Food Scientists Discuss MAHA Strategy Report

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) hosted an interactive community conversation Sept. 16 about the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Strategy Report, which was released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Sept. 9.

The virtual event, “Community Conversation: MAHA Report Recommendations,” was open to the public, and about 126 food scientists attended. Janet Helm, a registered dietician nutritionist who owns consulting company Food at the Helm, moderated the discussion.

Discussions focused on reactions to the strategy report as well as action steps the food science community can take in response to the MAHA Commission’s reported plans. Toward the end of the virtual conversation, food scientists also discussed how they can better address changes in consumer perspectives about the health and safety of certain ingredients and foods that are being targeted by the MAHA Commission.  

Some food scientists involved in the conversation voiced surprise at what they said was a lack of detail in the report. This lack of clarity remains a concern as food scientists navigate the uncertainty of the future of food and ingredient regulations and definitions.

“Overall, the strategy report is about intentions, not specific actions to make kids healthier,” said Helm. “Some things were vague and light on any regulatory framework, as well for these actions.”

MAHA’s first report, released May 22, provided a 73-page assessment “identifying key drivers behind the childhood chronic disease crisis,” according to HHS. The report highlights poor diet, accumulation of environmental toxins, insufficient activity, chronic stress and overmedicalization as influences of chronic disease in children. It targets ultra-processed foods (UPFs), food additives (food colorings, artificial sweeteners, etc.), microplastics, pesticides and more substances as factors.

The report identifies whole foods as a crucial aspect of a healthy diet, which many nutritionists, dieticians and food scientists have supported.

While the report highlights that many children’s diets rely on an alarming amount of UPFs (NIH and researchers estimate that 70% of Americans’ diets are composed of UPFs), the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease said the report “oversimplifies the problem” and doesn’t acknowledge why most Americans regularly consume UPFs: affordability and access.

Research on UPFs is limited but is “increasingly being linked to cardiovascular disease and other health problems,” said NIH. Some UPFs may be more likely to cause health problems and diseases than others, according to NIH, so more research is needed on specific foods.

General concerns about the first MAHA report emphasized omitted mention of social factors that contribute to childhood chronic disease such as limited healthcare access, poverty, violence, etc., according to the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease.

After the assessment report was released, the MAHA Commission had 82 days to release the strategy report. The MAHA Strategy Report is 20 pages and identifies 128 initiatives to reverse the childhood chronic disease crisis.. The report is organized into bullet points that fall under four major pillars, which are the same as the contributing factors of the childhood chronic disease crisis listed in the initial report:

• Poor diet
• Chemical exposure
• Lack of physical activity and chronic stress
• Overmedicalization

The strategy report outlines four focus areas and goals, which include:

• Advance research

• Realign incentives
• Foster private and sector collaboration
• Increase public awareness

The MAHA Commission, through some of these focus areas, said it plans to expand research on chronic disease, microplastics and synthetics, food and nutrition and more through the NIH, FDA, USDA and other agencies. The commission also seeks to “realign incentives” through policy reform by updating the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), limiting/prohibiting petroleum-based food dyes, developing a federal definition of UPFs, reforming the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) designation, considering revisions to the FDA’s proposed front-of-pack nutrition information label and more.

While there are elements of both the assessment and strategy reports that officials in related industries are glad to see addressed, many, including those who participated in IFT’s discussion, are wondering exactly how these initiatives will be implemented.

“As a registered dietician, I certainly appreciated the focus on nutrition, including nutrition education, improving food choices in school,” Helm said at the beginning of the IFT Community Conversation. “The strategy emphasizes whole, minimally processed foods or what’s been described as ‘Real Food First.’”

One of the main themes of the discussion was about how experts can be better food science communicators. Consumers may be confused about certain foods and their nutritional value as a result of the MAHA Commission highlighting its own concerns about UPFs and food additives, presenting opportunities for food scientists to engage with the general public about food science, attendees said.

“For our community … the most important aspect is that we get out there and we’re talking about the science; we’re bringing the data,” said David Shoneker, a food scientist who participated at the IFT Community Conversation. “Now, that alone is not going to sell the message to a lot of people who don’t understand science. So, we’ve got to find a better way of communicating scientific reality to [the] consumer [through] digestible information.”