Federal Actions Focus on Greater Transparency for GMOs & Ultra-Processed Foods
This article first appeared in the September 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
For years, leaders in the natural and organic products industry have advocated for a simple, fundamental consumer right: the right to know exactly what is in the food we eat. Despite the steady growth of the natural channel and the soaring consumer demand for clean labels, federal regulations have historically provided conventional food manufacturers with ample regulatory shelter. Through confusing digital disclosures, vague ingredient definitions, and self-certified safety standards, the conventional food sector has often avoided the level of transparency that natural and organic brands readily provide to their customers.
However, a confluence of landmark judicial and federal regulatory actions in August 2026 has signaled a significant paradigm shift. Within a single month, a federal court struck down the regulatory loophole allowing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be hidden behind QR codes, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) advanced efforts to formally define ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and tighten the oversight of self-certified food additives.
For business owners, executives, and professionals in the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture markets, these actions validate decades of persistent advocacy. More importantly, they stand to reshape the competitive grocery landscape, potentially forcing conventional brands to reformulate their products or face a new era of mandatory, unavoidable on-package transparency.
The Demise of the QR Code Loophole
The movement toward transparent GMO labeling achieved a decisive victory when a federal district court issued a final remedy decision regarding the USDA's bioengineered food labeling rules. According to the Center for Food Safety, the court ruled that the USDA must rewrite its National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard by Jan. 1, 2028, effectively voiding the provisions that previously allowed companies to obfuscate GMO disclosures.
The litigation, which was championed by a coalition of natural food retailers and consumer advocacy groups—including Natural Grocers and PCC Natural Markets—targeted two specific, controversial loopholes in the original 2018 regulation. First, the USDA had allowed food manufacturers to use a digital QR code, text message, or web address as the sole method of disclosing bioengineered ingredients. Critics argued this was fundamentally discriminatory, as it placed an undue burden on consumers who either lacked smartphones, experienced poor internet connectivity in grocery aisles, or simply did not know that a digital scan was required to view ingredient information.
Second, the original rule exempted "highly refined" ingredients from being labeled as bioengineered if the modified genetic material was no longer detectable through standard DNA testing. This exemption allowed a vast swath of ultra-processed ingredients—such as highly refined corn syrup, canola oil and soy oil—to avoid GMO labeling entirely, even though they were derived from genetically modified crops.
As reported by Food Dive, the federal court has now mandated that the USDA close these loopholes. The court’s official vacatur order requires the agency to implement clear, on-package text or symbols and to comprehensively address the disclosure of highly refined, ultra-processed GMO ingredients.
The reaction from the natural products community has been swift and celebratory. Max Goldberg, editor and publisher of Organic Insider, noted in a recent LinkedIn post: “The headline that Big Food has been dreading. Why? Because the QR code loophole is dead. A federal court just ordered the USDA to rewrite its GMO labeling rules by January 1, 2028 — and this time, there's nowhere to hide. For years, up to 80% of GMO products dodged real disclosure. Sodas, cooking oils, ultra-processed staples — all slipped through. And when brands did 'disclose'? A QR code you needed a smartphone to scan. Not anymore. Clear on-package labels. Actual transparency. The right to know what's in your cart. Big shift coming for food brands. Bigger win for consumers.”
As noted by DTN Progressive Farmer, the ruling places the timeline squarely in the hands of the USDA, rejecting the agency's initial request to delay the implementation of new rules until 2029. According to Feedstuffs, the mandated January 2028 deadline means food manufacturers must begin auditing their supply chains immediately to prepare for the transition to mandatory on-package disclosures.
George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, underscored the historical importance of the ruling. Speaking to Food Navigator, Kimbrell stated: “Yesterday's decision was the final nail in the coffin of the 2021 unlawful GMO labeling regulations. We are gratified that the district court, like the court of appeals before it, has agreed with our legal arguments and struck them down.”
Closing the GRAS Loophole and Modernizing Food Oversight
While the courts tackled GMO transparency, the executive branch moved to address the proliferation of chemical additives in the American food supply.
As announced on Aug. 10, 2026, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. introduced two landmark food policy reforms designed to modernize federal oversight of ingredients. The most immediate regulatory shift involves a proposed rule to tighten the "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) designation.
For decades, the GRAS framework has served as a primary regulatory pathway for food manufacturers to introduce new ingredients into the market. Originally intended by Congress for common, historically well-understood ingredients like vinegar or baking soda, the GRAS provision has increasingly been utilized by companies to self-certify novel synthetic chemicals, preservatives, and artificial additives as safe. In many cases, companies could convene their own industry-funded expert panels to determine safety, effectively bypassing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review process altogether.
According to Food Business News, the proposed HHS rule will fundamentally alter this dynamic by requiring food and animal feed manufacturers to formally notify the FDA whenever they conclude that a new substance added to food meets the GRAS criteria. By ending the era of secret, self-certified additives, the administration aims to ensure that the FDA can properly review the safety data of novel ingredients before they ever enter the food supply.
This move has drawn widespread support from medical professionals and health experts who have long criticized the FDA's lack of authority over food additives. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb voiced his support, stating that the reform is important because the FDA has generally lacked sufficient authority to meaningfully regulate these substances. This shift aligns closely with the long-standing demands of natural health advocates, who have consistently warned about the cumulative health impacts of unchecked synthetic chemicals.
The Drive to Define Ultra-Processed Foods
Alongside the GRAS rule proposal, the federal government took an unprecedented step toward formally defining a category of food that has dominated recent nutritional research and public health discussions: ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
As reported by Food Safety Magazine, the FDA and the USDA jointly submitted a white paper to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final review, proposing the first-ever federal definition of ultra-processed foods. While there are international frameworks—such as the NOVA classification system developed by researchers in Brazil—the United States has historically lacked a uniform, statutory definition for UPFs.
Establishing a formal definition is far more than a semantic exercise. As highlighted by Food Industry Executive, the submission of the definition as a white paper signals a foundational step toward widespread regulatory changes. Once a federal definition is established and finalized, it can be utilized across multiple government agencies to shape public policy. This could eventually impact everything from the composition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the National School Lunch Program to the eligibility of certain products within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emphasized the urgency of the initiative. “Nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of ultra-processed foods, and childhood obesity now affects more than one in five American children,” Kennedy noted in a statement. “We cannot reverse America’s chronic disease epidemic without transforming our food system.”
Writing for The Atlantic, journalist Nicholas Florko noted that Kennedy’s push to define ultra-processed foods is a central pillar of the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) agenda. By creating a standardized metric for what constitutes an ultra-processed food, the administration is laying the groundwork for a broader public health campaign aimed at reducing the consumption of heavily refined, additive-laden products that have been linked to rising rates of diet-related chronic diseases. As health advocates have pointed out, reining in UPFs is fundamental to tackling chronic disease in America, and establishing a federal definition is the required first step.
Industry Pushback and the Economic Argument
Unsurprisingly, these swift regulatory changes have encountered vocal resistance from conventional food industry groups and free-market advocates. The prospect of reformulating products, updating packaging to remove QR codes in favor of explicit text, and submitting GRAS ingredients for rigorous federal review represents a significant operational cost for legacy food manufacturers.
According to a statement from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the new food proposals advanced by HHS threaten to disrupt supply chains and increase consumer costs. ATR argued that by growing the regulatory state and enforcing stricter definitions on processed foods, the administration will invariably drive up the cost of manufacturing. “HHS’s new food proposals would raise grocery prices and grow the regulatory state,” the group warned, suggesting that the financial burden of compliance will ultimately be passed down to consumers at the checkout counter.
Conventional industry trade associations have echoed similar concerns regarding the GMO labeling mandate. They argue that replacing digital QR codes with on-package text could clutter labels and confuse consumers who are already overwhelmed by existing nutritional information. They further contend that highly refined oils and sugars derived from bioengineered crops are chemically identical to their non-GMO counterparts, arguing that forcing a bioengineered label on these ultra-processed ingredients is scientifically unnecessary and economically punitive.
A Competitive Advantage for the Natural Channel
Despite the pushback from the conventional food sector, the recent federal actions represent a profound validation for the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture industries. For decades, independent retailers and natural product brands have voluntarily adhered to higher standards of transparency, often bearing the financial cost of non-GMO verification, organic certification, and clean-label formulation without any federal mandate requiring their competitors to do the same.
The death of the QR code loophole effectively levels the playing field. When conventional brands are forced to explicitly disclose the presence of bioengineered ingredients on their packaging by January 2028, consumers will be able to make direct, side-by-side comparisons in the grocery aisle. This increased visibility is expected to drive even greater consumer migration toward certified organic and Non-GMO Project Verified products, categories that already serve as the bedrock of the natural products industry.
Furthermore, the federal drive to define ultra-processed foods aligns perfectly with the core philosophy of the natural channel. Independent natural and organic food stores have long prioritized whole foods, minimally processed ingredients, and regenerative agricultural practices over synthetic formulations. If federal nutrition programs eventually integrate the new UPF definition to disincentivize the purchase of highly processed items, the market demand for nutrient-dense, clean-label alternatives will likely accelerate.
The closure of the GRAS loophole further reinforces consumer trust in the natural sector. As the FDA gains greater visibility into the synthetic additives utilized by conventional manufacturers, consumers will become increasingly aware of the chemical complexities inherent in highly processed diets. Brands that are committed to simple, recognizable, and transparent ingredient panels will find themselves perfectly positioned to capture the market share of health-conscious shoppers seeking refuge from synthetic additives.
Looking Ahead: The Path to 2028
While the regulatory wheels have been set in motion, the transition will not occur overnight. The USDA now faces a mandated deadline of Jan. 1, 2028, to finalize and implement the new bioengineered food disclosure rules. Concurrently, the proposed UPF definition and the GRAS notification rule must navigate the federal review process, including periods for public comment and potential revisions by the Office of Management and Budget.
For business owners and leaders in the natural products sector, the immediate path forward requires sustained vigilance and proactive consumer education. Retailers and manufacturers should begin preparing marketing and merchandising strategies that highlight their existing commitments to transparency, non-GMO sourcing, and minimal processing.
As the federal government finally moves to mandate the transparency that the natural channel has championed for decades, the industry is entering a new era. The days of hiding ingredients behind digital links and self-certified safety designations are drawing to a close. For the natural, organic, and regenerative food market, this is not just a regulatory victory; it is an affirmation of a business model built on integrity, health, and the consumer's fundamental right to know.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.
Trump Signs EO on Regenerative Agriculture While EPA Approves More Toxic Forever Chemicals
This article first appeared in the August 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
The summer of 2026 has delivered a dizzying regulatory whiplash for the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture industry. On one hand, the phrase "regenerative agriculture" has officially reached the highest echelons of federal policy, recently enshrined in a presidential executive order and championed loudly under the populist "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) banner.
On the other hand, a quiet but aggressive rollout of toxic synthetic "forever chemicals," deep cuts to public health and agricultural inspection funding, and sweeping executive and legal victories for the agrochemical lobby tell a starkly different story.
For business owners, executives, and retailers in the natural and organic products sector, this legislative and regulatory environment presents a highly volatile mixed bag. We are witnessing a fundamental tension between the administration's public health rhetoric and its actual regulatory execution. As consumers increasingly look to the natural channel for transparency and safety, understanding these seismic shifts is critical.
Here is a comprehensive look at how recent federal actions, courtroom reversals, and public health fallouts are redefining the business of food and agriculture from the soil to the shelf.
The Biofuel Pivot: Is It True Regenerative Agriculture?
On June 25, 2026, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14414, formally titled Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience. The directive instructs the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand precision farming, streamline agricultural innovation, and evaluate cumulative chemical exposures in the food supply.
Simultaneously, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins introduced a final Regenerative Feedstock Rule. Rather than injecting expansive new government subsidies into direct federal conservation or organic transition programs, the administration’s approach is entirely market-driven. As detailed by the Western Ag Network, the new USDA framework ties directly into the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit, utilizing an updated "Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator" to connect on-farm practices with biofuel supply chains.
In practice, this allows massive conventional corn, soybean, and sorghum producers to document specific farming practices—such as no-till or cover cropping—and market their harvests at a premium to ethanol and biofuel producers. The goal is to incentivize carbon reduction without imposing federal mandates.
While market-based incentives for carbon reduction sound promising, advocates and organic farmers are raising the alarm. Many view this framework as a blatant co-opting of the regenerative movement by Big Ag. True regenerative agriculture—as pioneered by the organic movement—focuses on eliminating toxic inputs, restoring biodiversity, and building soil health to grow nutrient-dense food. Critics argue that the administration is simply repackaging the term "regenerative" into a carbon-scoring mechanism to subsidize industrial biofuel production, all while continuing to allow the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers on those very same crops. For natural products retailers, this underscores the urgent need to differentiate true regenerative organic food from conventional crops participating in carbon tax credit programs.
Funding Volatility and a Courtroom Rebuke
This pivot toward corporate biofuel subsidies has been accompanied by aggressive cuts to programs meant to support small-scale and marginalized farmers.
The administration’s new executive order did not add net-new financial outlays; rather, it shifted approximately $700 million within existing agency budgets to fund its new pilot programs. To balance the books and fulfill a mandate to eliminate what it deemed wasteful spending and "diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)" initiatives, the USDA abruptly canceled the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (ILCMA) earlier this year. Originally a $300 million initiative to help Black, Native American and historically underserved farmers secure land and financing, the program was canceled earlier this year over alleged administrative and DEI-related concerns.
However, the administration’s aggressive funding cuts recently hit a major legal wall. On June 30, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell granted a preliminary injunction ordering the USDA to restore $127 million in canceled grants to 24 organizations while litigation continues. The plaintiffs successfully argued that the USDA unlawfully terminated the awards based on arbitrary keyword searches rather than on performance or merit. This courtroom rebuke is a massive victory for grassroots agricultural groups and reinforces the USDA's legal obligation to honor its contracts with the young and first-generation farmers who represent the future of the nation’s specialized food supply.
In another piece of rare, positive news for the natural products sector, the USDA recently announced that the organic certification cost-share funds have finally been released. These funds are a vital lifeline for small- to mid-sized organic operations, reimbursing them for a portion of the financial burden required to maintain their rigorously audited USDA Organic certifications. The release of these funds will help stabilize the organic supply chain as farmers finalize their operational budgets for the coming year.
#ChemGate and PFAS Proliferation
While the administration touts its commitment to farm resilience, its environmental regulatory arm is moving in a dangerously contradictory direction.
In early July 2026, the EPA quietly fast-tracked the approval of three new toxic pesticides containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)—commonly known as "forever chemicals." The hazardous new herbicides—trifludimoxazin, diflufenican, and epyrifenacil—can now be sprayed directly on major food crops, including wheat and citrus. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), EPA scientists themselves flagged one of these chemicals as having "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential."
This decision brings the total number of PFAS pesticides greenlit by the current EPA to five in under two years. These chemicals do not break down in the environment; they accumulate in the soil, the water table, and ultimately, the human bloodstream, where they are linked to immune system suppression and severe reproductive health issues.
The regulatory failure extends to the FDA, which recently refused a formal petition to set strict limits on forever chemicals in food, leaving consumers entirely unprotected from the downstream effects of the EPA's pesticide approvals.
Food industry visionary and financial analyst Robyn O’Brien has aptly dubbed this crisis "#ChemGate." O'Brien warns that when regulatory bodies become hopelessly captured by the chemical lobbying arms they are meant to oversee, the entire integrity of the American food supply collapses. For natural products retailers, the EPA's quiet unleashing of forever chemicals onto conventional produce serves as the ultimate marketing imperative for the organic seal. As conventional agriculture becomes increasingly saturated with indestructible synthetic toxins, the rigorously audited, “no toxic synthetic pesticides” promise of the organic aisle transforms from a premium lifestyle choice into a fundamental public health necessity.
The Glyphosate Betrayal: A Fracture in the MAHA Alliance
The tension between the populist MAHA movement and the administration’s actual policy execution reached a breaking point this year over the world’s most notorious herbicide: glyphosate.
The fracture began in February 2026 when President Trump issued an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to mandate and protect the domestic production of glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), citing national security and food supply chain resilience. The order granted broad liability immunities, infuriating MAHA advocates who had championed the administration on the promise of health reform. As Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook noted at the time, the move was viewed by many wellness advocates as a "direct assault" on the MAHA platform and a great gift to the chemical lobby.
This administrative protection was recently compounded by a landmark decision from the nation's highest court. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of agrochemical giant Bayer regarding its glyphosate-based weedkiller. The ruling effectively blocks thousands of state-level "failure-to-warn" lawsuits, determining that federal EPA label approvals preempt state laws that might otherwise require cancer-warning labels on toxic pesticides.
This decision essentially grants a liability shield to pesticide manufacturers, protecting them from plaintiffs alleging they were not properly informed about the severe health risks associated with chronic glyphosate or other chemical pesticide exposure.
For the MAHA movement, the executive protections and the Supreme Court ruling exposed a deep rift between the political rhetoric of "making America healthy" and a regulatory reality that actively insulates the chemical agriculture industry from legal consequence. As reported by Grist, attempts to appease MAHA's fury over the Roundup rulings have largely backfired, leaving health-freedom advocates feeling profoundly betrayed. Protests have taken place outside the Supreme Court, signaling that the coalition of health advocates that helped propel the administration into office is fracturing over its failure to regulate Big Chem.
The Public Health Fallout: The Cost of Cutbacks
The consequences of prioritizing corporate deregulation and cutting federal research and inspection budgets are not abstract; they are already playing out in real time across the nation's supply chains and emergency rooms.
The current administration has initiated historic cutbacks in public health funding, FDA food inspections, and USDA agricultural research. The result is a regulatory apparatus that is operating with severe blind spots, and the public is paying the price.
In recent weeks, an explosive food-borne Cyclospora outbreak has swept across the United States, causing severe, prolonged gastrointestinal illness. Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite transmitted through feces and typically linked to contaminated fresh produce. As of July 2026, the parasite has sickened thousands of Americans across at least 34 states, with the Midwest bearing the brunt of the crisis. In Ohio, the Cleveland Clinic reported a staggering jump in lab testing, skyrocketing from just one test per day to nearly 200 as symptomatic patients flooded local hospitals.
The federal response has been heavily hindered by recent agency rollbacks. Due to severe staffing shortages and budgetary cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—which recently made the tracking of certain foodborne illnesses optional—federal case data has drastically lagged behind real-time state-level reporting. Without a robust, centralized federal tracing apparatus, state health investigators have been left to piece together the puzzle on their own. While early interviews strongly point to lettuce and salad greens as the leading suspected source, a specific grower, brand, or supplier has yet to be definitively named by federal authorities.
As local health departments scramble to track the outbreak's expanding footprint across the country, this unresolved crisis raises grave questions about the ability of gutted federal agencies to adequately monitor the safety of the conventional food supply. When the government can no longer proactively track and trace a pathogen, the burden of food safety falls entirely on the retailer and the private supply chain.
Simultaneously, the agricultural sector is battling a devastating screwworm outbreak affecting livestock. For decades, the USDA successfully managed the threat of the New World screwworm—a parasite that feeds on the living tissue of warm-blooded animals—through robust research and sterile insect release programs. However, recent reductions in federal research funding and the mass exodus of USDA researchers who are refusing mandatory relocations have compromised the agency's ability to maintain these critical biological defense lines, resulting in a crisis for ranchers and a direct threat to the meat supply chain.
The Strategic Path Forward for the Natural Channel
As we survey the current landscape, the mandate for the natural, organic and regenerative products industry is unmistakably clear. We can no longer rely on federal tailwinds, government definitions, or public safety nets to protect our consumers or our food supply.
When the federal government co-opts the term "regenerative" to subsidize industrial biofuels, unleashes PFAS forever chemicals onto conventional crops, shields glyphosate manufacturers from liability, and defunds the agencies responsible for keeping parasites out of our produce, the conventional food system ceases to be a safe default for the American family.
In this environment of deep institutional failure, the natural products channel stands as the last line of defense.
Retailers, brands and investors must step into the regulatory void and double down on uncompromising transparency. We have an opportunity to educate customers on the profound difference between a federally subsidized "regenerative" biofuel crop and rigorously audited USDA Certified Organic and Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) food systems.
Furthermore, private capital must continue to step forward. To truly scale clean agriculture, the private sector needs to prioritize funding the organic transitions, the local supply chain infrastructure, and the independent agricultural research that the federal government is actively abandoning.
The agricultural policies of 2026 are indeed a mixed bag—heavy on chemical appeasement and light on actual public health reform. But out of this chaos emerges a profound opportunity. As the conventional system compromises itself, the value proposition of the natural, organic, regenerative, and specialty food industry has never been more vital, more distinct or more essential to the future of human health and environmental resilience.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.
The Irony of MAHA
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s promises to promote health don’t align with staff cuts & Trump administration actions
By Steven Hoffman
I met Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once, in 2001, when he was speaking at a sustainability conference. At the time, I was publisher of the LOHAS Journal, covering the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability market. At the event, I gave Kennedy a copy of our magazine and expressed my admiration for his work as a leading environmentalist with Riverkeeper, a group that helped clean up the Hudson River, and for being an outspoken advocate for removing toxic chemicals from our food.
Today, Kennedy has built a large following based on these views, with the acronym Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, as the rallying cry for his base, many of whom are leaders in the natural health movement.
Since my interaction with him in 2001, however, Kennedy has also become synonymous with the anti-vaccine movement. This single voter issue, based in large part on misinformation and mistrust, drove a significant number of natural health advocates to back Kennedy when he declared in 2023 as an independent third-party candidate for president. When he ended his candidacy and endorsed Donald Trump in August, many of these natural health voters went with him in hopes that he could change the food and healthcare system for the better as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the new administration.
Unfortunately, Kennedy’s rhetoric is often profoundly at odds with his actions, and with the actions of the wider Trump administration. To cite just one example, while Kennedy says he seeks to improve Americans’ health by bettering their diet, the administration he serves is gutting programs that provide local and organic produce to schools and low-income residents. Likewise, promises to make Americans “healthy again” is at odds with the administration’s roll-back of regulations designed to limit pollution.
Then there are Kennedy’s ideas about vaccines.
Vaccines and vitamins
About the time I met Kennedy, it was reported that the U.S. had eliminated measles due to widespread vaccination efforts. Since then, the anti-vax movement has picked up steam, encouraged in part by Kennedy’s anti-vaccine comments over the years. Now, in 2025, under his watch as head of HHS, the disease has reappeared in the U.S., spreading from a community in Texas to more than 700 cases throughout the U.S. and two reported deaths. Moreover, Kennedy was an anti-vax advocate during a deadly measles outbreak in Samoa in 2019, which killed 83 people in a population of 200,000.
Frankly, no amount of vitamin A—a nutrient Kennedy touted in a March 4 interview on Fox News as a treatment for measles—will stop its spread. Yet, a week after the interview, when he touted the “very good” results of treating measles with vitamin A-rich cod liver oil, demand for the product skyrocketed in Texas, Yahoo News reported. Now, a number of measles patients in Texas are showing signs of vitamin A toxicity, according to the New York Times, which noted that children being treated for measles at Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, Texas, included “a handful of unvaccinated children who were given so much vitamin A that they had signs of liver damage.”
Kennedy’s conflation of anti-vaccine messaging and unsubstantiated claims about using nutritional supplements as a cure for highly infectious diseases does a major disservice to the dietary supplement industry, the health care industry—and to consumers.
In fact, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) was so concerned about how the credibility of nutritional supplements might be affected that it issued a statement on March 26: “While vitamin A is an essential nutrient that plays a critical role in supporting vision, growth, reproduction and immune function, it is not a substitute for vaccination. While vitamin A plays an important role in supporting overall immune function, research hasn’t established its effectiveness in preventing measles infection.”
Andrea Wong, senior vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs for CRN, said, “Measles is a serious and highly contagious viral disease that can lead to severe health complications. Treatment and care for measles should always be conducted under the guidance of a qualified healthcare practitioner. Consumers must make informed decisions and consult qualified health professionals before giving supplements to children—especially in large doses.”
Citing that it was becoming difficult to work with the new HHS secretary, the FDA’s top vaccine official, Dr. Peter Marks, submitted his resignation on March 29, saying he was willing to address Kennedy’s concerns about the safety of vaccines but concluded that it was not possible. “It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Marks wrote in his resignation letter. Marks oversaw the FDA’s rapid review and approval of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic and is credited with coining the name and concept for “Operation Warp Speed” under President Trump’s first administration.
Office exodus
The same day, Kennedy announced he was cutting an additional 10,000 jobs from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees several agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The latest cuts come after the departure of roughly 10,000 employees over the past few months as a result of the drive by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut jobs throughout the federal government. In total, the cuts amounted to approximately 25% of HHS’s total workforce being eliminated.
The job cuts, allegedly designed to improve efficiency, may well end up costing the government money. “There’s this narrative being spun that somehow by eliminating jobs and functions that taxpayer dollars are going to be saved or that programs will be more efficient,” a staffer with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services who asked for anonymity told Politico. “The reality is the exact opposite.”
Previous cuts to the FDA by DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, resulted in the resignation in February of James Jones, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner in charge of food safety and nutrition, including dietary supplements, following what he called “indiscriminate” layoffs of dozens of food safety inspectors. Jones said the cuts would make it “fruitless” to continue in his role. “I was looking forward to working to pursue the department’s agenda of improving the health of Americans by reducing diet-related chronic disease and risks from chemicals in food,” Jones wrote.
Following news of DOGE’s February cuts at the FDA, which included a number of staff firings at the FDA’s office of Dietary Supplement Programs, CRN expressed concern about the federal agency’s ability to effectively oversee dietary supplements and food safety. “As the FDA deputy commissioner steps down, it’s critical that the agency maintains adequate staffing and expertise to uphold consumer confidence in the food supply,” CRN said in a statement.
“While staffing changes can occur during any presidential transition, it is critical that the FDA maintains the resources, expertise and staffing levels necessary to ensure effective dietary supplement oversight that undergirds consumer confidence in the supplement market,” said Jeff Ventura, CRN’s vice president of communications.
Growing problems
Meanwhile, at USDA, pauses and cuts to funding for school lunch programs, supplemental nutrition assistance programs and organic farming initiatives run counter to MAHA’s avowed efforts to improve public health. Pauses in funding for organic transition and soil conservation programs are leaving farmers on the hook for millions of dollars they invested on the promise of reimbursement, while “accidental” firings of bird flu researchers have raised concerns that the beginnings of a new pandemic may go undetected.
According to reporting by E&E News by Politico in February, federal officials have been withholding funding for two major organic agriculture programs that make payments directly to farmers, jeopardizing millions of dollars in funding ahead of the 2025 planting season. “The pause on the $85 million Organic Market Development Grant program and the $100 million Transition to the Organic Partnership Program has jolted farmers, nonprofits and businesses struggling to make planting and hiring decisions. Even if the pause on funding is lifted, it could put farmers out of business,” wrote reporter Marcia Brown, who noted that the USDA has yet to release funding for the programs, even though federal courts ordered an end to the across-the-board freeze.
USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is under DOGE scrutiny, while the House of Representatives budget plan seeks to cut up to $230 billion from SNAP. Such funding cuts would affect sales for natural and organic food producers, including for such healthy staples as organic dairy and plant-based foods that are frequently purchased by SNAP recipients.
On March 10, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the cancellation of $1 billion in federal funding that gave schools and food banks money to purchase food from local farms and ranchers. According to Kevin Hardy, a reporter with Stateline, the funding boosted business for more than 8,000 farmers, providing local food to food banks and schools. “The Trump administration is killing the programs, despite HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign against processed food, which he says is poisoning Americans,” Hardy wrote.
When it comes to our food system, we are all for getting the chemicals out of food, and the FDA’s announcement in January that it would ban Red Dye No. 3 from food products is to be celebrated. Now, if only Kennedy and the Trump administration could start focusing on the other 9,999 questionable chemicals allowed in commercial food production.
Overall, it is difficult to square Kennedy’s rhetoric with the on-the-ground actions of the administration he serves. And that, to me, is the painful irony of MAHA.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing public relations, brand marketing, social media and strategic business development services to natural, organic, regenerative and sustainable products businesses. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.