The “Make America Healthy Again” movement is no longer just a slogan. It is shaping federal food and nutrition policy. The recent release of updated dietary guidelines is a clear example where they emphasize more fruits and vegetables, more protein and greater attention to overall dietary balance. This is encouraging news for farmers and producers because it reflects science-based engagement and reinforces the role American agriculture already plays in producing safe, nutritious food.
A recent national ad campaign featuring boxer Mike Tyson urging Americans to “eat real food” signals how far the Make America Healthy Again conversation has spread, from federal commissions and nutrition boards to everyday media. But broad slogans risk oversimplifying a complex food system if they aren’t grounded in the realities of how food is produced and regulated, and if they do not consider how real people can make that change in their daily lives.
In North Carolina, where agriculture is the state’s largest industry with a $111 billion annual economic impact, these debates carry real consequences.
Farmers and agriculture organizations did not sit on the sidelines as the MAHA conversation evolved. Commodity groups, farm bureaus, processors and allied partners engaged directly to ensure policymakers understood what proposed changes would mean for family farms and food affordability. National farm organizations — including the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, International Fresh Produce Association, National Pork Producers Council and the National Chicken Council — urged the administration to ground its work in sound science and avoid mischaracterizing modern production practices while still supporting the mission of making America’s families healthier.
That engagement appears to have made a difference. The final MAHA Commission report emphasized research, voluntary initiatives and education rather than immediate mandates or bans. The dietary guidelines similarly reflect science-based nutrition recommendations rather than dramatic departures from established frameworks. It demonstrates that when farmers participate early and constructively, policy outcomes can be balanced.
If the first phase of MAHA focused on what Americans should eat, the next will shape how that food is produced, revealing two distinct tracks within the movement. One centers on nutrition policy, encouraging whole foods and balanced diets. The other centers on production practices, including renewed scrutiny of crop protection tools.
Farmers welcome conversations about health and nutrition and are never opposed to progress. American farmers operate under some of the most rigorous safety and environmental regulations in the world.
Early signals from the MAHA movement suggested sweeping changes to how certain foods are categorized or how production inputs are evaluated. Definitions and regulatory shifts carry real consequences for supply chains and food affordability. Agriculture already faces significant pressures, and adding uncertainty without clear scientific grounding risks undermining the very goals MAHA seeks to advance.
The United States’ food system is one of the safest and most productive in the world. Nutrition policy can advance without destabilizing production policy. Public health goals can be pursued while preserving the science-based tools that allow farmers to grow abundant food.
Public interest in food and health is real and increasing. Recent national polling shows that many parents identify with or are sympathetic to the broader MAHA message. In short, families want affordable groceries and confidence in what they feed their children. Farmers want the same for their families.
With health policy emerging as a defining issue in Washington and state capitols, these debates will shape regulatory direction for years to come.
As MAHA moves from campaign energy to sustained governance, the path forward should not be confrontation but continued engagement. Federal agencies are reviewing food additives, considering definitions for “ultra-processed” foods, and examining how state and federal authority should interact on ingredient standards. Those decisions must be grounded in science and include the people who produce that food. Farmers bring practical knowledge about how regulations function in real operations.
MAHA is now entering its governing phase. If it is to succeed in strengthening public health without weakening the food system, farmers must remain at the table. Constructive dialogue, grounded in science and informed by real-world experience, is the only way to ensure that health goals and agricultural stability move forward together.
Tori Rumenik is executive director of the North Carolina Ag Partnership, a policy and advocacy organization representing farmers, agribusiness and allied partners across the state.
