Scientists decry political ideologies interfering with US nutrition science

The US Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report on childhood chronic diseases recently came under fire for using fake citations, eliciting deeper questions about scientific rigor in the face of political extremities. Nutrition Insight examines this brewing tension as the Trump administration slashes funding to nutrition science and research.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CPSI) slams the MAHA report as “anti-scientific,” flagging its “deep contradictions.” It claims the Commission ignores systemic barriers to childhood chronic diseases, such as accessibility issues and health inequities people face.

“Digging deeper into the content, the report fails on four key fronts. First, it uplifts anti-scientific ideas championed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Second, it mentions corporate influence on the food system but fails to outline how MAHA will hold the food industry accountable,” outlines CSPI.

For instance, it warns that the FDA’s April announcement of plans to phase out synthetic dyes from food is nothing more than an understanding with some part of the food industry to remove dyes. But there is no rulemaking involved. 

“A far more likely outcome is that the White House will continue to welcome industry groups with open arms and answer with deeper budget cuts to regulatory agencies.”

The MAHA Commission is under fire for using fake citations and promoting anti-scientific claims tied to political agendas.CPSI’s third point directly criticizes the Trump administration for undermining several good ideas in the assessment. Lastly, while some of the good ideas are noted, they contradict the bad ideas presented in the same report.

The organization argues that overall, it “regurgitates” the same points on “false claims about the ‘harms’ of seed oils, fluoride, and vaccines; unsubstantiated claims about ‘ineffective’ government nutrition programs; and an implied push for industry deregulation.”

Science and contradictions to MAHA

A recent report by the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Food and Nutrition Policy outlines five MAHA food policy areas that are supported by scientific evidence: 

• Eliminate toxic chemicals from the food supply. 
• Prohibit public programs from subsidizing sugary drinks and other ultra-processed foods. 
• Protect our children from developing diet-related diseases. 
• Improve access to nutrition services in healthcare settings. 
• Reduce conflicts of interest in food and nutrition research.

The report urges higher NIH funding for nutrition research, including effective policy strategies to improve diet, to tackle diet-related diseases, which are the leading cause of premature deaths in the US.

Instead of uplifting scientific institutions, CSPI notes that the MAHA commission fails to address federal cuts to NIH funding, including low spending on nutrition research, the termination of hundreds of grants, the elimination of all federal funding at Harvard University, and attacks on other academic institutions.

It adds that the Trump administration cut more than US$1 billion in funding for local food, contradicting positive ideas in the MAHA report, such as increasing consumption of whole, unprocessed foods.

Last month, the National WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) Association lamented Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 budget cuts to WIC nutrition assistance. This would take away access to fruits and vegetables for low-income moms and young children.

The Trump administration slashed over US$1 billion in local food funding and NIH nutrition research grants.At the same time, Kennedy Jr. intends to make nutrition education compulsory in medical schools — or risk losing federal funding.

NIH victory for public health

This week, the federal court ruled that NIH’s disfavoring topics and populations, such as DEI and “gender ideology,” is unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious, and therefore void. With the ruling, research into various life-threatening health issues can resume.

“Scientific research must be guided by evidence, not political agendas, and this ruling rightly restores important research projects that should never have been disrupted,” says plaintiff Dr. Brittany Charlton, associate professor at Harvard Chan School of Public Health.

“Today’s decision is a crucial step in protecting public health and safeguarding critical research that helps us understand, prevent, and treat life-threatening diseases.” 

A federal court ruled NIH’s politically driven research cancellations unlawful, marking a win for evidence-based public health.Since February, research grants have halted as part of the larger health worker layoffs. In April, CSPI and various organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the cancellations.

“[The] ruling confirms that science must be guided by evidence, not ideology. By blocking NIH’s unlawful directive, the court has protected the integrity of scientific research and ensured that critical studies, especially those focused on underserved and marginalized communities, can continue without political interference,” says Olga Akselrod, senior counsel in the Racial Justice Program at the ACLU.

Earlier this month, leading scientists called for US$120 million in funding and doubling the current budget to US$4 billion for nutrition research and science in an open letter to the NIH director, Dr. Bhattacharya. “Scientific independence and freedom of inquiry are the only way to maintain the credibility of federally funded research.”

“We ask that you publicly affirm your commitment to independent science at NIH, free from political interference. And we urge you to increase federal investments in nutrition research that can give the American public answers and solutions to this country’s vexing problem of diet-related chronic disease.”