Experts Debate How MAHA Is Reshaping Food Science and Regulation

The “Make America Healthy Again” movement, loosely tied together by activist groups, social media sites and the federal Department of Health & Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has shaken up food science debates in ways that could prove fruitful but also have been problematic in various ways, according to panelists during a session on Tuesday at IFT First, moderated by Darryl Riley, president, TSQM LLC.

Martin Hahn, partner, Hogan & Lovells US LLP, said it’s been challenging for industry that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration no longer follows typical regulatory protocol around issues like artificial colors, for example. “That creates chaos,” he said. “We’re used to a more systematic approach.” While historically this would involve recommendations and committees, now it happens by social media post, he added. “We have a completely different model now.”

In addition, Hahn said, MAHA has “played fast and loose with the science” around issues like whether artificial colors cause ADHD. And he noted that coloring a Skittle with beet juice—or using beef tallow to cook French fries—doesn’t magically make the underlying foods appreciably healthier.

While mothers have cared about feeding their children healthy food since time immemorial, there’s never been a consumer movement like there is today because of social media, said Beth Johnson, founder and principal partner, Food Direction LLC. “Now we have a platform where you can go out and say things, and raise questions,” she said. “The problem for those of us trained in food science, in nutrition … is that it’s hard when anecdotal information is put out in the stratosphere, and the data is not there [to support it].”

State laws and regulations have become part of the conversation in addition to what’s happening at the federal level, Hahn said, given that online shopping makes it impossible to keep a banned ingredient out of a given state. He pulled together a list of about 85 ingredients that had been either banned or at least contemplated for prohibition in state legislation. “As you are formulating, you need to have your eye on these state laws,” he said. “You have to make your compliance consistent. That adds more complexity.”

Michael Boes, who has the thematic title of chief MAHA officer at Steak ’n Shake, said the food industry doesn’t need to innovate to match MAHA desires so much as return to an earlier era, adding that switches from beef tallow to seed oils to cook fries were done for the sake of profitability. “If we take a hit on profitability but grow our customer base [by meeting MAHA’s desires], the market will reward us,” he said. “If you’re running an efficient operation, there are easy fixes you can make without hurting the bottom line.”

But Johnson expressed skepticism as to how no-brainer those fixes would be, noting that CPG companies have equipment with they need to reinvest in and amortize over time—and that even a 5% increase in prices would be a lot in today’s market. “Some of these tweaks, could they be offset? Probably,” she said. “Could they be completely offset? Probably not.”

While there’s no question that the American food supply has its issues, policymakers also need to realize that innovations need to move at the speed of science, Johnson said. “We are sicker and more obese,” she said. But “we need to be more thoughtful and creative. Incremental changes make sense. That gives time for science to catch up.”

Consumers regularly hear stories in the media about how ultra-processed foods are linked with adverse health impacts ranging from diabetes to dementia, Hahn said. “That term is demonized,” he said. “When you start looking at the definition, it’s basically anything in a package that is in your center aisle of the grocery store. A box of Cheerios gets treated the same way as a Twinkie.” He added that science needs to be given time to determine “what, if anything—and I say ‘what, anything’ because I still don’t know—causes consumers to eat more of certain foods.”

At a time when 30% of pre-teens are prediabetic, though, parents are demanding to know how to address issues like obesity, and food science needs to provide answers, Boes said. “Constantly, they’re fed with, ‘We don’t know what’s causing it, but it’s not that,’” he said. “That’s not a great answer.”

But demonizing food scientists won’t solve the problem, and even during honest conversations, scientists often interpret findings differently, Johnson said. “Everybody comes in with a bias,” she said. “We need to invest in the science and have an honest conversation. We can’t demonize everybody. Who’s going to be there to pick up the pieces? We have to say, ‘How are we going to solve this problem together?’”

While public health advocates are sometimes critical of industry-funded research, Hahn said, “It’s better to have a study that’s being criticized for being sponsored by industry than not having any study at all. We need to continue to fund research.”

Johnson sees an opportunity for IFT and other industry groups to coordinate this research, given that adding government funding “is going to be pulling everybody’s teeth.” He noted, “Let’s poll a number of universities and scientific experts. Let’s put together a 10- to 15-year program where we’re looking at this.”

While the term “MAHA” might go away, Boes expects the heightened focus on nutrition will continue. “We’ll see if I have a job in four years if there’s a change in administration,” he said, tongue in cheek. “As of now, [I’m] going to be laser-focused on my title.”

Explore IFT FIRST Coverage

Discover the latest reporting, interviews, and expert insights.

Read Now