Our Concerns About the MAHA Commission Strategy: A Call for Accountability in Food Security and Nutrition Policies

Project Bread has long recognized the role healthy food plays in supporting positive health outcomes. Food security and access to healthcare provide a strong foundation for families to break the cycle of poverty and live healthy lives. We are encouraged that the federal government, through the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission Strategy, is expressing support for nutrition, food access, and promoting healthy lifestyles. Unfortunately, the track record of the larger Trump Administration is contrary to these goals. 

To achieve the Administration’s stated goals, we invite the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Agriculture, and others involved to work closely with healthcare providers, dietitians, local organizations with decades of experience promoting healthy outcomes for all families, and most of all, people with lived experience of food insecurity and health challenges.   

However, we have four main observations and concerns about the MAHA Commission strategy.   

First, we need more details. Even seemingly promising ideas such as “prioritizing whole, healthy foods” across the USDA’s nutrition programs require further explanation. Unfunded mandates are untenable. Even funded mandates can be wasteful, ineffective, and counterproductive without technical assistance and community engagement. We need to know who will develop the criteria, what funding and support will be provided, and how USDA intends to work with communities to ensure success.   

Second, while the report contains a mix of ideas, some are simply problematic. While we invite innovation in addressing access to healthy food and supporting healthy styles, some of the ideas proposed in the report are simply bad. A prime example is the one-sentence proposal for “MAHA Boxes: USDA will develop options to get whole, healthy food to SNAP participants.” 

Among the strengths of the existing SNAP benefits is that they are responsive to the needs and wants of recipients. Families, with limited constraints, can choose their groceries and purchase them when and where it's convenient. Previous attempts to supplement or replace federal nutrition benefits with food boxes have proven costly and inefficient, often resulting in waste when recipients were uninterested or unfamiliar with the contents.   

Third, there are proven ways to improve diet quality that the MAHA commission should elevate. In Massachusetts, MassHealth has funded several programs to support Health Related Social Needs, including Project Bread’s Health Care Partnerships program. In partnership with MassHealth, we connect patients experiencing food insecurity and complex health conditions to the resources they need to sustain and improve their long-term health.  

In addition to this targeted Food is Medicine approach, Massachusetts has innovated a successful Healthy Incentives Program (HIP) to encourage a broader set of low-income families to eat healthier. HIP incentivizes SNAP households to purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables. Since its launch in April 2017, HIP has increased daily fruit and vegetable consumption by over one serving per day. Federal support would be a powerful engine to fund HIP and expand it to additional points of sale, such as grocery stores. This model preserves the dignity of choice with SNAP and provides more targeted support with HIP.  

Aside from these innovations, the MAHA Commission fails to fully appreciate that existing federal nutrition programs already play a critical role in improving both food security and health outcomes. SNAP, as an example, has been found to reduce healthcare spending by $1,400, or nearly 25 percent, per year. This isn’t isolated to SNAP. For lower-income families, participation in free or reduced-price meals results in a 29% reduction in poor health and a 17% reduction in obesity. We don’t need to settle for the status quo, but we also shouldn’t throw out or ignore what we know already works. 

In addition to these innovative approaches in Massachusetts and other states, we would argue that existing federal programs such SNAP, SNAP-Ed, and WIC have a proven track record. Despite coming under fire by the chief proponents of MAHA, these programs maintain our current levels of nutrition access and have supported millions of Americans in eating healthier diets.  Undermining them is a giant step backwards and will make it impossible to achieve the stated goals of MAHA.  

Fourth, the report’s positive ideas ring hollow considering the broader work of the Trump Administration and its allies in Congress. The policies recently passed in the budget reconciliation bill are in direct contradiction to the promises and ideas outlined in the MAHA Commission. The MAHA report acknowledges the need to shift the American diet away from ultra-processed foods toward more nutrient-dense foods, such as fruits and vegetables. 

Meanwhile, the Administration is slashing health and nutrition programs essential for millions of Americans to achieve this dietary shift. Undermining these programs would be a giant step backward and would make it impossible to achieve their stated goals.