The MAHA Commission’s mission to improve children’s health is both urgent and vital. Ensuring that every family has access to nutritious, affordable food today—and for generations to come—is not only a public health imperative but a national priority. Achieving this goal, however, requires that federal food policy be grounded in transparent, evidence-based science. Regrettably, the second MAHA Commission report falls short of this standard, failing to meet the “gold standard science” called for by President Trump.
The first report set a concerning precedent. It relied on inadequate sourcing, unverified citations in its original iteration, and sweeping generalizations, undermining confidence in the Department of Health and Human Services’ approach to improving children’s nutrition. Experts from across the public health, industry, and scientific communities raised serious concerns, yet the second report, which sought to advance research and policy reform, is still compromised by the foundational weaknesses of its predecessor. Recommendations built on shaky science and emotions rather than evidence, no matter how well-intentioned, risk unintended consequences for families, farmers, and the broader food system.
While the Commission highlights important issues, its conclusions remain insufficiently grounded in robust evidence. Effective strategies to improve children’s health should focus on measurable, goal-oriented aspects of nutrition—food quality, nutrient composition, and evidence-based interventions. Alarmist framing and sweeping policy prescriptions, by contrast, threaten both credibility and impact. Policies that restrict food dyes without clear scientific bases or broadly regulate “ultra-processed” products oversimplify complex nutritional science and overlook the economic realities faced by families and producers alike.
Rather than pursuing bans and rigid regulations, policymakers should prioritize transparency, education, and consumer empowerment. Families deserve clear, reliable information about what they feed their children, along with realistic guidance for making healthy choices appropriate to each individual. Public awareness campaigns that emphasize education over fear-based messaging will likely be far more effective in improving childhood health than abrupt restrictions that fail to consider context or nuance.
The consequences of weak science extend beyond policy reports. Unverified recommendations can ripple through food production and supply chains, driving up costs, limiting consumer choices, and threatening rural economies that depend on a vibrant agricultural sector. When the underlying evidence is flawed, the downstream effects can be felt by every link in the system—from farm to family. Families deserve policies rooted in credible science, not rhetoric that risks inflating prices, narrowing options, and undermining local communities.
The right ideas—improving childhood health, strengthening research, and supporting nutritious diets—are on the table. But the current approach must change. Sweeping restrictions and regulatory overreach tilt the balance too far, risking harm rather than providing solutions. A collaborative, industry-informed strategy, grounded in rigorous evidence, offers a more sustainable path. By engaging food producers and nutrition experts, policymakers can craft policies that meaningfully address childhood disease while respecting economic realities.
The direction employed by the Commission also entails consequences in strong-arming unsubstantiated change among food producers. For example, companies are now seeking to align with Commission concepts and making choices like ridding their products of ingredients like seed oils and high fructose corn syrup. Though, in continually analyzing the evidence, the FDA maintains that high fructose corn syrup has the same health and safety profile as similar sweeteners. There should be little room for asserting developments where nutritional evidence is absent.
President Trump’s Executive Order explicitly demanded that government decisions rely on the “gold standard science.” Until the MAHA Reports meet this threshold, they should not serve as a basis for federal food policy. Families deserve credible, reproducible science, not reports that overstate findings or overreach in their recommendations. Policy built on weak evidence jeopardizes affordable food, good jobs, and healthy communities—the very outcomes the Commission seeks to protect.
The stakes are clear: when the health and future of children are on the line, precision and rigor are not optional. Federal food policy must be grounded in evidence, not assumptions, and must prioritize practical, sustainable solutions over sweeping rhetoric. Only then can we truly support families, foster a strong agricultural economy, and build a healthier future for the next generation.
Dr. Mark Kern, PhD, RD, is a nationally acclaimed food scientist from San Diego State University. Dr. Kern is the only independent food scientist to have conducted a full review of the first MAHA Report. His review is available here: www.caseforconsumers.org/maha
