EDITORIAL: On MAHA and food, Republicans should tread carefully

Before banning Lucky Charms and green Skittles, Republicans should consider both the policy ramifications and the politics. Here’s why:

The "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement helped drive votes to President Trump and offered Republicans a great opportunity to reach otherwise unaffiliated or disaffected voters. Many MAHA policies are both sound policy and sound politics, like Senator Tom Cotton’s (R., Ark.) proposal to limit screen time for kids and Senator Ted Cruz’s (R., Texas) work to prohibit COVID vaccine mandates that lack a scientific basis.

Because MAHA is broadly a political winner, some Republican officials assume that everything labeled “MAHA” must also be a winner. But when it comes to food regulations under the guise of MAHA, Republicans should consider the unintended consequences.

First, calling something MAHA doesn’t guarantee it’s sound policy or politics. Advocates are leveraging the perceived support for the “MAHA movement” to push proposals that we would have recently dismissed. Getting cell phones out of schools is indeed popular and aligns with conservative values, as excessive screen time for kids is a recent phenomenon that conservatives rightly question.

But preventing food manufacturers from using food coloring? That’s a policy that — until recently — Republicans would have assumed was a Michelle Obama proposal that our side would mock as preposterous.

After all, there’s nothing conservative about restricting customer choices in the free market. Americans are free to decide whether to buy cupcakes with food coloring, natural coloring, or no coloring at all.

Second, a these types of food regulations pose political risks. MAHA in the abstract enjoys strong support — after all, who opposes better health? But if voters start seeing Fruit Loops cost $8 a box and halloween candy become 40% more expensive, they’re not going to be pleased.

Additionally, And the idea that there is a single voter in America who voted Republican because that voter wanted us to ban food coloring is absurd. If banning food choices is a priority issue, the left — with support from their plaintiff lawyers — can always out bid us.

Our sources on Capitol the Hill tell us that Republicans are polling this exact question, to better understand whether some of the proposed regulatory changes, both at the state and federal level, risk angering consumers who will have fewer choices.

Third, there’s a critical distinction between regulating products funded by tax dollars and those in the free market. For government programs like SNAP, it’s reasonable, politically sound, and necessary, — given our $37 trillion debt, — to ensure taxpayer money aligns with program goals.

But in the free market, we should trust consumers to decide what’s best for them, not the state. If you don’t want colored M&Ms, you are free to buy dozens of other products.

Much of what MAHA has achieved has been good for the party, and there are opportunities to advance MAHA goals in technology, protecting kids, and countering harmful leftist mandates. But before banning red M&Ms, Republicans should carefully consider the consequences.