In the last year, MAHA advocates in dozens of state legislatures across the country have gone to war against “Big Food.” Unsurprisingly, these efforts have been popular, as a majority of Americans agree that the government should do more to promote quality and safety in food and pharmaceuticals. The primary weapon levied against the lobby has been state-specific restrictions on food additives, especially dyes and synthetic ingredients.
Although many of the movement’s propositions are popular, the infighting within the MAHA movement is hindering its efforts. With ingredients banned in one jurisdiction and approved in others, some coalition members argue that this patchwork system of legislation hinders business and consumer choice. These supporters insist that Americans deserve equal protection regardless of their resident state, and thus that standards should be federalized. Many other MAHA advocates rally against standardization, arguing that the FDA’s track record is poor and that most consumer protection reform should happen on the state level.
Conflict peaked when the Senate introduced the Better Food Disclosure Act in November. Had the bill passed, it would have voided state legislation prohibiting ingredients in favor of a universal FDA safety review process. Some MAHA adherents pointed out that this bill was supported by food industry groups such as Americans for Ingredient Transparency, thus deeming it “anti-MAHA.” This sentiment was far from universal, however. The pre-emption language (which would void existing state laws) was ultimately struck from the bill, but this is unlikely to be the only effort on the horizon to standardize food regulations.
The MAHA movement is shooting the messenger. They may not like the forces behind the effort, but its proponents have a point: a decentralized approach will splinter the movement. Every coalition has factions, but members can find common cause despite differing motivations. MAHA already suffers from a uniquely pronounced infighting issue, both in the movement’s leadership and between adherents, because the movement generally rails against standardization and conformity.
With RFK serving as MAHA czar, he’s often used as the litmus test for the “correct” positions that health officials should embody. However, few match his exact blend of opinions, and turmoil within the administration’s health entities is commonplace. Top officials have resigned in protest of some of MAHA’s more controversial claims.
Many believe that the Surgeon General nominee, Casey Means, is not qualified enough because she comes from an anti-establishment, activist background. Other new appointees have traditional credentials and career paths, leading to scrutiny that they are too entrenched in the establishment. In many ways, the movement has escaped the czar, because an anti-authority movement cannibalizes its authorities regardless of their actual positions.
It’s not just the leadership squabbling. Adherents are disunified. Women, especially moms, are undoubtedly the heart of the MAHA movement. Groups such as Moms Across America, MAHA Action, and Turning Point USA’s Healthy Americans Coalition are dominated by women interested in how the MAHA movement can benefit their families. Influencers are actually the primary disseminators of information for the movement, but their messages are far from cohesive.
A variety of ever-accelerating purity tests have “momfluencers” competing for “Most Committed” – labeling others as crunchy, scrunchy, or (worst of all) silky moms. Even uttering the phrase “MAHA mom” conjures up a variety of characters. It begs the question: Do you mean women who advocate for unprocessed foods in school lunches, or vehement anti-vaxxers, or women who move their families to “MAHA” compounds? This isn’t just diversity of opinion. It’s disunity, because these factions frequently despise one another. It ultimately means that those outside of the movement are further confused about what MAHA actually advocates.
Fundamentally, MAHA has an individualism issue. This is the natural consequence of forming an anti-authority movement that seeks to create authoritative standards.
In a recent New York Times article, Kennedy said:
“I need people in there who are highly motivated to challenge the inertia, challenge the orthodoxies, because the biggest threat to the system is inertia, because it will just continue this terrible sick care system where everyone is sicker. You need to disrupt it.”
When every member of the movement distrusts establishment guidelines, followers feel qualified to determine individual standards of health. When leadership no longer agrees with the most extreme wing of their coalition, adherents claim that the leaders have been “captured” by the opposition: “Big Food,” “Big Pharma,” and others. Followers divide into smaller and more extreme camps, and unity becomes a faraway dream.
The stated goal of the MAHA movement is to create a stronger, more unified country through a culture of health. This is something every American should support, but how it is achieved matters.
Individualism is not a necessarily destructive trait, but individualism emphasized as a movement’s primary value usually is corrosive. MAHA is being overtaken by an isolationist tendency that prioritizes sovereignty in smaller and smaller jurisdictions – national goals become state goals, state goals become local goals, and local goals become personal ones.
If MAHA is to achieve its goals, the movement will need to accept the direction of broader, more centralized leadership. Otherwise, it will continue to unravel into factions that spend more time at war with one another than against their common enemies.
