The Trump administration’s push to “make America healthy again” is accelerating food industry reformulation at an unprecedented pace, but by relying on informal policy signals it is creating uncertainty about whether those costly, time-intensive changes will last, according to industry insiders.
In the year and a half since President Donald Trump assumed office and elevated HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr and his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, “a lot has changed,” including how compliance and policies are promoted, said Laura Akowuah, special counsel at Cooley.
“Policy is moving very quickly” around what the MAHA movement or FDA expects, but “ it might not be in a regulation,” she explained on a panel at Future Food Tech in San Francisco. That distinction matters, she added, explaining that signals delivered through speeches, announcements and informal agreements, rather than formal rulemaking, offer little durability.
For example, last spring, Kennedy announced an “agreement” with industry players to phase out synthetic dyes from the US food supply in the coming years, but so far no rulemaking with comment period has been proposed. Likewise, Kennedy has aired grievances against seed-oils, fanning a movement to replacement them with olive, avocado, tallow and other fats, even though science does not signal cause for concern and no regulatory changes have been proposed.
But “regulating” via public comment rather than the official rulemaking process means there is no assurance for industry that a future administration, or even a policy change under Trump, could contradict or alter policies in a way that undermines current reformulation efforts, Akowuah warned.
Given how expensive and time-consuming reformulation can be, this sets industry up for costly changes that are either unnecessary, unsupported by science or quickly reversed.
Even if Kennedy or the MAHA coalition do not codify policy priorities, they are influencing consumer demand and perception, which could cause problems for industry down the road, added Juan Cristian Santa Maria, VP, head of regulatory & scientific affairs and Tate & Lyle.
“Consumer demand, and rightfully so, for healthy foods, less processed foods, was already latent, and then MAHA came on top of that, but what MAHA has augmented is the consumer confusion – precisely because policy is moving too fast, and is not necessarily science driven, and often is incongruent and inconsistent,” he explained on the panel.
Many industry stakeholders voiced these concerns about the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which include recommendations to eat animal protein and full fat dairy, but also to limit saturated fat.
“We are taking one step forward and two steps back,” and “consumers are confused,” he added.
Compounding the uncertainty, companies must also navigate a growing patchwork of state-level initiatives, which panelists said increasingly extend beyond traditional regulatory leaders like California and New York to states such as Texas and West Virginia.
MAHA is creating ‘chaos’ for food formulators
MAHA-sown confusion is compromising an already destabilized foundation for formulating foods and beverages to meet consumer demand, which was notoriously fickle prior to this administration, Santa Maria suggested.
The result is “total disruption” and “chaos” for innovation, he said.
And much of the burden is falling to large food manufacturers, according to data presented by Lu Ann Williams, co-founder & global SVP of research for Innova Market Insights.
“Last year, we tracked almost 50,000 new food and beverage launches in the US, and I analyzed that 23% of those have a MAHA targeted ingredient,” she said on the panel. Of these, 40% of “big food products had a MAHA targeted ingredient versus 31% of retailers and 18% of indie brands,” she added.
This means “big companies have about two and a half times the burden that small brands have in terms of cleaning up the MAHA ingredients,” she said.
Routes for reformulation are restricting
At the same time pressure is mounting on brands to reformulate, suppliers could lose one of the most important regulatory routes for introducing to the market new ingredients that could address MAGA concerns.
The Trump administration has signaled a desire to block companies from introducing new ingredients that are self-determined as Generally Recognized As Safe, or GRAS. Last summer, legislators proposed bills that would require manufacturers to notify FDA of GRAS determinations, mandate public comment periods and require routine post-market reassessment of chemicals in food and packaging.
“What is going to happen with the GRAS pathway has the ability to impact so many things,” said Akowuah.
She raised concerns about FDA’s ability to assess GRAS notifications in a timely fashion given resource constraints and urged stakeholders to engage with the agency if and when it proposes a rule to alter the GRAS pathway.
“Once that proposed rule goes up, you should absolutely submit comments. Work with your trade associations, work with you legal team and make sure you’re getting your comments in,” especially regarding the impact on innovation and development affordability, she said.
Next steps
With so much uncertainty, some brands may feel paralyzed about how to move forward and innovate to meet modern consumer needs while remaining in their budget and those of shoppers.
But inaction now could cost companies more down the road, the panelists warn.
Rather, manufacturers should promote science and innovation that is targeted toward developing health benefits and health solutions, Santa Maria said. He added industry also must do a better job translating the science for consumers to understand.
Akowuah urged industry to focus on creating healthier products for children who a aware of the ongoing debate and whose opinions are being shaped now for life.
Williams added retailers also have an obligation to reformulate private label products to be healthier, but to also leverage their significant power as buyers to promote products that are science-based, healthier and affordable.
Ultimately, with policy signals shifting faster than formal rules, and consumer expectations evolving alongside them, food companies are being forced to act without a clear endpoint. For many, the question is no longer whether to reformulate, but how far to go when the definition of “healthy,” and the policies shaping it, remain in flux.
