The “Make America Healthy Again” movement has sparked important conversations about nutrition and public health. However, as policymakers debate banning certain ingredients and restricting product choices — particularly within government assistance programs—we should pause to consider whether regulatory mandates are truly the most effective path to reach the desired goal.
Consider the remarkable transformation already underway in corporate America, despite the fact that MAHA has only gained significant traction over the last year. Kraft Heinz recently announced it would remove artificial dyes from several mac and cheese varieties, responding directly to parent concerns. Nestlé has committed to reducing sugar, sodium, and artificial ingredients across its product portfolio.
In-N-Out Burger proudly markets its commitment to fresh, preservative-free ingredients. Steak n Shake has now made their switch from oil to beef tallow in their fryers a central point to their advertising. These weren’t government mandates — they were business decisions driven by consumer demand, not to mention the increased public attention brought by MAHA advocates.
Look, too, at other health issues in the food market. I have Celiac disease. Even a decade ago, the options for gluten-free foods (or dairy-free, nut-free, or other specialty diets) was incredibly limited. Today, I can get everything from bread to pasta to Oreos free of gluten – all without a government mandate.
This market-driven evolution, undergirded by a high level of public education, demonstrates something fundamental about American capitalism: when consumers want healthier options, companies respond. They have to. In competitive markets, businesses that ignore consumer preferences don’t survive. The invisible hand doesn’t just guide pricing — it guides product development, ingredient sourcing, and nutritional improvements.
Government bans, by contrast, represent a blunt instrument that removes choice rather than expanding it. When we prohibit certain ingredients or products, we’re essentially telling millions of Americans that bureaucrats in Washington know better than they do about their own dietary needs and preferences.
This paternalistic approach undermines personal responsibility and ignores the diverse circumstances of American families. That’s equally true of these kinds of regulations in food stamps and other government programs.
Further, regulation raises the question: Where does it stop? Is it just seed oil and soda? Rice converts to glucose in the body, as well – is jambalaya or gumbo next on the “banned” list? The inconsistencies of these types of heavy-handed market approaches often do more harm than good.
Will these regulations change with political whims of the party in power? Do we really think government appointees or elected officials will consistently make better decisions than free individuals?
Market solutions address these challenges more effectively. As demand for healthier options grows, prices naturally fall through competition and economies of scale.
Private initiatives — from community gardens to nutrition education programs— emerge to meet local needs. Food companies invest billions in research and development to create products that taste good while meeting health-conscious consumers’ demands.
The regulatory approach also ignores unintended consequences. Banning ingredients often drives innovation toward alternatives that may be less well-understood or tested. It can push production overseas to countries with different safety standards.
Most importantly, it shifts focus from education and empowerment to prohibition and enforcement. This doesn’t mean, however, that broader reform of the federal Food and Drug Administration shouldn’t be explored.
Instead of expanding government control over our dinner tables, we should double down on what’s already working. Support nutrition education programs that help families make informed choices. Encourage transparent labeling that gives consumers the information they need. Promote policies that increase access to fresh, affordable foods in underserved communities.
Government’s role should be ensuring accurate information and fair competition, not picking winners and losers on grocery store shelves. Trust Americans to make good choices when given good information and genuine options.
The path to a healthier America runs through Main Street and the marketplace, not through Baton Rouge or Washington mandates. Let consumer choice and market competition continue driving the transformation that’s already begun — it’s the American way, and it’s working.
Daniel Erspamer is the chief executive officer for the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, which advocates for free market principles.