The MAHA Report’s Food Safety Strategy

During the September 9 press conference, Secretary Kennedy highlighted goals that HHS and its agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), intend to accomplish by the end of the year. Many of the actions he mentioned have already been spotlighted by HHS and FDA, however, and have been criticized for not driving meaningful change through enforceable rulemaking.

Specific food safety goals underlined by Secretary Kennedy in the press conference included:

• Removing synthetic, petroleum-based food dyes from the U.S. food supply. In April, HHS and FDA shared their intent to phase out the use of synthetic, petroleum-based dyes from the nation’s food supply. This plan was criticized by consumer protection and food policy experts for relying on voluntary industry cooperation rather than enforceable rulemaking to ensure they are no longer being used by food manufacturers. Some tangible actions by FDA to achieve this goal include initiating the process to revoke authorizations for certain dyes, and expediting the approval of naturally derived alternatives. Some notable food companies have made pledges to phase out the use of synthetic food colorants.
• Closing the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) loophole. At present, under the GRAS rule, food manufacturers are allowed to use ingredients that have not undergone a formal safety review by self-determining their safety. In March, Secretary Kennedy directed FDA to explore ways to eliminate the GRAS rule. In September, FDA added a proposed rule to the Unified Agenda that would make significant changes to the GRAS rule, including making notification of GRAS submissions mandatory for most substances, requiring FDA to maintain a public-facing GRAS notice inventory, and clarifying the process under which FDA would determine a substance is not GRAS.
• Updating water quality standards, including for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and fluoride. In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked legally enforceable drinking water maximum limits for six PFAS of concern, which were established in April 2024 under the Biden Administration. The final MAHA report simply says EPA and other federal partners will “assess ongoing evaluations of water contaminants and update guidance and prioritizations.” The report mentions fluoride multiple times, saying EPA will review new scientific information on its potential health risks in drinking water. PFAS is only mentioned once in the report, saying very generally that federal agencies will “update recommendations” regarding its presence in water.
• Reforming infant formula standards. Likely in reference to FDA’s “Operation Stork Speed” announced in March, which includes actions an update and review of infant formula nutrients, and increasing contaminant testing. Stakeholder groups like Consumer Reports have voiced skepticism about the agency’s ability to achieve their goals in the realm of infant formula safety, raising concerns about FDA budget and staff cuts that would leave the agency ill-equipped to follow through with its promises.

Relevant to nutrition, Secretary Kennedy said HHS aims to define “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) for the purpose of front-of-pack UPF labeling. FDA also intends to further refine sugar and sodium front-of-pack nutrition labeling—an initiative that began prior to the Trump Administration.

Regarding the MAHA report’s recommendations on food policy, Peter Lurie, M.D., President of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), stated, “For the most part, the final MAHA report issued today will bring a collective sigh of relief in food industry boardrooms, since it leans heavily in the direction of government deregulation, voluntary corporate action, and research likely to be decimated under the President’s proposed budget.” He continued, “In the rare cases it gets right, as it does with closing the GRAS loophole, details are sparse. And even in the case of food dyes, the administration is pointedly deciding not to use its regulatory authority to spur progress.”

MAHA Report Suggests Pesticide Leniency

Additionally, in the area of agricultural chemicals, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin discussed work to ensure the “safe use of pesticides EPA regulates,” mentioning the rejection of certain pesticide applications due to insufficient data, and hiring more scientists to review such submissions. Mr. Zeldin called the MAHA Report’s recommendations “pro-growth” strategies.

According to environmental protection groups, the MAHA Report does not actually endorse increased regulation for toxic pesticides, however. “The MAHA Commission report is most notable for what it lacks: any real action on toxic pesticides linked to rising cancer rates nationwide,” said Rebecca Wolf, Senior Food Policy Analyst at Food and Water Watch.

Per the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the MAHA Report echoes the pesticide industry’s talking points. The report acknowledges “confidence” in EPA’s “robust” pesticide review process, with no mention about banning the use of harmful pesticides. According to EWG, the new MAHA Report cut mentions of the health risks of pesticides, and the fact that they are found in children and pregnant women, which were included in the original report released in May. “It looks like pesticide industry lobbyists steamrolled the MAHA Commission’s agenda,” said EWG President Ken Cook.