The MAHA Strategy and Its Critics

****I will be camping in the Boundary Waters of Northern Minnesota camping with my son and his fiancé next week. So if you email me and I don’t respond, please understand I will be incommunicado. I will be back a week from Sunday. There will be no emails next week. Thank you for understanding****

Recently Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy came out with the “Make Our Children Healthy Again” Strategy document.

I read over the document and really like what is in there. It examines the alarming rise of chronic disease in children and prepares the groundwork for government policy response.

Normally I am not a fan of government fixing problems. That’s why I like this document. There’s not much of a call for new regulation. It’s more a wake up call to America to stop feeding kids junk and encourage them to exercise more.

And yet there are actually critics of this stance:

“For example, the report outlines the risks of exposure to harmful chemicals on children's health — an area that Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, says deserves much more attention. And yet the Trump administration is cutting staff at key agencies and dissolving an office in the Environmental Protection Agency that studies the toxic effects of chemicals.”

Usually reports from the government say we need more government funding. This one doesn’t seem to ask for that so much, except in the areas of things like more regulation on prescription drug advertising.

A lot of the report seems to focus on putting information out in the public so we can make our own choices. To me that seems like a really good thing.

Here are some highlights from the strategy report:

• There’s too much reliance on ultra-processed food, which can lead to obesity, diabetes, and other nutrient deficiencies

• Exposure to environmental chemicals which can lead to long-term health effects

• Lack of physical activity and chronic stress - including excessive screen time and poor sleep patterns (which are related in my opinion)

• Overmedicalization - Concerns over prescribing too many psychiatric and other medications to children

The critics jumped on the report:

Some of the "numerous garbled scientific references and invented studies" meant to "underpin the science" in the report "appear to have been generated using artificial intelligence," The Washington Post said.

Here’s my question. Do we really need lots of rigorous scientific studies to substantiate those 4 points above? We see them every day around us. I certainly see it in my assisted living homes.

People suffering from a lifetime of bad food. So many people addicted to their phones or other screens. And TONS of medications that my residents come to us taking.

The report goes on to offer a bunch of changes in the government’s approach to health for children:

• Expanding studies into areas like chronic disease causes, nutrition, gut microbiome and vaccine injuries

• Redefine ultra-processed foods and tighten the requirements for GRAS (“Generally Regarded As Safe”) designation

• Push full-fat dairy in schools and restrict junk food purchases in the SNAP program

• Roll out school nutrition and fitness campaigns

• Work with the private sector to improve food nutrition quality in supermarkets and restaurants

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Without having to dig into scientific studies to come up with that conclusion. Normally I concentrate on health for older people. But most young people turn into older people. The habits we form early in our life can carry with us for many decades - and can affect how many decades we live.