This audio is generated automatically. Please let me know if you have any comments.
Sean McBride is the founder of DSM Strategic Communications and former Vice President of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Brands Association). Opinions are the author’s own.
Do you remember that annoying math teacher who didn’t take your homework or test answers at face value? They asked me to show step by step the calculations I used to arrive at the final answer.
Likewise, in our system of government, federal agencies must “do the work” to justify government action, showing that the benefits outweigh the costs and that the action is likely to achieve the desired outcome.
The Make America Healthy Again movement says processed foods are poisoning us. If that were literally true, it would be an existential threat to the American public. You might think the federal government would move heaven and earth to protect its citizens.
But MAHA doesn’t do the work necessary to show that action is needed on ultra-processed foods to protect health. In reality, the movement has done almost nothing to regulate the food sector, choosing instead to ‘tar and feather’ food companies and leaving enormous regulatory powers to elected politicians in some states.
The discrepancy between Maha’s words and actions may seem strange, but upon closer inspection, it makes sense.
For one thing, the FDA has the authority to regulate food ingredients it deems harmful, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said that petroleum-based food dyes are unsafe. Instead of initiating a formal process to properly investigate and ban the dyes he opposes, Kennedy implored food companies to voluntarily stop using them.
As for ultra-processed foods (UPF), Kennedy calls them toxic. But the agency he leads has not followed through on its promise to be the first federal government to publish a definition of UPF. Likewise, his FDA has not held a formal rulemaking process to establish bans on processed foods that Kennedy deemed unsafe and a threat to public health.
Separately, MAHA says Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients should not be able to purchase unhealthy sodas and candy. USDA is moving ahead with its work with several states to implement SNAP purchase bans, rather than gathering irrefutable evidence of the risks and working with Congress to codify the change nationwide.
Additional examples abound. Kennedy’s opinion on seed oils is clear. He calls them poison too. He implored restaurants and food companies to use tallow, lard and butter in their products instead of starting the regulatory process to ban them.
And despite his history of calling advanced crop protection products toxic carcinogens, Kennedy has refused to cooperate with the EPA in its efforts to ban the use of glyphosate and other pesticides, saying he does not want to harm farmers or the economy.
There are two disturbing patterns that have emerged among those who regulate Washington, D.C.’s food supply. First, it is irresponsible to tell the public that everything they consume is poisonous. Second, it is reckless to prevent the world’s leading food safety experts at the FDA and USDA from doing their jobs and making essential ingredient health and safety decisions while promoting fear.
Because MAHA and its allies control both the executive branch of government and both houses of Congress, there is little need for an opaque public health strategy. They have all the power and tools they need to move straight toward their goals. So, all things considered, MAHA’s actions are not smart. In reality, it indicates weakness.
MAHA cannot demonstrate legal and scientific justification for food policy on most agenda items and knows that its ideas cannot withstand the scrutiny and public debate required by federal regulations.
For evidence of such weakness, look no further than West Virginia and Texas, where courts have struck down MAHA-inspired ingredient bans and ultra-processed food labeling mandates. Although the ruling is preliminary, the judges criticized the laws so strongly in their injunction ruling that they signaled that both laws will be repealed entirely later this year.
Food production that provides nutritious and affordable food for 350 million Americans requires thoughtfulness, stability and predictability. And sound public policy requires that those in power test their words and ideas against rigorous scrutiny of the facts.
If MAHA has the courage of her convictions, she will do so. I think they won’t because they can’t.
