Improving public health and tackling chronic disease remain a focus of the Trump administration, and many of its aspirations are evident in the new MAHA strategy roadmap.
After months of development, the conclusion was that the government has a vital role in fostering better health outcomes and helping to improve our food supply, which would require weighing the balance of possible agency rules alongside the longstanding work to support public awareness and science-based understanding of what we consume.
The MAHA Commission is advocating that improving diets and protecting our food supply are central to the nation’s health. It’s no secret that a healthier diet and regular exercise are key to reducing obesity and associated health concerns, such as heart disease and diabetes. Doctors have been telling us this for years. The commission’s voice is another way to educate the public on how daily choices can affect health outcomes.
However, they are, and should primarily remain, choices. Exercising personal freedom is fundamental to being an American, and the wisdom of a limited government should not be seen as oppositional to MAHA’s goals.
Just this summer, dairy food producers announced that they would transition to using natural food colors in a new appeal to consumers. Many food producers have followed this trend in the past several months, and health policy officials estimate that 70 percent of the food industry will soon be using only natural dyes — actions taken in the absence of regulation.
Kraft Heinz and General Mills have pledged to remove many colors by the end of 2027. General Mills also noted that “about 85 percent of its U.S. products are already made without the dyes” and “nearly all” of its school-lunch products are free of artificial coloring.
Offerings at the grocery store are shifting to follow consumer demands. It’s one of the fundamentals of a free market. Among MAHA’s contributions to improving public health is shifting the conversation about food, where change continues to be driven by consumers. Foods on the shelf follow changing preferences, which explains why 60 percentof beverages in the United States contain zero sugar, and demand for high-protein snacks surged last year as sales of sweet and salty snacks fell. The consumer leads.
Naturally, government leaders are aware of the possible paths ahead. More specifically, there are choices to follow previous regulatory excesses or prioritize collaboration that leans on the invisible hand of the market.
In an opinion piece, FDA Administrator Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services maintain that cooperation must be at the center of the MAHA strategy. “Market solutions keep the power in the hands of the public. That keeps us focused on results.”
The commission can look beyond direct enforcement to focus on the public — the consumer — as the primary driver of change.
Several critiques of food ingredients and food processing are, in many ways, less about food safety. In fact, many food colors addressed in several state laws and targeted elsewhere are determined safe by the FDA. They are used throughout the world, including Europe, which seems to be a preferred authority for some.
Enforcing preferences upon the public through rulemaking could do more harm than good. Whether it’s the high cost and short shelf life of fresh foods or the expansion of food deserts that make the healthier option unattainable, many newly promoted preferences are out of reach for too many Americans.
Half of married families have two working parents, and 75 percent of single mothers work. That is one reason many nutritionists and public health advocates are calling for a more nuanced debate regarding our food. Sarah Williams, a registered dietitian, underscores how “realistic and inclusive nutrition means holding space for both whole foods and practical tools that help people feed themselves and their families.”
With constant shifts in Americans’ diets, it will be essential to preserve a diverse array of options and not let the level of food processing overshadow the overall nutrient value of items and higher-fiber foods. Amid many options, real change must come from marketplace participants, not just those who are well-off enough to afford organic protein shakes and have ample access to farmers’ markets.
Yes, the government should continue to ensure food safety and uphold evidence-based standards. That is not the same as rooting out foods that are not the ultimate ideal. A national health strategy should emphasize rigorous science and education, and allow the consumer to direct marketplace change, as they have always done.
Broad credible knowledge and personal choice shouldn’t be seen as an obstacle to the public health agenda. It’s actually the starting point.