MAHA Report Sparks Industry Debate Over ‘Demonization’ of Processed Foods

“There’s no issue less partisan than our food,” said Scott Faber, SVP of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group.

While the natural products industry has been advocating for better-for-you, more nutrient-dense food and beverages since its inception, the federal government’s recent spotlight on longstanding issues has brought complexity and confusion to how these challenges came to be and how they can be reasonably and effectively addressed by industry.

The MAHA Commission’s inaugural report on Thursday identified ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and environmental toxins as two key reasons why American children have experienced rising rates of chronic disease, alongside lifestyle factors and “overmedicalization.” While the report plainly stated many key features of MAHA’s agenda, it also displayed a lack of understanding, or political will, to address those same issues.

“Everyone supports efforts to make our food safer,” Faber continued. “Everyone supports making our food more nutritious and improving access to healthy foods, especially the foods that are served to our kids. So far, the second Trump administration has made our food less safe, not more safe… [and] the second Trump administration has made it harder, not easier, to build a healthy diet.”

According to Daniel Fabricant, CEO of the Natural Product Association, the report achieved its goal of painting a “dismal” picture of children’s health, at points via “hyperbole,” while speaking to the lack of trust many Americans have in institutions like the Dietary Guidelines of America (DGA).

He emphasized that the natural products industry as a whole is excited that these conversations are happening and receiving national attention, but cautioned that a quick embrace could lead to an oversimplification of solutions that use single inputs as scapegoats while ignoring the holistic issues at hand.

“Rewind to the Obama Administration, and it was reducing added sugars and salts,” Fabricant said. “Now it’s seed oils. We’ve always got to demonize something to talk about health [in this country]. That captures people’s attention, and that’s fine, but I think understanding that is more of a tactic than really strategy [is essential]…It’s not a rifle shot, it has got to be a little more of a shotgun approach. It’s got to hit different parts all simultaneously.”

Fabricant also pointed to conversations around front-of-pack labeling, and acknowledged that while they may be a part of a solution for achieving better health outcomes in America, they aren’t a silver bullet and would require widespread packaging changes, which in turn could make food cost more.

“Are we just replacing one challenge for another 40 years from now? Are we going to work on innovating new colors, things like that, that in four years, someone’s going to go, ‘Well, wait a second, here’s this blip of a data point over here. Now we need to take that out of the food supply,’” Fabricant said. “[This report] begs the bigger question of ‘what are the scientific principles for evaluating these things going forward?’ Ultimately, that’s where everyone wins.”

He emphasized that scientific principles and standards when it comes to food regulation need to remain, particularly when it comes to inputs like additives.

That is particularly true when it comes to conversations around UPFs as well. The NOVA Food Classification System, the only formalized tool to assess whether a product could be UPF and cited in by the MAHA Commission report, takes a broad-sweeping approach to classify what is and isn’t UPF. Fabricant pointed to an input like whey protein, a “top seller” in the natural products space, that could be considered UPF by NOVA standards despite having a role in supporting protein intake.

“It’s about having scientific rules that benefit all Americans who are going to use the products, but also consistent rules so industry can innovate, can come up with healthier products, more innovative products, and do it in a timeline that’s reasonable and scalable,” Fabricant said.

But so far, what the Commission has said it wants to do, versus the actions being taken by the Trump Administration in real time, run counter to one another, including firing chemical and food safety experts and rolling back regulations that protect against toxic chemicals spilling into the environment.

“The Trump Administration can’t have it both ways,” said Faber. “On the one hand, they’re sounding the alarm about the harms of diet-related disease and environmental toxins, but on the other hand, their ‘big, beautiful bill’ is putting the SNAP benefits of 11 million people, including 4 million children, in jeopardy, and eliminating the safeguards that protect us from toxins like PFAS and from pathogens like salmonella in poultry.”

While change at the federal level is often slow, states have been leading the charge in a bipartisan fashion with over 20 bills related to the MAHA agenda currently active in statehouses across the country. However, that spells trouble for an industry where products are sold across state lines and issues for enforcement when there is limited political will to promote consensus at the federal level.

“Forty percent of the members of Congress started in a state house, so there’s the challenge,” said Fabricant. “They’re going to see this as a bright, shiny issue… you’re going to see both sides of the aisle and state houses jump on this issue… it’s great for their careers, but that makes for lousy policy.”

“Change doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington, that’s especially true when it comes to our food” added Faber.