“No powerful solutions”: Nutrition experts explore draft MAHA strategy’s priorities and impact

Public debate on the recently leaked draft Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy is bubbling, with criticism about its impact on addressing children’s chronic diseases. The report, by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, identifies public health priorities and calls to expand research, but experts argue it lacks actionable solutions for tangible health improvements. They also question proposed reforms to the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) framework.

Nutrition Insight discusses initial feedback and criticism on the draft MAHA strategy with Mary Story, Ph.D., a registered dietitian and director of Healthy Eating Research, and the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN). 

“The commission should carefully consider the criticisms raised and revise the report. Priority areas need to be defined and timelines established.”

“My hopes were up after the first report, and this is just a long, limp wish list, without priority areas listed or a timeline. How can they achieve everything in this report in three and a half  years without having key priorities?” she questions.

As a professor at Duke Global Health Institute, US, Story recollects that when the first MAHA report was released in May 2025, the commission’s lead, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said: “We will follow the truth wherever it leads, uphold rigorous science, and drive bold policies that put the health, development, and future of every child first.” 

In addition, the leaked draft report’s introduction says the Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy will add “powerful new solutions that will end childhood chronic disease.” 

“Sadly, there are no powerful solutions or bold policies in this draft report,” says Story. “There are no teeth, muscles, or legs in this report, which is supposed to lay out a comprehensive strategy.” 

Public health priorities

The draft strategy points to poor diet and chemical exposure as two potential drivers behind the rise in childhood chronic disease that “present the clearest opportunities for progress.” It aims to expand nutrition research and innovation and highlights several focus areas, such as dietary guidelines reform, food dyes, ultra-processed foods, nutrition labeling, and infant formula. 

CRN supports a balanced approach to wellness, focused on a healthy diet and supplements to fill critical nutrient gaps and prevent deficiencies.A CRN spokesperson says the organization also supports a balanced approach to wellness, underscoring that “a healthy diet is the foundation of good health.” This approach should also recognize that dietary supplements can help fill critical nutrient gaps and prevent deficiencies. 

“We believe better nutrition leads to healthier lives and that public policy should consider how to increase intake of essential nutrients and address nutrition disparities that lead to chronic disease and missed opportunities to reduce these illnesses.” 

Story adds that many of the draft strategy’s general topics align with public health goals, such as reducing chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes. However, she says the report “lacks details” on specific strategies or effective interventions. 

“Core to public health is equity, working to ensure everyone has the opportunity to be healthy, regardless of their background or circumstances,” she continues. “Everyone in the US does not have the opportunity to be healthy, and these disparities are not addressed or highlighted in this report. Many children and families do not have access to healthy, affordable foods.” 

“Increasing food and nutrition security should be a major goal,” underscores Story. 

Where is the how?

The draft report is criticized for not implementing stronger regulatory actions to improve health, especially since recent federal budget cuts have limited access to nutrition. 

Story underscores that the “how” of policy reforms is missing from the report. 

Story urges the strategy to increase food and nutrition security as not everyone in the US has access to healthy, affordable foods.“I find the report more focused on the need for new research rather than on policy recommendations,” she critiques. “The policy recommendations do not go far enough.” 

“For example, the FDA will come up with a definition for ultra-processed foods, which is needed, but that is only the first step. The report needs to go beyond just coming up with a definition, but create policy regulation solutions.” 

Story says she is disappointed to see that regulation was not mentioned. “We need regulations for Front of the Package Nutrition Labeling, curbing food marketing to children, ultra-processed foods, setting targets for sodium, added sugars, and saturated fats.”

“Voluntary efforts by the food industry have shown this is not an effective solution.”

GRAS reform

At the same time, Story welcomes several policy reforms in the report. “Food additives and getting colored dyes out of the food supply are good, but this will not reduce chronic disease risk,” she details. 

She also says it is good news that the report addresses a reform of GRAS designation through the FDA to ensure all new food additives meet applicable safety standards with increased transparency. 

However, CRN has long opposed efforts to weaken the existing self-GRAS framework, as it “provides an efficient, science-based process to ensure safety without adding unnecessary regulatory burdens.” 

“Specifically, rather than dismantling a system that allows scientifically reviewed ingredients to reach the market efficiently, we believe the FDA should focus on strengthening enforcement mechanisms to ensure the GRAS process is used responsibly,” details the organization.  

Although the report has a strong focus on research, it lacks actionable and regulatory solutions to improve children’s health.“CRN shares the goal of increasing safety and transparency for consumers and stands ready to work with the FDA to achieve it,” says the spokesperson. “The solution is not to eliminate self-GRAS, which would stifle innovation, but to provide the FDA with the resources and tools it needs to maintain an effective regulatory system that fosters safety and progress.”

Rigorous research

The report outlines several nutrition research and innovation focus areas, emphasizing collaborations between the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the FDA, the US Department of Agriculture, and the American Heart Association. 

For example, the draft states it will pursue rigorous, gold-standard scientific research to help ensure informed decisions that promote healthy outcomes for children and families. 

CRN says it supports greater federal investment in rigorous research, including the draft report’s proposal for an NIH’s Chronic Disease Task Force to evaluate the role of supplements in preventive health. 

The report notes this task force will launch a new “Whole Person Health approach” to chronic disease prevention research and leverage collective expertise to catalyze transformative discovery science and intervention strategies that promote wellness, resilience, and optimal health across the lifespan. 

The CRN spokesperson notes that the organization’s research demonstrates the value of integrating supplements into chronic disease prevention. 

“The CRN Foundation’s Supplements to Savings report projects that targeted use of nine evidence-backed supplements — including omega-3s, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, vitamin K2, and probiotics — could save the US healthcare system billions of dollars by reducing disease risk and avoiding costly medical events,” explains the organization.   

“This analysis underscores what consumers and healthcare professionals already recognize: supplements, when paired with healthy lifestyle choices, are an important and cost-effective tool for improving public health.”

Story agrees that research is “always needed for innovation and knowledge acquisition” and to determine what works and what doesn’t. 

“But there are many things we already know, and policy action is needed now. I would like to have seen more of the ‘how’ in the report.”