Debunking MAHA’s myths about “toxins.”
Who wouldn’t want to make America healthy? Today, more than half of American adults live with at least one chronic condition, such as heart disease, diabetes, or cancer, and nearly 30 percent manage multiple chronic illnesses. Add to that high rates of obesity and public health inequities, and it’s easy to see why the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement has gained traction. The promise of tackling chronic disease and cleaning up the food supply struck a chord with voters across the political spectrum eager for solutions to our nation’s declining health.
And in some ways, MAHA is right to call attention to these issues. America’s food environment is broken; our diets are dominated by ultra-processed foods that are cheap, accessible, and aggressively marketed, particularly to children. Nutritional awareness matters and there’s an urgent need to improve food education, access, and quality in this country. Even on topics like food additives, there are reasonable discussions to be had. While artificial food dyes have been deemed safe by regulatory agencies worldwide, they serve mostly a marketing function in kids’ foods, making products more appealing and driving overconsumption of sugary, ultra-processed snacks. And MAHA is also right to question corporate influence — not just in food, but in pharmaceutical marketing and regulation, where profit motives often shape industry practices.
But MAHA’s solutions don’t address the root causes of America’s health crisis. Instead, they erode trust in science while distracting from the policies that could actually improve public health. From vilifying seed oils to fixating on “poisonous additives,” MAHA rhetoric misdirects attention away from systemic issues like economic inequality, food insecurity, and underfunded public health systems — factors that truly drive poor health outcomes in the U.S.
The MAHA movement’s distracting rhetoric
Instead of tackling systemic change, MAHA leans into food fear-mongering, spreading misinformation about individual ingredients while ignoring the structural issues that shape public health.
- Seed Oils: MAHA leaders claim seed oils are toxic and a major driver of chronic disease, despite decades of research showing that replacing saturated fats (like butter) with polyunsaturated fats (like those in seed oils) lowers LDL cholesterol and reduces cardiovascular risk. The demonization of seed oils is rooted in wellness culture misinformation, not strong scientific evidence.
- Fluoride: Decades of research confirm that fluoridated water is safe and effective at preventing cavities, yet MAHA rhetoric fuels distrust by pushing unfounded claims about harm. And removing fluoride would disproportionately harm low-income communities, which already face higher rates of dental disease.
- Food Dye: MAHA often claims that dyes used in the U.S. are banned elsewhere for safety reasons. In reality, regulatory agencies around the world (including in Europe) have deemed them safe, and differences in use mostly come down to regional preference and consumer demand. Swapping out dyes in ultra-processed foods won’t meaningfully improve health outcomes.
- “Toxin” Cleanups: The term “toxin” is misused in MAHA rhetoric to create fear about food additives, ignoring that toxicity depends on dose. For most substances, the dose makes the poison. Low levels are generally safe, while high doses can be harmful. Water, salt, and vitamin D, for example, are all safe at low doses but toxic at high doses. While MAHA pushes ingredient bans, it ignores the real crisis: Millions of Americans lack access to fresh, affordable food in the first place.
This ingredient-focused approach is a distraction from policy changes that could actually improve public health, like expanding nutrition assistance programs, regulating corporate food marketing, and increasing access to healthcare. Rather than advocating for systemic solutions, MAHA’s rhetoric plays into wellness industry narratives that ultimately benefit those who profit from selling expensive “clean” alternatives, not the communities struggling most with chronic disease.
If the goal were truly to make America healthier, the focus would be on evidence-based policies, not fear-mongering about individual ingredients.
The disingenuous MAHA-Trump partnership
From the start, the partnership between RFK Jr.’s MAHA movement and Donald Trump’s administration was at odds with public health priorities. For those familiar with Trump’s record, the contradictions were glaring. Throughout his first term, Trump consistently prioritized corporate interests over public health — rolling back food safety regulations, weakening environmental protections, and dismantling key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Now, just days into his second term, he has already withdrawn the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO), left the Paris Climate Agreement, and moved to cut public health funding — actions that directly undermine MAHA’s stated goals of improving public health.
But it seems MAHA is abandoning those goals now that Trump is in office. If the movement were actually about improving public health, its leaders would push for policy changes that address the social determinants of health and root causes of chronic disease. Instead, MAHA has remained silent on these issues while aligning itself with an administration that has repeatedly slashed funding for nutrition programs, reduced protections for clean air and water, and prioritized industry deregulation over consumer safety. Meanwhile, Trump has appointed industry lobbyists and corporate insiders to key public health positions — most notably a former oilseed industry executive as chief of staff for the USDA, despite MAHA’s fixation on demonizing seed oils.
This partnership was never about public health. It was about eroding trust in science and public health institutions while shifting attention away from the structural changes needed to improve health outcomes. By promoting wellness trends (like avoiding seed oils) and misinformation, MAHA allows Trump to sidestep the policies that could actually improve Americans’ health, shifting blame away from deregulation and corporate influence and onto personal responsibility.
It’s not a movement to “make America healthy again” — it’s a movement designed to mislead and distract from actual systemic policy changes that could improve public health.
The real solutions for the public health crisis
America’s health crisis isn’t caused by ingredients like seed oils or fluoride — it’s the result of decades of policy failures. If we want to improve public health, we need systemic reforms, not distractions. Some of the most effective solutions include:
- Addressing economic inequality: Disparities in access to healthy food, safe housing, quality education, and affordable healthcare create a cycle of poor health outcomes for low-income populations. Policies addressing these structural inequities are critical for meaningful change.
- Regulating corporate influence: A food environment dominated by ultra-processed foods, aggressive marketing of unhealthy products, and corporate lobbying against stricter regulations prioritize profit over public health. Without regulating these practices, public health efforts will continue to fall short.
- Investing in public health systems: Decades of underinvestment, particularly at state and local levels, have left communities without the resources to prevent chronic disease or respond to outbreaks. Strengthening public health infrastructure is essential.
- Expanding nutrition and food security programs: Millions of Americans live in food deserts with limited access to affordable, nutritious food. Expanding programs like SNAP and improving school nutrition standards would make a far greater impact than ingredient bans.
- Improving health and nutrition education: Underfunded schools in low-income areas lack comprehensive health and nutrition education, limiting awareness about disease prevention, diet, and physical activity.
There are only so many resources and so much political will available to improve public health. Focusing on ingredient swaps and banning specific foods is not only ineffective — it actively diverts attention away from the policies that could actually reduce chronic disease rates at scale. Policymakers and public health leaders must prioritize interventions that create real, measurable improvements in population health rather than being sidetracked by wellness industry talking points that do little to address the root causes of the crisis.
How to really make America healthy again
Ultimately, there’s no debate that America has a chronic disease crisis and across the political spectrum, people recognize that something needs to change. Our food environment is broken, healthcare is expensive and inaccessible for many, and rates of preventable diseases continue to rise. The frustration that gave rise to the MAHA movement is understandable. But the causes of this crisis aren’t what MAHA claims.
We haven’t prioritized public health, we’ve let corporate interests dictate nutrition policy, and we’ve underfunded the very programs that could improve access to healthy food, healthcare, and preventive care.
If we want to make America healthier, we need evidence-based policies — ones that reduce food insecurity, expand access to healthcare, and regulate corporate influence on public health. Not fear-mongering. Not expensive wellness gimmicks. And certainly not a movement designed to shift blame away from the systems that got us here in the first place.
Dr. Jessica Knurick is a Registered Dietitian with a Ph.D. in nutrition science, specializing in chronic disease prevention. She educates on nutrition science, food and nutrition policy, and how these factors shape public health. She helps people navigate nutrition information with a critical eye, breaking down complex topics and addressing common misconceptions. As a researcher and speaker, she is passionate about making science accessible, practical, and grounded in real-world impact.
