Challenges for the “Make America Healthy Again” Agenda
Junk exports, higher prices, regulation (Big Government), choice, jobs, even censorship
One of the features that made me most enthusiastic and hopeful about this recent US election, was the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was going to be in the new administration. When he himself was candidate for president, he was my top choice. Children’s Health Defense has been a treasure trove of information and critical analysis, an indispensable resource as both have been in short supply since 3/11 (the so-called “pandemic” declared on March 11, 2020). RFK Jr.’s agenda of ending chronic disease, purging the food supply of toxic chemicals, and subjecting vaccinations to long overdue testing, are all key priorities that deserve to be advanced.
However, as we can be sure RFK Jr. will know (and know better), there are numerous problems with the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. I can think of at least six.
The first has to do with food production, specifically processed foods, and the “America” part of MAHA. It is conceivable that, under pressure, the major American food corporations may comply with the MAHA agenda, but only in the United States itself. Those companies may move to reduce or remove the toxic and artificial substances that they add to food currently, and perhaps reduce or eliminate the use of dangerous pesticides and herbicides. (I am trying to keep my deep pessimism at bay.)
However, what about the international market for these corporations’ products? Would exports be subject to the same MAHA agenda, or will RFK Jr. make a concession to gain on the home front, while not standing in the way of these companies profiting on the international front by continuing to export the (junk) products they currently make? These companies would thus clean up their act at home, but continue the same act abroad. In a quest to remain internationally competitive on prices, this is certain to weigh heavily. We need to be alert to RFK Jr. creating a loophole for these corporations, in order to extract concessions from them in domestic production.
These are some of the details that we know about the international profile of US food exports, according to the US Department of Agriculture:
“In 2021, the value of U.S. processed food exports increased by 11 percent year-over-year to a record $13.9 billion. Canada remains the top market with $5.2 billion worth of exports, representing 38 percent of all U.S. processed food exports. Mexico is the second-largest market with $1.8 billion and had the highest year-over-year value growth of $416 million (30 percent) in 2021. Because of access under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and proximity to the United States, Canada and Mexico have long been important destinations for U.S. processed products....Exports to China and Taiwan both increased significantly, by 23 percent and 37 percent respectively, following small 2020 declines. Strong growth also extended beyond top markets, with exports to all other partners up by a combined $580 million (19 percent)....
“Exports of U.S. food preparations, which include various processed ingredients, flavorings, and supplements had the highest growth in 2021, up $758 million to a total of $5.9 billion”.
In 2023, US processed food exports had a total value of $36.61 billion. The world’s top two producers of high fructose corn syrup are Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill.
With so much profit at at stake, added to the US gradually losing its share of the overall global food market, the pressure to remain competitive remains high. That pressure translates into flavor modifications and preservatives, as well as presentation (color and texture). Processing by definition is value added: less processing, less value.
That takes us to the second problem: food prices. During the 2024 electoral campaign, the cost of groceries was routinely emphasized as being too high and not affordable for most working Americans. The promise made by the Trump campaign was to lower both inflation and prices, and specifically food prices.
But think of this possibility. In Canada supermarkets commonly have a health food/organic section, a section that has continued to grow in size, so that now customers will find it can occupy anywhere from two to several aisles. One of the distinguishing features of this section are all the products emblazoned with labels such as: organic; vegan; gluten free; lactose free; no GMO; no preservatives, no artificial colours, no artificial flavours, and so on. The other distinguishing feature is the price. A can of organic soup can cost twice as much as a regular can. Everything seems to range from 35% to more than 100% more expensive than “regular” products.
Here we have an interesting flip-side to the value added equation: value is heightened by what is not added to food. The value added is cultural: the demand for healthiness. RFK Jr.’s agenda will increased this form of value added. When coupled with excuses that companies need to spend more to preserve shelf life naturally, and to regularly rotate products, one can expect food prices in grocery stores to sky rocket. “MAHA Compliant” will become the “new and improved” of the twenty-first century. Thus between higher maintenance, supply, and storage costs, and the added value of healthiness, this could spell a profit bonanza for major food producers, and a heightened transfer of wealth away from consumers.
The third problem is that of regulation. Controlling how food is produced, and how pharmaceutical products are made, tested, priced, and so forth—means more regulations. For Canadians this would not be a problem: they would be almost unanimous in demanding more regulations. Americans, on the other hand, are quite different and more independent minded. More than that, the Trump campaign promised to cut regulations, not add them. More regulations means more regulators, which means growth in bureaucracy and a swelling of the size of government. Pitting Big Government against Big Food and Big Pharma means that the winner gets even bigger.
The fourth problem has to do with freedom of choice. “Don’t tell me what I can or can’t eat!” “I don’t need the government to tell me what I can put in my body!” Any smoker or drinker will tell you the same: “yeah, it’s bad for me, got it—and now mind your own business”. Some consumers might actually prefer those very colorful Doritos layered with all kinds of powder. Some people may especially prefer the processed artificial foods if it means lower prices. For a government that champions the freedom to choose, intervention in the marketplace would be a major contradiction.
The fifth problem has to do with advertising by pharmaceutical companies. In the US, corporations are legal “persons” and have the same rights as persons—and this includes the right to free speech. Prohibiting Big Pharma from advertising on television, will certainly be challenged as an unconstitutional violation of free speech. How will a predominantly conservative Supreme Court rule in such cases?
The sixth problem concerns jobs. Already some manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup are warning that jobs of those in the industry would be at risk if production is cut or eliminated. Jobs in the production of processed foods more generally would be shaken: think of all the technicians involved in producing coloring, preservatives, and other additives. If any of these concerns about job losses are valid, then the Trump campaign’s promise to increase employment would be contradicted.
These six problems are only the ones that I personally could find, and that is with limited information and insufficient in-depth experience in these various domains of production, commerce, and the law. One should expect these six problems to realistically be more like 500, depending on how one breaks down specific policies and their implementation.
When it comes to Trump’s agenda, we need to know what are the real priorities, what is the core vision and what are its central operating principles. With Trump we do not know this. He might not know. We may never know, except in retrospect. If the emphasis is on cutting Big Government down to size—which would be surprising, as Trump is a committed statist—then much of the MAHA agenda has to go. If so, then RFK Jr. may be forced to consider less regulated, less stringent, more cultural and informational options: better inform consumers, so that they can make better choices (if they can afford them). MAHA might simply end up being little more than an advertising campaign, and not the end of all chronic illness in a mere four years.
If, on the other hand, Big Food and Big Pharma are seen as greater villains than Big Government, one can expect to see new, sweeping powers added to the federal arsenal.
Either way, we can expect large, powerful lawsuits to be launched in every direction before entire industries are shelved. These cases, if they happen, would likely cost many millions of dollars and last for many years—beyond Trump’s term. In addition, we can expect a wave of counter-MAHA advertising, propaganda, and social media influencer campaigns. One can already find lengthy articles lambasting the targeting of HFCS, labelling “theories” about its negative health effects as “misinformation”.
The first real battle has not even happened yet, so we will need to wait and see how this all works out. I am wishing RFK Jr. every success, for as long as he remains committed to his original vision (and he is already wavering on some key issues).