The IFT Community Discusses the MAHA Strategy Report
The food science community stressed that the MAHA strategy must be guided by current, high-quality science and clearer action steps to truly improve public health.
© Arseniy45/iStock/Getty Images Plus
The latest IFT Community Conversation invited members and nonmembers to explore how the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) strategy report could affect the future of food systems and companies. Moderated by registered dietitian nutritionist and consultant Janet Helm, the discussion centered on the 20-page report issued by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services on September 9 and its 128 initiatives to “Make Our Children Healthy Again.”
The report highlights four pillars to fight chronic childhood disease: poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and overmedicalization. While participants welcomed the emphasis on nutrition education, school food improvements, and whole, minimally processed foods, they raised concerns about how these recommendations would translate into practice.
Vagueness and Lack of Specificity
Participants observed that the strategy report focused heavily on intentions without providing clear steps for implementation. Many described it as light on regulatory detail and lacking a framework for action. Concerns were also raised about outdated or non-U.S. data being used to support recommendations, underscoring the importance of grounding policy in current, high-quality science.
Missing Key Details and Topics
The discussion also highlighted notable omissions. Stakeholders pointed out that issues such as pesticides, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), dairy industry deregulation, specifics on generally recognized as safe (GRAS) reform, and revisions to the Dietary Guidelines were not adequately addressed. Even references to campaigns like “real food first” left questions about leadership, scope, and next steps. Without more detail, it remains unclear how many of the proposed initiatives might affect industry practices or public health outcomes.
The Need for Communication and Education
Despite the lack of specificity, participants recognized positive signs. The final strategy reflected some stakeholder input, demonstrating that feedback is being considered and changes are possible. This underscored the opportunity—and responsibility—for the food science community to stay engaged.
One clear takeaway was the need for stronger communication and education. Participants agreed that food scientists and nutrition experts must take a more active role in explaining what they do, why it matters, and how it benefits public health. By engaging with policymakers, agency leaders, and even personal networks, the community can ensure that evidence-based perspectives inform the MAHA agenda as it evolves.
Why Science Must Guide Advocacy
The discussion reinforced that the MAHA strategy cannot succeed without a foundation in sound science. As the strategy develops, IFT, its members, and the larger food community have an important role to play in ensuring that policy decisions are grounded in up-to-date data, rigorous research, and transparent communication. By bringing science forward, the food community can help shape policies that are not only actionable but effective in improving public health.
IFT is already elevating the community’s voice in these policy discussions—through media engagement, public comments such as IFT’s comments on the MAHA strategy, and member resources in our Policy and Advocacy section on IFT.org, including toolkits for communicating science and advocacy.
👉 Learn more about IFT’s Policy and Advocacy initiatives and follow IFT on LinkedIn for updates on food science and policy.
👉 Stay a part of the conversation and have your voice heard year-round as an IFT member. Through programs like Community Conversations—informal, interactive discussions that connect members with peers and experts on timely topics—IFT offers opportunities to engage, share insights, and shape advocacy efforts throughout the year.
The report highlights four pillars to fight chronic childhood disease: poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and overmedicalization. While participants welcomed the emphasis on nutrition education, school food improvements, and whole, minimally processed foods, they raised concerns about how these recommendations would translate into practice.
Vagueness and Lack of Specificity
Participants observed that the strategy report focused heavily on intentions without providing clear steps for implementation. Many described it as light on regulatory detail and lacking a framework for action. Concerns were also raised about outdated or non-U.S. data being used to support recommendations, underscoring the importance of grounding policy in current, high-quality science.
Missing Key Details and Topics
The discussion also highlighted notable omissions. Stakeholders pointed out that issues such as pesticides, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), dairy industry deregulation, specifics on generally recognized as safe (GRAS) reform, and revisions to the Dietary Guidelines were not adequately addressed. Even references to campaigns like “real food first” left questions about leadership, scope, and next steps. Without more detail, it remains unclear how many of the proposed initiatives might affect industry practices or public health outcomes.
The Need for Communication and Education
Despite the lack of specificity, participants recognized positive signs. The final strategy reflected some stakeholder input, demonstrating that feedback is being considered and changes are possible. This underscored the opportunity—and responsibility—for the food science community to stay engaged.
One clear takeaway was the need for stronger communication and education. Participants agreed that food scientists and nutrition experts must take a more active role in explaining what they do, why it matters, and how it benefits public health. By engaging with policymakers, agency leaders, and even personal networks, the community can ensure that evidence-based perspectives inform the MAHA agenda as it evolves.
Why Science Must Guide Advocacy
The discussion reinforced that the MAHA strategy cannot succeed without a foundation in sound science. As the strategy develops, IFT, its members, and the larger food community have an important role to play in ensuring that policy decisions are grounded in up-to-date data, rigorous research, and transparent communication. By bringing science forward, the food community can help shape policies that are not only actionable but effective in improving public health.
IFT is already elevating the community’s voice in these policy discussions—through media engagement, public comments such as IFT’s comments on the MAHA strategy, and member resources in our Policy and Advocacy section on IFT.org, including toolkits for communicating science and advocacy.
👉 Learn more about IFT’s Policy and Advocacy initiatives and follow IFT on LinkedIn for updates on food science and policy.
👉 Stay a part of the conversation and have your voice heard year-round as an IFT member. Through programs like Community Conversations—informal, interactive discussions that connect members with peers and experts on timely topics—IFT offers opportunities to engage, share insights, and shape advocacy efforts throughout the year.
Top