In a recent Washington Examiner article, Market Institute President Charles Sauer explores the growing influence of populism in U.S. policymaking—particularly how it’s shaping the way federal regulators view food and health policy. With the release of the MAHA Report (Make America Healthy Again), the White House signals a new era of aggressive intervention in the name of public health. But Sauer warns: populism may be popular, but it isn’t always scientific.
“Populism is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, as a country that bases its leadership on those who win elections, our leaders should be popular. On the other hand, our country’s institutions are there to keep a steady head on solving the nation’s challenges.”
The MAHA Commission’s upcoming roadmap could mean sweeping changes to the rules governing food dyes, ingredient labeling, and product formulation. But many of the proposed reforms aren’t supported by the scientific consensus.
“For food dyes currently under the microscope, many have been scientifically proven safe for consumption time and again… Studies that have attempted different claims, like the Southampton Study conducted in 2007, haven’t been able to be reproduced, which means that they weren’t actually scientific.”
Sauer makes the case that companies are already responsive to their customers and that the market—not mandates—should lead on reformulation and transparency. Meanwhile, the job of lawmakers is to deliberate—not to rubber-stamp populist demands.
“The populist message seems to be that these companies don’t care about their customers, but the truth is that companies must care about their customers to remain in business.”
“The House is built to reflect the will of the people… The Senate takes its time, allowing the hot tea spilled from the teacup to cool down.”
Populism may have political momentum, but when it replaces reason and science in regulatory decisions, the consequences can be costly, misinformed, and ultimately harmful to both innovation and consumers.
