MAHA is right, we need to be healthier. So why is RFK controlling our research?

Amy McDonald, Contributing Writer

I was pleasantly surprised when I began reading the beautifully designed “Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment.” Trump cabinet members like anti-vaccine advocate and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised concerns that I agreed needed to be addressed to maintain a happy, healthy American population. 

People across the political spectrum would agree that the increase in childhood obesity, diabetes, cancer, mental health crises, allergies and autoimmune disorders should be addressed. The report attributes those issues to ultra-processed foods, environmental pollution, technological isolation and over-medicalization.

They then decided to show the extent of those issues with a pie graph: disqualifying factors for military service eligibility among Americans aged 17-24. 

To me, this implies their main need for American children to be healthy is to support a larger military force.

The last page details the next steps of the plan, actions that loosely correlate with the issues listed, and instead opt to emphasize something called “Gold-Standard Scientific Research.” Multiple key terms on this page are not included anywhere else in the report, leading me to believe they had the action items before anything else. 

The following strategy report, released Sept. 9, echoed those platitudes. The largest emphasis is placed on advancing research, followed by realigning incentives, increasing public awareness and fostering private sector collaboration.

My question is this: Have we not done enough research already to address those issues? Shouldn’t we focus on actually solving the problems listed in the report by providing school children with free lunch and breakfast, by banning companies from leeching waste into our water and regulating additive-filled foods? 

Generally, the health of a population is a matter of infrastructure. The social determinants of health include access to nutrition, safe housing, job opportunities, healthcare, education, clean air and water. 

In the United States, life expectancy and chronic diseases can greatly vary from zip code to zip code. Socioeconomic status and infrastructure help determine chronic nutrition, stress levels and environmental exposure.

For this inequality, I point the finger at big corporations. They have a long history of obfuscating empirical evidence that reveals environmental and public health impacts because it would harm potential revenue.  

Purdue Pharma with OxyContin, DuPont and 3M with PFAs, ExxonMobil with global warming — the list goes on and on.  

Large corporations like Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco have specifically designed addictive, hyperpalatable foods linked to diabetes and heart disease. This is one of MAHA’s main complaints, but their current plan will only study the impacts and not reduce the causes.

We should focus on regulating these corporations, not “fostering relationships” with them. The idea that the government will influence scientific research like these companies have is concerning.

Continued research is necessary, but the extent of government involvement is a slippery slope. Concerned scientists are already feeling pressure from an authoritarian executive branch unchecked by judicial and legislative branches. 

When writing grant proposals for federal funding, researchers can expect automatic denial when specific words are included. This may direct researchers to self-regulate away from topics that the government would not like explored.

This administration is closely tied to corporate interests and billionaires. I doubt they would regulate corporations in any real way, unless it is as punishment for not complying with Trump’s demands. 

Even if MAHA appears to be keeping the best interests of the American people in mind with this report, we have to remember it is spearheaded by an administration that seems more focused on appeasing the whims of an autocratic leader than actually helping U.S. citizens. 

Don’t let their pretty words distract you from the truth: all of this comes from the party with a senator who responded to concerns about Trump’s medicare cuts with “Well, we are all going to die.”