
Amanda Vicari, a food and agriculture policy communicator, published a piece on LinkedIn today — “MAHA Moved Food Politics to the Right. Now the Right Has to Decide What to Do With It.” — that is worth your time.
Her argument, briefly: in remarkably little time, MAHA took questions that used to belong to progressive food activism — ultra-processed foods, chemical exposure, corporate influence over nutrition policy, regenerative agriculture — and moved them to the center of Republican politics. But winning the argument is not the same as settling the policy. The MAHA coalition contains people who want very different things. Some want transparency but oppose mandates. Some want ingredient regulation; others see that as exactly the administrative power conservatives spent decades trying to constrain. Some rally against glyphosate while the administration treats it as essential to food security. As she puts it, the right now has to decide: “Does healthier food require more federal regulation or less?”
It is a fair question, and on most of the issues she raises — dyes, seed oils, ultra-processed food definitions, dietary guidelines — reasonable people can and will disagree about the proper role of government.
But I have been litigating foodborne illness cases since 1993, when I represented Brianne Kiner, the most seriously injured survivor of the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak. And from where I sit, there is one corner of food policy where the ideological question Ms. Vicari poses has an easy answer. It is the corner where my clients live: pathogens.
No consumer “chooses” E. coli O157:H7 on romaine. No parent exercising personal responsibility can read a label hard enough to detect botulism in infant formula, Listeria in deli meat, or Salmonella in peanut butter. The free market cannot price a hazard the buyer cannot see, smell, or taste. That is not nanny-state theory. That is the oldest and least controversial justification for government there is: protecting people from harms they cannot protect themselves against. Inspections, surveillance, and enforcement are not the ceiling of food policy. They are the floor.
And here is the contradiction Ms. Vicari’s piece does not reach: while MAHA was winning the argument about how Americans should eat, the infrastructure that keeps acute hazards out of the food supply was being cut. Iasked publicly what Secretary Kennedy was doing when sweeping FDA cuts threatened federal outbreak prevention — and when the state grant programs that carry out roughly 90 percent of our produce inspections and 75 percent of our manufactured food inspections were told to expect steep reductions. I joined a coalition of consumer, industry, and public health groups urging the Secretary not to gut the FDA’s Human Foods Program — pointing out that an under-resourced food safety agency jeopardizes his own stated MAHA objectives. We learned this lesson the hard way in Sturgis, Michigan: when the FDA is unable to inspect, people die. And too often those people are the very children this movement says it exists to protect.
So here is my answer to the question the right is now asking itself. Whatever you decide about food dyes and seed oils, a movement that claims the mantle of children’s health cannot simultaneously starve the systems that find outbreaks — PulseNet, FoodNet, state and local health departments — and the inspectors who prevent them. Liberty means choosing what is for dinner. It does not mean your dinner giving your kid hemolytic uremic syndrome without your consent.
I have said for more than three decades that my goal is to be put out of business. I will work with anyone — left, right, MAHA, MAGA, or vegan — who is serious about that project. The measure of this movement will not be whether it produces a federal definition of ultra-processed food. It will be whether, a few years from now, fewer families are sitting in a hospital room next to a child on dialysis, wondering how a salad did this.
Ms. Vicari is right that MAHA moved food politics. My hope is that whoever ends up owning the issue remembers that bacteria are the one constituency that never changes sides.









