One of the most talked-about developments in the U.S. food regulatory landscape over the past year has been the emergence of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.  MAHA promotes a broad public-health agenda that touches on topics ranging from environmental toxins and pesticide exposure to pharmaceutical use and ingredients in everyday foods. Although the concept is broad and far-reaching, this article focuses on the movements’ focus on food.

As these programs have gained steam, we’ve received quite a bit of questions from our diverse range of international clients on what this means for products they produce, import, export, or intend to sell into the US market. I intend to share those commonly asked questions and demystify confusion.

What is MAHA, and why does it matter?

At the highest level, MAHA is the United States public-health focused political movement centered on reducing chronic disease, increased governmental transparency, and scrutiny of what we put into our food. Unlike other politically polarized agendas, the MAHA movement takes a “big tent” approach bringing people from all areas of the spectrum- conservative, moderate, libertarian, and liberal together with the focus of improving the health of all Americans. 

What began as grassroots consumer advocacy around food ingredients- particularly among parents concerned about children’s diets- has evolved into a broader discussion influencing retailers, restaurants, and food manufacturers. Many consumers are increasingly seeking foods with simple, recognizable ingredients that are minimally processed. This does not necessarily mean abandoning snacks or indulgent foods, but rather a growing expectation that those products be made with ingredients that are familiar, transparent, and perceived as safer alternatives to synthetic additives.

The public also wants to trust the foods that they are eating- this means that all assumptions are being challenged- from long-approved ingredients such as petroleum-based dyes and preservatives to the way these ingredients are reviewed and approved for use, otherwise known as the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) approval scheme.  This is particularly evident when asked why certain items are allowed in foods marketed in the United States but banned in other countries.

How is this affecting regulatory policy?

At the policy level, there is growing discussion about whether the U.S. should move closer to a precautionary approach,  similar to that used in the European Union, rather than relying primarily on traditional risk-based, weight-of-evidence evaluations.  In practical terms, this means that all ingredients- those that have been previously approved and those new to market, will be subjected to stricter review processes.

In some cases, this means delisting, or otherwise banning ingredients, as an example, FD&C Red Dye No. 3 has been proposed for removal from approved uses. While many other colors (FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, and FD&C Bule No. 1 as examples, have been requested to be removed from foods by federal and state agencies and  consumer advocacy, but have not been removed from the GRAS list, but have undergone a pressure campaign for reformulation.  To accelerate the industry moving in this direction, the US FDA is moving quickly to approve new color additives and have changed the requirements for making specific marketing claims around “added colors”.

What impact do states have, vs. the role of the federal government?

In the United States, each state is allowed to manage a regulatory framework that supports the citizens of that state; often that means that you may notice slight differences state-to-state, but large decisions that have an impact on interstate commerce are generally managed at the Federal level.  What has become unique with MAHA, is that states have acted quickly and independently to implement their own laws banning or requiring compulsory language to foods containing ingredients of concern. In some cases, these rules are limited to food for school lunch programs, or SNAP; while others are wide-ranging across all items sold in the state. What began in California, now encompasses dozens of states, including both liberal and conservative jurisdictions.

How should international food companies comply?

For many of our international clients, the MAHA movement has caused concern related to products that they currently sell, or those they wish to distribute in the United States.  A few areas of guidance that I always provide include:

Understand your Product-ensure that your products are compliant to the current regulatory requirements, and research if any ingredients are of concern federally, or at the state level. It’s important to do the research, because what’s compliant today may be on the chopping block in the near future.

Reformulate Early- if you find that your product contains an ingredient of concern, do the research early to reformulate to another ingredient that poses less risk. Often, the R&D takes considerable time to mitigate product failures or poor customer experiences.  Also, ask yourself if the ingredient in your product meets the “headline” test- if this was on the front page of the newspaper, would this be a concern?

Talk to your Customers- just as states are moving quickly to ban ingredients, many retailers, quick service restaurants, and manufacturers have implemented “banned Ingredients” lists.  Spend the time working with your brokers and customers to understand their priorities and standards before they become requirements. Also, if your customer isn’t the final consumer, dig in to see if this could be a risk to your product. For instance, if your product goes into the school lunch program, your food item may no longer be compliant to the regulation.

While the MAHA movement is often discussed in political terms, its impact extends beyond politics. It reflects a growing shift in U.S. consumer expectations toward transparency, ingredient simplicity, and greater regulatory accountability. Companies that proactively understand their formulations and monitor these evolving standards will be better positioned for long-term success in the U.S. market.