Experts Say New MAHA Strategy Lacks Teeth; Ultra‑Processed Foods and Pesticides Downplayed

The Trump Administration’s follow-up strategy to the May “Make Our Children Healthy Again” (MAHA) report has drawn sharp criticism from public health experts and some early supporters, who say the Sept. 9 plan softens the first report’s critique of industry and contains few concrete regulatory steps.

The initial MAHA report, released in May, named ultra‑processed foods repeatedly and linked them to negative health outcomes in children. The new MAHA Strategy Report contains 128 action points and mentions ultra‑processed foods only once, pledging that agencies will continue efforts to develop a formal definition. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and chair of the MAHA Commission, defended the plan at a Sept. 9 press conference as an unprecedented, government‑wide effort that will be implemented through research, public awareness campaigns, private‑sector collaboration and realigned incentives.

Critics said the strategy represents a retreat from the more confrontational posture of the first report, which directly blamed aspects of the food industry for chronic disease trends in U.S. children. Jerold Mande, an adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a former senior nutrition official in multiple administrations, described the May report as “revolutionary” and said the strategy plan reads as if it was watered down by industry influence. "What this says to me is that the first report was written by MAHA, and the second one, the White House let industry lobbyists write it," he said.

Public health advocates pointed to the report’s language on pesticides as an example of the softened approach. The May report said pesticides, microplastics and dioxins appear in American children’s blood and urine at “alarming levels” and noted studies linking pesticides to adverse outcomes, including concerns about glyphosate. The strategy document, by contrast, avoids naming chemicals and proposes that the Environmental Protection Agency ensure public confidence in its pesticide review procedures while launching a USDA–EPA partnership with the private sector to advance precision pesticide technology.

When asked about the omission of stronger pesticide measures at the Sept. 9 briefing, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the federal process, saying the EPA conducts “years upon years upon years of research” before approving products. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency was “aggressively confronting” threats from banned pesticides that are being imported or smuggled into the United States.

A leaked draft of the strategy in mid‑August had already prompted pushback from advocacy groups. Moms Across America, which focuses on toxins in the food supply, said the pesticides section in the draft had been influenced by chemical companies and urged the administration to ban 86 pesticides that are prohibited in other countries. The group also criticized the EPA’s pesticide review process for not requiring long‑term or multigenerational animal studies.

Marion Nestle, a food studies professor at New York University, criticized the strategy for emphasizing more research rather than concrete regulatory actions. "When it comes to policy, it has one strong, overall message: more research needed. Regulate? Not a chance," she wrote on her website, noting that the document is full of calls to “explore, coordinate, partner, prioritize, develop, or work toward.” The final plan does contain multiple research commitments, including a new vaccine injury research program, studies of prescription patterns for mental health medications, and expanded research on dietary patterns.

The strategy’s reliance on voluntary industry measures rather than mandates drew favorable reactions from some food‑sector groups. The National Milk Producers Federation praised language suggesting the administration will seek to restore whole milk to school cafeterias, saying the move aligns with what it called “the latest science.” The strategy largely promotes industry guidelines and voluntary changes rather than direct regulation; at the press event, Rollins highlighted companies that had pledged to remove petroleum‑derived food dyes from products.

Supporters of the initial MAHA report, and some public health experts, had hoped that Kennedy’s high‑profile and unconventional approach to science policy would lead to more aggressive federal action on nutrition and environmental exposures affecting children. The MAHA Commission, which includes cabinet‑level officials such as the USDA secretary and the EPA administrator, met with hundreds of stakeholders from doctors and teachers to parents and farmers, Kennedy said, underscoring the competing interests considered in crafting the strategy.

Administration officials said the 128 actions in the strategy are intended to be implemented across agencies and sectors. Kennedy described the plan as reflecting input from a broad array of stakeholders and said the recommendations capture long‑sought reforms. "A lot of these 128 recommendations are things that I've been dreaming about my whole life," he said.

Public health experts and advocacy groups, however, said the plan’s emphasis on research, partnerships and voluntary industry commitments will not adequately address the immediate and systemic drivers of poor child health identified in May. They noted that without stronger regulatory language or timelines, many of the strategy’s goals could remain aspirational.

The debate over the MAHA strategy underscores broader tensions in U.S. nutrition and environmental health policy: how to balance industry collaboration with government oversight, and whether incremental research and voluntary measures can produce rapid improvements in child health. The strategy marks the administration’s official roadmap for addressing the issues raised in the May report, but observers say its success will depend on how many of the action points translate into enforceable policies or measurable outcomes.

Officials have not published a detailed enforcement timetable for the 128 actions. The MAHA Commission’s next steps will likely include interagency coordination and outreach to state and private partners, officials said, while advocates continue to press for clearer commitments on pesticides, ultra‑processed foods and other environmental exposures cited in the original report.