MAHA – Clean label endorsed by the government

KANSAS CITY — Make America healthy again (MAHA) has been the battle cry of Robert Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), since his own failed presidential campaign in 2024, and the American diet has been in the crosshairs. Artificial colors, seed oils, added sugars and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are just some of the buzzwords in headlines over the past year.

The MAHA Commission’s published reports all aim to crystallize where MAHA will focus its efforts to improve the healthfulness of the American diet to curb chronic disease. These include an initial report published in May 2025; a follow-up strategy document released in September 2025, and The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) 2025-2030, published at the beginning of this year.

States have also taken the initiative to ban ingredients, and UPFs continue to rise in prominence as the new big bad when it comes to American health. While these talking points and actions have certainly shaken up the food industry, JP Frossard, vice president of consumer food for Rabobank, noted MAHA is nothing new.

“MAHA is pre-Trump administration; it’s pre-RFK,” he said. “It’s a consolidation of wellness trends, the ones we see every year at [New Products] Expo West, and MAHA is just the personification and institutional validation of those trends.”

It’s clean label with government endorsement.

The MAHA Commission and the DGAs cut through the political noise and give a clearer picture of HHS priorities when it comes to food.

“The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans were aligned with many of the ambitious policy goals the administration laid out in the MAHA Commission strategy report released last fall,” said Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of federal affairs, Consumer Brands Association (CBA).

While there was some apprehension that the administration would ignore established science, many of the strongest scientifically based recommendations remained in place, such as limits on saturated fats (less than 10% of daily calories for adults) and added sugar (less than 50 grams a day for a 2,000 calories/day diet). Added sugar limitations were actually more limited for children under the age of 10. A focus on whole foods remains a priority. Protein, specifically animal-based, is prioritized alongside full-fat dairy products. Seed oils were not mentioned in the DGAs despite being a major talking point throughout 2025.

“The guidelines are vocal about fats from olive oil and avocados being good fats. The industry has already been adapting to this by adding new options like avocado oils for premium products,” Frossard said. “It could be that the administration realized that replacing seed oils with avocado or olive oil is something that just can’t happen overnight. It’s a reality check for them on the economic impact.”

Grain-based foods in the spotlight

It’s grain-based foods where some of the major departures from previous iterations of the DGAs occur. Instead of 6 to 11 servings, the government recommends 2 to 4 daily servings. Erin Ball, executive director of the Grain Foods Foundation (GFF), pointed out that is based simply on the math needed to accommodate daily caloric intake limits.

“The guidelines still adhere to calorie strata, so they are making recommendations within a maximum of 2,000 calories per day,” she explained. “The recommendations have to equal that number, so if you’re increasing recommended protein and fat, you have to decrease something else.”

In addition to a reduction in servings per day, the new DGAs also insist that all the servings be from whole grains and that consumers should not consume refined or even enriched grains.

However, GFF’s consumer research revealed consumers currently struggle to eat just one serving of whole grains per day. Previous DGAs recommended that half of daily grain servings be whole grains. While the 2 to 4 servings of whole grains a day would be more attainable, Ball does not believe this is realistic based on consumer behavior.

“We know that over decades, we’ve moved from people consuming less than one serving a day to closer to one serving a day,” she said. “We also know that people eat a lot of refined or enriched grains. We have to meet people where they are and introduce incremental change, and those changes need to be ones they’re on board with in the first place.”

the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans insist that all grain-based food servings be from whole grains and that consumers should not consume refined or even enriched grains.

| Photo: ©BALINT RADU – STOCK.ADOBE.COM

Developing the DGAs is a long process. For two years, an advisory committee of scientists studied the latest dietary research to develop recommendations for the Biden administration for the 2025-30 DGAs. Industry representatives participated in that process. Rasma Zvaners, vice president of government relations, American Bakers Association (ABA), said the association provided four sets of written comments and two oral testimonies to that committee on the value of grain-based foods. When that report was turned over to the Trump administration, it was set aside in favor of the administration’s own report generated from a different committee.

“Before these guidelines were issued, we went in both as the ABA and as the Grain Chain to talk more holistically about the value of grains as shelf stable staples that can be added to a variety of foods to meet different family needs in communities both urban and rural,” Zvaners said. “The [US Department of Agriculture (USDA)] did acknowledge the expertise we provide and encouraged us to keep educating policymakers on the issues important to the commercial baking industry. It’s been a slightly different process than we’ve had in the past.”

Eric Dell, ABA’s president and chief executive officer, highlighted the strength of the association’s relationships with the people at these agencies.

“ABA has long-standing positive relationships with the USDA and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), with both Democratic and Republican administrations for years,” he said. “We will continue to tell our stories, but we have trust with those agencies.”

Taking aim at UPFs

In addition to the DGAs and MAHA agenda, more states around the country are taking their own stand on topics such as artificial colors and UPFs. California, West Virginia, Utah and Virginia all have laws banning artificial dyes in food, while other states are considering similar legislation. Texas is weighing a disclosure label for foods that contain these ingredients.

The term ultra-processed was absent from the DGAs because the USDA is evaluating a federal definition for the term. Instead the DGAs steer Americans away from consuming highly processed foods. In October 2025, California published its own definition of UPFs as it prepares to phase them out of school lunches. The state defines UPFs broadly as any food or beverage that contains one or more ingredients with specified technical effects and either contains high amounts of saturated fats, sodium or added sugar or contains non-nutritive sweeteners or certain other specified substances. Ingredients noted in the definition included emulsifiers, stabilizers, flavor enhancers, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates and sucralose.

In San Francisco, the city attorney has filed a lawsuit against 10 US food and beverage companies claiming that these companies formulated and marketed UPFs with ingredients that harmed public health. The lawsuit relies on the NOVA food classification system’s definition of processed foods, which groups foods according to the extent and purpose of the processing they undergo. According to that classification, UPFs are products that are industrially produced with five or more ingredients, which may include additives and artificial ingredients not typically found in home cooking.

“Ultra-processed foods seem to be the term that has gained the most traction with the MAHA movement,” Zvaners said. “The UPF definition using the NOVA classification has been around for a long time, and between the dynamics of how this administration came together, who’s leading HHS, it’s the perfect storm because typically nutrition issues are always a priority regardless of the administration, but this one has been unique because on all sides everyone is scrutinizing food.”

Tangible impacts

While it can be alarming to see the bakery category stripped of servings and refined grains thrown out of the DGAs, these are truly guidelines, not regulations or legislation. It’s unclear how much consumers look to the DGAs to influence their eating habits.

“Prior to this new pyramid when we still had MyPlate, the consumer didn’t really know about it,” Zvaners said. “The DGAs are geared toward the federal nutrition program and would have the biggest impact on the school meal program. Whether the consumer uses the DGAs more or not, time will tell.”

As Zvaners noted, the new DGAs will influence the next round of regulations for feeding programs that are funded by federal dollars: SNAP, WIC, school nutrition and military feeding programs.

Historically, this process of updating regulations has taken some time. For example, the current school nutrition standards were proposed in February 2023, finalized in spring of 2024, and the first menu changes went into effect in July 2025, explained Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokesperson for the School Nutrition Association (SNA). The changes are still being implemented. In July 2027, schools will finally be expected to meet the sodium and added sugar limits that were proposed in 2023.

However, chatter in Washington, DC, suggests regulations may come sooner rather than later.

“We’re hearing that the administration plans to move more quickly, particularly with school meals,” Zvaners said. “We could see recommendations by early September.”

Comments filed by the American Bakers Association emphasized a definition of UPFs should focus on nutritional composition rather than processing method or individual ingredients.

| Photo: ©ORANGE – STOCK.ADOBE.COM

Pratt-Heavner noted that the DGAs are focused on a move away from highly processed foods and toward whole foods and minimal added sugar. She said that there is growing interest among SNA members incorporate more scratch cooking into school breakfasts and lunches, but the resources, such as funding, labor and equipment, simply aren’t there to support such moves. School nutrition directors, therefore, rely heavily on their industry partners, like commercial bakers, to help them fill the gaps in an affordable way. SNA continues its work with Congress and USDA to ensure school nutrition directors have the funding they need.

While Pratt-Heavner and the rest of the industry await proposed updates to standards for school lunches, she said school nutrition directors will still need support from commercial bakers in the immediate future to meet the sodium and added-sugar limits going into effect in July 2027.

“We’re also keeping an eye on the state bills related to artificial dyes and additives, and we need our partners to offer options that don’t contain ingredients of concern at a price point that they can afford,” she said.

Advocating for common sense

While there is much activity and noise around MAHA and UPFs, the baking industry remains in a wait-and-see pattern as the new DGAs and state legislation morph into concrete change. The various organizations representing stakeholders in Washington, DC, are advocating for the industries they serve to ensure those changes can be implemented without undue burden.

Pratt-Heavner said SNA is also calling for federal standards for school nutrition rather than a patchwork of different state standards, in light of West Virginia’s ban on artificial colors in school lunches and UPFs in California schools. State-by-state regulations creates unnecessary challenges for commercial bakers and other partners.

“We have heard from our West Virginia members that the ban hasn’t been too disruptive because of their industry partners, who had already taken steps to offer naturally dyed alternatives,” she said. “Our members were able to find alternatives without major cost implications, but it would be better for both schools and our partners if there was one federal standard.”

This applies to the definition of UPFs as well. ABA and CBA submitted comments regarding the definition of UPFs to the federal government. That comment period closed last October. Zvaners said the industry could see a definition from the federal government as early as Q1 of this year, though Kennedy has gone on record saying it might not be possible to write one definition.

In ABA’s comments submitted to the USDA on UPFs, the association emphasized a focus on nutritional composition rather than processing method or individual ingredients. Zvaners also pointed out how current definitions fall short of what the United States needs as it considers the healthfulness of UPFs. In the comments, she argued that focusing on specific processing methods would be a mistake.

“Focusing on whether and how a food is processed does not paint an accurate picture of the nutritional value and healthfulness of a food product,” she wrote. “In addition, scientific evidence does not firmly link specific processing methods and adverse health outcomes. Therefore, a focus on processing methods can be confusing and has the potential to lead consumers to believe that many healthful food products should be avoided.”

CBA also submitted comments that agreed with ABA’s assessment that science does not support that processing has any relation to healthfulness.

CBA’s comments also noted the critical role processing plays in ensuring food safety, accessibility and affordability. The association argued that the term UPF fails to differentiate foods based on nutrient content and lacks a scientific basis to isolate ingredients or processing steps.

As consumers and bakers grapple with UPFs and the MAHA movement, affordability, convenience and accessibility remain at the forefront of the conversation as well. In all three of those areas, grain-based foods thrive. Ball said that from what she’s seen in GFF’s consumer insights research, consumers buy grain-based foods because they are affordable and convenient, two major talking points in the cultural conversation this year. GFF’s “Grain Foods Make the Moment” campaign strives to remind consumers of the role grains can play in nutritious and delicious meals.

“Consumers want permission to use grains to build their meals, and they need to be reminded that these foods are good for them,” she said.

In its role providing sound science on the role grains play in the American diet, Ball said the GFF has taken on a new food pattern modeling project that will show the nutrient adequacy of the new DGAs. She anticipated that report will take about six months to publish.

“We want to make sure our content is available for those searching online, including policymakers, and equipping our partners with that research,” she said.

With 2026 an election year, Dell anticipates that affordability will be the big buzzword of the year, which will benefit grain-based foods regardless of what the DGAs recommend.

“With the midterm elections coming up, the focus will be on affordability and accessibility, and our products fit into that narrative perfectly,” he said. “It’s more important than ever to tell the story of the role baked goods play in society.”