Some criticize the new MAHA report for going light on specific policy recommendations. That may be the point.

Last week, among a frenzied news cycle, the Make America Healthy Again Commission dropped its much-anticipated health recommendations. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media got busy criticizing the new MAHA report, saying that it “lacked teeth” and disappointed even the most tepid supporters.

Yes, very specific policies may have been absent, but I would argue that might be the point. Ultimately, the responsibility for the health of this country depends not on more regulation and policy, but on individual choices made with the most truthful, transparent, and data-driven information the government can offer.

While the MAHA community is unified in its mission to drastically lower the rates of chronic disease in the country, it sometimes disagrees on the best ways to get there—as it should. We need good faith, robust debates about potential solutions across government agencies, something the MAHA commission is designed to provide.

But first, we must figure out the culprit, the reason for America’s lack of health.

Most will agree that the current Food and Drug Administration food guidelines are based on nothing but junk science that was ultimately subsidized by companies that stood to profit from it the most. As Dr. Marty Makary said in the MAHA Commission’s press conference, the food pyramid “may be one of the greatest sources of misinformation in modern American history.”

This is something the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA are already addressing. As early as this month, we can expect to see new food guidelines that will affect everything from school lunches to prison meals.

But what are the other drivers of obesity or autism or abysmal mental health outcomes?

Is it the overloaded childhood vaccination schedule, which recommends almost 30 shots before a child turns two? Is it the standard American diet, or “SAD,” filled with highly processed foods and petroleum-laden food dyes? Or is it exposure to agricultural chemicals?

My gut instinct is that all of these play a part in poor health outcomes, but I am reluctant to draw any direct conclusions or recommend policy changes until we have what Kennedy has repeatedly called for—gold standard science and unbiased research free from corporate influence. Without it, policy changes will be willy-nilly, lacking broad base consensus. This is why the second report was heavy on research and evaluation suggestions from agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The administration has already made great strides in reversing bad policy such as the “Generally Recognized as Safe,” or “GRAS,” loophole, which allowed food producers to claim that their chemical additives were safe. That in and of itself is a huge win—after all, it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reverse regulation once it has been introduced.

The administration has also encouraged the removal of chemical food dyes, not by enacting any law, but by garnering broad base support through education and appealing to the good sense of consumers and manufacturers alike. Most Americans understood there was no need for these ingredients in food, and many food companies saw the writing on the wall and willingly complied with changes.

This is the way forward. End the corporate capture of our agencies and demand transparency, truth, and trust. Update nutritional education and messaging to shift demand. Free entrepreneurs from unnecessary regulation and make it attractive to enter the marketplace. Once demand shifts, the supply side will be forced to accommodate.

Marion Nestle, popular food policy critic, decried government agencies’ capitulation to big industry. “Regulate?” she wrote, “Not a chance.” She claimed that anything other than government solutions are “waffle words: explore, coordinate, partner, prioritize, develop, or work toward.”

I would argue those words are not waffling. Instead, they’re the way our political system is meant to work. We should be consistently working toward a better way—but that better way must be driven by the American people, not by bureaucrats and congressmen who have consistently betrayed their trust.

As much as I want to Make America Healthy Again—and believe me, I want it very much—I am not willing to enact a nanny state to achieve it.

Long-lasting, positive reform will never happen by force. It will happen through well-thought out, proper incentives. And it will happen in a free market where consumers are as informed as possible and where those wishing to innovate to meet consumer demand can thrive. It will happen when people decide they want to be healthy, and when they, not the government, demand it.

The post MAHA’s True Power Lies in Truth, Transparency and Education, Not More Regulation appeared first on The Daily Signal.