Sean McBride is the founder of DSM Strategic Communications and former executive vice president of communications at the Grocery Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Brands Association). He also previously led communications at the American Beverage Association. Opinions are the author's own.
Brash and full of bravado, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his allies in the Trump Administration took the food industry by storm in February of last year by promising to Make America Healthy Again.
The MAHA movement got off to a strong start by bringing together natural allies on the left and, for the first time, conservatives, who had long eschewed the nanny state. MAHA's two-pronged strategy was simple but effective – publicly shame food companies and then introduce a gauntlet of federal and state actions on the food sector with the alleged goal of quelling obesity and related diseases.
There were bans on artificial food dyes. Restrictions on soda and candy in the SNAP program. New Dietary Guidelines that have scant scientific support and made little sense. Bans and labeling mandates for so-called ultraprocessed foods.
The force and scope of MAHA’s actions, supported by a grassroots movement of mothers, stunned policy experts and food companies alike. In the wake of overwhelming criticism, growers, manufacturers and retailers struggled to find their voice. Some chose conciliation and collaboration. Some pushed back. Some ignored what was happening and let events wash over them.
That was then, and this is now.
While the politics of food remain a mess and provide little reprieve for the targets of MAHA’s ire, the courts are providing answers. Federal judges, through their rulings, have gutted large swaths of MAHA’s agenda, shooting down key initiatives on food dyes, SNAP, food additives, and pesticides.
Courts have placed injunctions – that are likely to prove permanent – on MAHA legislation in West Virginia and Texas that mandated artificial food dye bans and negative food labeling, respectively. Separately, a federal judge has ruled the USDA illegally provided waivers to states that allow them to exclude soda and candy from the SNAP program.
And in a move Politico called “a devastating blow" to the movement, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of pesticide maker Bayer Monsanto, relative to state labeling mandates and plaintiffs’ litigation.
None of this is good for the MAHA movement. There are important nuances to each of the decisions, but generally, the courts found the MAHA-inspired laws, action and regulations violate free speech or due process, or exceed the federal government’s authority vis-à-vis its mandate from Congress.
This is not the end of MAHA litigation. Most food policy experts expect RFK Jr.’s FDA will face lawsuits when it issues its long-awaited definition of ultraprocessed foods, as well as its “traffic light” front of pack nutrition labeling scheme, both expected before the end of the year.
It’s probable neither FDA action will survive a lawsuit, in part because judges are no longer required to provide deference to federal agency expertise in court cases in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2024 Chevron decision.
Separately from their legal efficacy, a wide swath of the MAHA food agenda is in tatters because the movement’s worn-out ideas have little hope of actually improving public health and will increase the price of food at a time when consumers are already concerned about making ends meet.
With Congress mired in election year politics, it is quite possible the courts will remain the only check on bad food policy ideas from MAHA for the remainder of the Trump administration.
