Recent scrutiny has revealed that the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is not merely a grassroots initiative but rather a profitable endeavor for many involved, particularly anti-vaccine advocates and sellers of potentially harmful products like raw milk. This movement has gained traction across the United States, pushing for legislation that undermines established scientific principles and consumer protections.
During a natural products industry trade show in California this spring, two advisers to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed an audience of thousands from various sectors, including food brands and supplement companies. Their message emphasized that the goals of the MAHA movement would be financially advantageous to those businesses. Del Bigtree, a prominent figure in the movement, expressed his belief that Republicans would help propel the supplement and holistic health industries to success.
Despite their claims of being a grassroots movement, the MAHA initiative is supported by a network of well-funded national organizations led by individuals who have profited from fostering distrust in conventional medicine. By advancing anti-science legislation, these leaders stand to benefit both financially and in their careers.
Legislation aimed at deregulating certain industries serves as a means for activists to promote their agenda. Supporters have argued that removing consumer protections could enhance profits for specific businesses, including dairy farmers. In Delaware, a bill legalizing raw milk sales explicitly stated it could “increase profits for Delaware dairy producers.” Farmers testified in favor of this legislation, highlighting the significant economic opportunity it presented.
The Raw Milk Institute, established by California farmer Mark McAfee, claims that producers of raw milk can earn substantially higher profits compared to traditional pasteurized milk. However, the process of pasteurization is critical in eliminating harmful bacteria. McAfee has lobbied in multiple states to facilitate greater access to raw milk, despite his operation”s history of contamination issues, which have resulted in numerous product recalls.
In Missouri, legislation is being considered that would permit the retail sale of raw milk from farms recognized by the Raw Milk Institute. Although McAfee”s operation, which has seen substantial growth in sales, has faced scrutiny following a recent salmonella outbreak linked to his products, his testimony in Delaware did not address this incident.
Furthermore, microbiologist Peg Coleman testified in Delaware that federal recommendations against raw milk consumption lack scientific basis, despite previous reports of her work being funded by the Raw Milk Institute. This situation has raised questions about the motives of those advocating for raw milk sales, especially when public safety is at stake.
Many individuals affiliated with the MAHA movement have established lucrative careers by promoting their anti-science stances. Bigtree”s companies received substantial payments from Kennedy”s presidential campaign and other associated groups. Following Kennedy”s appointment as health secretary, he transferred ownership of the MAHA trademark to a company managed by Bigtree without financial compensation, despite having previously earned licensing fees from it.
As the MAHA movement continues to gain momentum, its advocates aim to alter legislation in various states to expand religious exemptions from vaccination mandates. Bigtree has actively encouraged supporters to contribute financially to the movement”s efforts, indicating a strategy focused on mobilizing public support and resources.
In summary, the MAHA movement”s anti-science legislative push serves not only to promote alternative health narratives but also to create significant financial gain for its proponents, raising ethical questions about the intersection of health advocacy and profit motives.
