Is MAHA good or bad for animals?

A couple weeks ago, RFK and Paul Saladino celebrated the release of MAHA’s flawed health report by taking shots of raw milk at the White House. Although raw milk is proven to increase health risks of milk by about 150 times, Paul hailed it as a solution to America’s health crisis.

Watching this strange display of grown men chugging raw milk like they were at a college party left me with mixed emotions. On one hand, MAHA is bringing food system politics into mainstream discourse in ways we haven't seen before. On the other hand, it's reinforcing some deeply problematic ideas about nutrition.

So is MAHA good or bad for animals?
The answer is complicated.

NOTE: this is about how MAHA relates to farmed animals, there’s a lot more to say about vaccines, fluoride, and seed oils that I won’t cover here.

Let’s start with the good...

If you’ve ever advocated for animals, you’ve definitely heard someone say “stop forcing your views,” which is ironic for a couple of reasons:

1. How do you force a view? Talk about it? Nonvegans are the ones paying for animals to go into slaughterhouses. That seems much more forceful to me.

2. The government is forcing meat and dairy down everyone’s throat through subsidies and advertising.

Most Americans have no idea that their tax dollars are propping up the meat and dairy industries to the tune of billions annually, making animal products artificially cheap while plant-based alternatives remain expensive (even though plant based diets are cheaper on the whole).

MAHA is putting food system politics on the national stage, which is long overdue.

When I debated a libertarian (Ross Kaminsky) about Pro-Animal Future’s ballot measure to ban slaughterhouses in Denver last year, he insisted that this decision should be left to consumers and the free market.

When I pointed out that the government is already heavily involved in our food choices due to subsidies, he implied my numbers were wrong and moved the conversation in a different direction.

Ross’s reaction reveals how most Americans think about food policy. They believe they're making free market choices at the grocery store, completely unaware that government subsidies have rigged the game.

Research shows that people resist learning about the food system because they already feel like experts: they eat every day, they buy groceries every week, so they assume they already understand it.

When confronted with evidence that their "personal choices" are actually shaped by subsidies, they often react with skepticism or change the subject, just like Ross.

This is exactly why MAHA's focus on government corruption and corporate capture could be so valuable: it might decimate the illusion that our food system operates on free market principles.

When RFK Jr. talks about corporate capture of regulatory agencies, he describes something animal advocates have been highlighting for decades. The revolving door between Big Ag and government agencies like the USDA isn't a conspiracy theory, it’s just reality.

Bringing the food system into politics could be a game changer for animals.

Pro-Animal Future’s entire strategy revolves around taking animal rights from a fringe consumer issue into a major political debate. MAHA can help us achieve that goal by normalizing discussions of our food system on the political stage.

Once people understand that food is already political, we can redirect the discussion toward animals used for food.

Now let’s talk about the bad...

When MAHA advocates celebrate raw milk, they're not questioning whether we should be forcibly impregnating cows and separating mothers from their babies. Or whether Americans should be drinking milk at all (many Americans are lactose intolerant and saturated fat from dairy can raise LDL).

Instead of addressing the ethical and nutritional concerns, MAHA is debating whether or not milk should be pasteurized, highlighting appeals to nature and purity.

The focus on "natural" and "traditional" foods (like beef tallow) reinforces the idea that meat and dairy are not just acceptable, but essential for health. This contradicts decades of science showing that plant-based diets are better for humans and the planet.

When people think about farms, they automatically picture small family operations, not industrial facilities. This makes them more supportive of animal agriculture because they're not imagining the factory farms where 99% of animal products comes from.

MAHA's romanticized messaging about "traditional" farming reinforces this disconnect, making people feel good about supporting animal exploitation as long as it’s “natural.”

This narrative is dangerous for two reasons:

1. It implies that everyone can eat animal products from small farms. But factory farming exists because animal agriculture couldn't scale to feed modern populations. The choice isn't between "humane" farms and factory farms; it's between exploiting animals and a plant based food system.

2. It reinforces the meat industry's narrative that plant-based and cultivated meat are unnatural and dangerous. We’ve already seen a push to ban lab grown meat in conservative states, and MAHA could further this agenda.

The frustrating thing about MAHA is how close it is to the right conclusion while missing the bigger picture.

Yes, our food system is corrupted by corporate influence.
Yes, government agencies are captured by the industries they're supposed to regulate.
Yes, our food policies are making people sick.

But instead of questioning whether we should be eating animal products at all, MAHA focuses on how we should be eating them. Instead of challenging the fundamental ethics of animal agriculture, it promotes "better" forms of exploitation.

Despite its limitations, MAHA's focus on food system politics creates opportunities for animal advocates.

We can find common ground with MAHA supporters who oppose corporate capture of government agencies, while steering the conversation toward animal agriculture's political influence.

When people are already thinking about our food system as a political issue, it makes it easier for advocates to push for pro-animal legislation and create transformative change for animals.

It helps break people out of the consumer mindset and into the civic mindset, where they’re already more receptive to animal rights.

As animal advocates, we need to make sure that when Americans think about food politics, they're thinking about the animals, too.

What I’m reading: How Fascism Works: the Politics of Us and Them, by Jason Stanley

Shoutout to Catherine Klein for recommending this one! It’s a fascinating look at why Democratic countries often fall into authoritarianism. My biggest takeaway was that whenever there’s democracy, there’s a risk of fascism. The good news is that there are easily recognizable signs, but the bad news is that nearly all of them are happening in the United States right now.

Book bans, anti-intellectualism, creating a mythic past, the increasing rural vs. urban divide, dehumanizing certain groups of people, etc...

It’s not looking great. I’m not saying we’re 100% heading for a fascist dictatorship, but I do think more people should read this book so we can at least be aware of what could happen.

My Latest Video: The Alt-Right to Ex-Vegan Pipeline

Until next time,

Natalie