molecular & community nutrition grants at Cornell.
• Eliminated USAID, a major funder of global nutrition research and intervention.
• Disrupted lead exposure programs.
• Cut FDA and CDC, including the human foods program HFP and food safety lab funding and staff (some reinstated).

Klatt’s point:

At 6 months in, I think it’s time for food and nutrition advocates, scientists and professionals to call out the MAHA agenda for what it is – it’s a movement with the right vibes, the wrong priorities and solutions, headed up by someone with dangerous thoughts on public health who is not going to improve the health of Americans, nutritional or otherwise.

By wrong priorities, I’m thinking color additives (yes, let’s get rid of them, but other things matter more) and seed oils (really, they are healthier than animal fats, especially in large amounts).

There are still real questions about what MAHA will actually do.  I’m waiting for the dietary guidelines and second MAHA report.  Those should reveal the real agenda.