MAHA Commission’s Report on Childhood Chronic Disease: A Useful Start—But Far from the “Sea Change” We Need

THE TOPLINE

• The MAHA report highlights four indisputable drivers of unhealthy children—ultra-processed food, toxic chemical exposure, screen-driven stress, and rampant prescription drug use—yet skirts around or ignores other intertwined factors.
• Action items listed in the report focus on “more research” instead of bold levers that could actually reverse disease trends.
• By avoiding hard fights with Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Big Tech, the report risks becoming another half-measure unless policymakers overhaul money flows, incentives, and regulatory capture to put children’s health before corporate profit.

---

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s new report arrives with an ambitious promise: identify the “root causes” of America’s childhood health crisis and chart a path toward prevention. It is a welcome sign that the new administration—even if only in a modest way—is serious about the role of diet, sedentary lifestyles, chemical exposures, digital-age stressors, and pharmaceutical overuse instead of defaulting to one-size-fits-all medicine.

Yet for those of us who have long pressed for a wholesale re-imagining of public-health policy and empowering individual choice, the document feels less like a sea change and more like the tide inching in. Here, we review what the report gets right, what it leaves out, and—most important—what has to happen next if we’re serious about reversing the epidemic of childhood chronic disease.

Four Factors, Many Missing Pieces

It’s important to note from the outset that the report can’t be everything for everyone. It’s been criticized by Big Ag, the media, the left as well as the right. Some have charged that it doesn’t tackle the leading causes of death among children: firearms and motor vehicle accidents. Others contend that there isn’t sufficient discussion of the role genetically engineered foods play in chronic illness. Getting to grips with understanding scientifically, socially, economically, politically, and environmentally what’s making American society so sick is certainly an incredibly complex business over which there is little consensus. The notion that this might be able to be tackled authoritatively in a single report was ambitious, to say the least, so no wonder critics have wasted no time picking holes in the report.

The report spotlights diet quality, environmental chemicals, screen-driven behavior, and over-medicalization as key drivers of illness. No one can dispute their importance:

• Ultra-processed foods that lack adequate nutrient density now provide roughly 70 percent of children’s calories, overwhelming the body’s nutrient-sensing and satiety signals, disrupting metabolism and the gut microbiome, and inflaming metabolic pathways from an early age.
• Toxic exposures (PFAS, glyphosate, microplastics, etc.) accumulate in kids’ blood and urine at levels that alarm independent scientists, with wide-ranging health consequences.
• Digital-age stressors—excessive screen time, online bullying, sleep deprivation—fuel anxiety, depression, and attention disorders.
• Pharmaceutical overuse is rampant; one in five US children takes at least one prescription drug each month, with little evidence that the strategy is making them healthier.

So far, so good. But chronic disease is inherently multifactorial. Indoor air quality, household mold, micronutrient deficiencies, electromagnetic pollution, loss of outdoor play spaces and nature-connection, and the declining health of the human microbiome all intersect with the four buckets the MAHA Commission authors describe, along with dozens of other known factors, and likely many others still to be revealed. What about the steady march of synthetic biology, as applied to our agriculture, the food supply, and to drugs? The report nods at some of these issues but stops short of integrating them into a single, coherent framework.

It is undoubtedly valuable to focus the nation’s attention on these factors, and to get us thinking about concepts like “total toxin load” as it relates to our children’s health. What seems lacking, however, are efforts to untangle the psycho-social, economic, environmental, and political drivers and dynamics that create a landscape where disease prevention is sidelined, and early-onset conditions like obesity, diabetes, and mental illness are becoming disturbingly common in children and young adults. Lacking too are tangible solutions that can noticeably move the needle forward on these issues.

From “More Research” to Real-World Change

That raises the core question the MAHA Commission report does not fully answer: If we learn even more about multi-factorial causation, what do we do with the information, who will deliver the solutions, and how? Consider a few examples:

• Ultra-processed food – Will the government redirect subsidies toward regenerative farms and make real food the easy, affordable choice, or simply publish another pamphlet about “balanced diets”? How do we address the issue of pesticide residues in low-cost foods that those with greatest burden of disease risk currently rely on for sustenance? Will we rein in the incremental contamination of our food with genetically modified or gene edited foods and ingredients?  
• Chemical exposures – Will EPA phase out endocrine-disrupting pesticides and ‘forever chemicals’ (PFAS), or will risk assessments drag on while children accumulate new body burdens? We don’t see many positive signs here, especially in light of the Trump administration’s recent rowing back on plans to limit PFAS from drinking water.
• Digital stress – Will schools and tech companies re-design platforms to protect developing brains, or will parents be told (yet again) to “limit screen time” with no structural support? How will the issue of digital addiction be addressed?
• Over-medicalization – Will insurance companies and the government reimburse nutrition, lifestyle, and integrative therapies, or will clinicians remain financially rewarded for writing scripts instead of spending time?

Unless policymakers address these delivery mechanisms, new knowledge may add precision to our diagnosis without moving the needle on outcomes. And that’s before we even start looking at the complex psychosocial, socio-economic, and behavioral drivers of unhealthy lifestyle patterns.

The Politics of Half-Measures

Industry pushback was immediate. Farm groups warned that reining in glyphosate would double food costs; drug-company surrogates cried “anti-science” at any hint of vaccine schedule review (even though the government’s own National Academies said in a 2013 report that key components of the vaccine schedule have not been adequately studied); media headlines emphasized “doom and gloom” rather than opportunity with headlines like “Kennedy and Trump Paint Bleak Picture of Chronic Disease in U.S. Children.”

Even within the administration, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stressed that the White House does not seek “a European-style regulatory regime,” code for don’t expect bold limits on chemicals any time soon. The report’s reliance on “private-sector innovation” gives corporations an open lane to declare victory with superficial tweaks while maintaining business as usual.

That tension explains the report’s cautious tone. By limiting its prescriptions to more study, the Commission sidesteps the fiercest fights.

The Path Forward: People Over Profits

A critical point made throughout the report is the role that crony capitalism and regulatory capture play in making our children sick. For too long, our regulatory agencies, research institutions, and even medical schools have been beholden to industry funding. The result is a landscape where doctors are taught to prescribe, not prevent; where food companies write nutrition science; and where pharmaceutical interests dictate clinical guidelines. The MAHA Commission calls this out in no uncertain terms. That’s a first and, in our view, a welcome and much needed step in the right direction. But unless the plan is entirely coherent, we are deeply concerned that the needle on the American people’s health status won’t move in the direction we hope for—or at least fast enough. The contradiction in HHS and EPA policy on PFAS is a reminder of what can happen when coherence is lacking. 

It’s no surprise that the MAHA Commission’s vision crystallized in its first major report has met resistance. Powerful stakeholders are invested in the status quo. But families across the country are waking up to the reality that the system is failing our children. We don’t need more pills—we need fresh food, fewer toxins, more movement, and a renewed focus on mental well-being.

This first MAHA report, as an opening salvo, is just the beginning and at least there are elements of it that are of value. But translating this and more into real-world results has to be the end objective and it’s a task that HHS and any government agency can’t ultimately do on its own. Solving the American health crisis involves something much more radical and must include empowering the people with truthful information and facilitating freedom of choice. In short: the real work lies ahead.

Please share this article widely across your networks and consider donating to support our work.

Share