Editorial note: A version of this essay originally appeared in the current print edition of Capital Research magazine.
In January 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was appointed secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), a move that stunned Washington and sent shockwaves through the boardrooms of the U.S. food and agriculture industries.
Known for his populist rhetoric and decades-long skepticism toward corporate influence in science and medicine, Kennedy arrived at HHS with an ambitious vision: to upend the entrenched forces behind America’s chronic disease crisis through his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda—a sweeping set of reforms targeting ultra-processed foods, harmful chemical additives, pesticide-heavy farming, and corporate control over public health policy and dietary recommendations.
Unlike past efforts to reform consumer habits or revise dietary labels, MAHA seeks to rewrite the rulebook. Its bedrock is the MAHA Commission Report, released on May 22, 2025, which outlines a comprehensive strategy:
- Ban additives linked to metabolic syndrome (MetS) and potentially neurobehavioral disorders. MetS includes hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, hypertension, obesity, high cholesterol, diabetes, stroke, cardiovascular and renal disease.
- Reform school lunches to prioritize whole, nutrient-rich foods.
- Overhaul dietary guidelines to remove Big Food industry influence.
- Dramatically reduce pesticide use.
- Promote regenerative agriculture that restores soil health and food sovereignty.
The MAHA Report, while a bold challenge to America’s industrial food system, has sparked controversy, with critics questioning its scientific rigor. On June 10, the New York Times flagged what it characterized as the report’s overstated claims linking synthetic dyes to hyperactivity, citing small sample sizes in referenced studies. In a report on May 25, 2025, Politico criticized the report for citing selective pesticide risk data, suggesting MAHA cherry-picked evidence to fit its narrative.
Directionally, the report’s audacious call to dismantle a profit-driven, “we’ve always done it this way” food policy—rooted in $1.5 trillion corporate interests—remains a vital catalyst for reform, its flaws overshadowed by its urgent push for
dsend to a nation besieged by some of the highest rates of obesity and metabolic disorders in the world. However, the agenda directly threatens the trillion-dollar industrial food and agriculture complex, a network of agribusiness conglomerates, processed-food giants, and their allies in philanthropy and policy.
Predictably, the resistance from entrenched interests has been fierce, coordinated, and well-financed.
A powerful coalition of corporations, lobbying groups, nonprofit foundations, and institutional players—including PepsiCo, Bayer, the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), and the Nature Conservancy—has mobilized to undermine MAHA’s reforms in legal, legislative, media, and scientific channels.
This article is not about whether MAHA will succeed. It is about following the money behind those who stand to gain if it fails.
We trace the funding architecture of MAHA’s opposition from lobbying disclosures and nonprofit tax filings to overlooked alliances, revealing how Big Food and Big Agriculture have embedded themselves in the institutions that shape America’s food and health policies.
By analyzing who funds the resistance—and why—we expose the corporate-state complex that MAHA aims to dismantle, as well as the extraordinary lengths to which it will go to protect its power.
MAHA: A threat to billions of special interest dollars
…the ultra-processed-food market is projected to grow from $630 billion in 2025 to $856.6 billion by 2029
The Make America Healthy Again agenda threatens the Food Industrial Complex by radically reimagining the intersection of food, health, and agriculture in American life. Feeding people is a multi-trillion-dollar global industry, with the U.S. food sector alone accounting for over $1 trillion in annual revenue.
The industrial food-health-agriculture complex has evolved into a tightly interconnected set of institutions, policies, and corporate interests that shape how food is grown, processed, sold, and consumed in the United States, as well as how health outcomes are managed.
Due to its immense size and influence, the food industry possesses significant political and economic power, making reform a challenging endeavor.
The incoming Trump administration established the Make America Healthy Again Commission in February 2025 as an advisory committee to address this issue. In May 2025, the commission released an assessment identifying key drivers behind the childhood chronic disease crisis, broken down into five interlocking pillars:
- Banning Harmful Additives. MAHA targets artificial dyes (e.g., red dye 40), high-fructose corn syrup, and industrial seed oils, which studies in The Lancet and Environmental Health Perspectives have linked to behavioral issues, obesity, and metabolic disorders, such as diabetes. Kennedy’s April 2025 announcement to phase out eight artificial colors by 2026 threatens major product lines across the $1.5 trillion processed-food industry, which is dominated by companies such as PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, and General Mills.
- Reforming School Nutrition. MAHA seeks to replace ultra-processed foods in the National School Lunch Program, which serves 30 million children daily, with whole, nutrient-dense meals. Aligning with the Obama-era Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, this pillar builds on efforts to improve nutrition standards, which faced industry pushback (Washington Post, 2014). MAHA’s focus on local sourcing, inspired by California’s 2024 farm-to-school program that cut costs by 10 percent (Civil Eats, 2024), threatens long-standing contracts held by food service providers.
- Overhauling Dietary Guidelines. Kennedy proposes removing industry-affiliated scientists from the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which was criticized in a 2015 BMJ study for favoring agribusiness interests. MAHA’s vision for the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines emphasizes whole foods free from ultra-processed products, challenging the influence of companies like Nestlé and Coca-Cola.
- Reducing Pesticide Use. MAHA calls for stricter limits on chlorpyrifos and atrazine, pesticides linked to neurodevelopmental and endocrine disorders and banned in multiple countries (Environmental Health Journal , June 6, 2019). The 2021 EPA ban on chlorpyrifos for food crops, reversed after $14 million in lobbying by Dow Chemical and CropLife America (The Nation, March 11, 2014), exemplifies the industry’s resistance to MAHA.
- Promoting Regenerative Agriculture. MAHA supports soil-health-centric farming to reduce chemical inputs, enhance biodiversity, and increase food sovereignty. Studies from the Rodale Institute show that regenerative methods can sequester carbon and reduce reliance on pesticides, threatening the chemical seed-fertilizer-pesticide triad that sustains agribusiness giants like Bayer and Cargill.
Over the next four years, the ultra-processed-food market is projected to grow from $630 billion in 2025 to $856.6 billion by 2029 (Technavio, 2025). Making America Healthy Again will involve pushing back against Big Food and Big Agriculture, disrupting the profit models of multinational corporations that rely on cheap inputs, government subsidies, and lenient regulations.
Companies manufacturing processed foods and those producing pesticide-heavy commodity crops are particularly vulnerable. Unsurprisingly, industry leaders are threatened and are mobilizing a sophisticated counteroffensive to protect their revenue streams.
The coordinated opposition
Cola companies were justifiably concerned, given what we have seen of MAHA’s desire to eliminate soda from the allowable foods funded by food stamps. Coca-Cola invested $3.9 million in 2024 to maintain subsidies for high-fructose corn syrup . . .
It’s no surprise that major food corporations have come to rely on cheap, ultra-processed ingredients to maximize profits and streamline production. Over the past several decades, chemically engineered substitutes—such as high-fructose corn syrup, industrial seed oils, and artificial dyes—have largely replaced whole, nutrient-rich foods in many packaged products. These ingredients were not introduced by accident: They extend shelf life, reduce production costs, and create addictive flavors and textures that keep consumers coming back. In other words, they’re highly profitable—even if they harm public health.
However, synthetic ingredients are just one piece of a broader system. Genetically modified crops, often grown with heavy pesticide use and depleted of essential nutrients, have become the foundation of industrial animal feed. This has led to the production of meat, dairy, and eggs under conditions that compromise both nutritional quality and environmental integrity. Companies that rely on this model—such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft Heinz, and Bayer—have built empires on low-cost, high-margin products. The MAHA agenda, which seeks to overhaul the industrial food chain in favor of health, sustainability, and equity, directly challenges this business model and threatens to upend billions in revenue.
In 2023, PepsiCo and Bayer invested $4.1 million and $7.45 million in federal lobbying to influence agricultural policy, food labeling, and pesticide laws (OpenSecrets, 2023). In 2024, PepsiCo increased its lobbying spending to $4.8 million to oppose bans on additives like red dye 40.
These companies are not the only ones getting rich by harming Americans. Their lobbyists make a substantial amount of money advocating for the use of harmful additives and pesticides. The lobbying firm Invariant, which began as Heather Podesta and Partners, has grown to over 169 clients and a dozen or so staff members assisting the agricultural lobby.
Today, they bring in over $39 million in client fees. PepsiCo and the Corn Refiners Association rely on the leadership of Invariant lobbyist Danielle Beck, who held strategy sessions in late 2024 in an attempt to thwart Kennedy’s potential impact if confirmed as HHS Secretary.
Big Food was concerned about his agenda and its potential impact on their revenue stream. The lobbying team worked to secure exemptions for important and lucrative food additives during Senate confirmation hearings and limit Kennedy’s regulatory authority through congressional appropriations (RealClearInvestigations, November 20, 2024).
Cola companies were justifiably concerned, given what we have seen of MAHA’s desire to eliminate soda from the allowable foods funded by food stamps. Coca-Cola invested $3.9 million in 2024 to maintain subsidies for high-fructose corn syrup, which are estimated to save the industry $4 billion a year (OpenSecrets, 2024; USDA Economic Research Service, 2024).
The industry was not just concerned about the impact on the food stamp programs. To combat MAHA’s demands for more stringent dietary guidelines and school lunch reforms that could jeopardize its $10 billion processed-food portfolio, Nestlé increased its lobbying spending from $848,000 in 2023 to $1.2 million in 2024 (OpenSecrets, 2024; Nestlé Financial Statement, 2024).
Kraft Heinz stood to lose if MAHA’s school lunch reforms were enacted. It spent $1.1 million on lobbying in 2024 to protect its $3 billion in government contracts for processed foods (OpenSecrets, 2024; Kraft Heinz Investor Report, 2024).
Once Kennedy’s confirmation looked likely, Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz partnered with the American Beverage Association to finance a $10 million campaign to lobby senators from farm states, highlighting the potential for MAHA to increase food prices and interfere with agricultural supply chains (Food Business News, January 15, 2025).
Bayer, meanwhile, paid $8.2 million to defend products like atrazine and glyphosate, industrial herbicides, and known carcinogens, which are essential to its $14 billion in agrochemical revenue (OpenSecrets, 2024; Bayer Annual Report, 2024).
On the fast food front, McDonald’s and the National Restaurant Association invested $2.3 million in 2023 and $2.7 million in 2024 (OpenSecrets, 2024) to counteract nutrition reforms, especially MAHA’s initiatives to ban ultra-processed ingredients from fast food.
That same year, the National Restaurant Association, representing more than 500,000 businesses, contributed $5.1 million to oppose sugar and sodium restrictions and influence Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) policies (OpenSecrets, 2024).
What is most striking is how even corporate competitors lobby toward the same overall goals, their collective interest outweighing individual ones. As a result, these overlapping initiatives demonstrate the industry’s unified resolve to safeguard a $1.5 trillion market that depends on inexpensive, processed ingredients and chemical inputs (Technavio, 2025).
Unusual suspects: Nonprofit organization financing fueling the industrial food system
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with an endowment of $75.2 billion in 2024, wields immense financial influence to advance industrial agriculture…
While corporate lobbying firms may be the public face of MAHA’s opposition, nonprofit organizations wield quiet yet profound influence over Big Food and Big Agriculture by crafting the research, policy, and narratives that shape our food system. While often perceived as neutral, these organizations are anything but, aligning the industry interests under the pretext of public health and sustainability.
These are just a few of the key players and their respective stakes in the Food Industrial Complex:
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. The 2014 Farm Bill established the FFAR, allocating an initial $200 million in federal seed funding and requiring private or nonfederal contributions to match this funding.
Over time, FFAR has forged public-private partnerships that include major agribusiness interests—such as the previously mentioned Bayer, PepsiCo, and Nestlé—as well as additional players, including Cargill, Syngenta, and Mars, effectively linking corporate priorities to federally supported agricultural research.
This arrangement empowers Big Food and Big Ag to shape research agendas, maintaining industrialized systems—such as genetically modified organism (GMO) crops, pesticide-dependent practices, and processed-food technologies—rather than promoting public health, environmental sustainability, or equity. (foundationfar.org)
By reinforcing the existing industrial model through influence over research funding, FFAR arguably deepened food system vulnerabilities—such as nutrient-poor diets and environmental degradation—which have intensified the diet-related health and sustainability crises that the MAHA initiative now aims to confront.
In addition to this matching structure, FFAR’s Board of Directors, though technically independent, includes representatives directly related to the chemical agriculture industry. Additionally, FFAR’s research grants overwhelmingly support biotechnology, pesticide efficiency, and precision agriculture—technologies that reinforce, rather than reform, the industrial model that MAHA opposes.
Additionally, the requirement for FFARs to match federal and private funding facilitates corporate control over public research. FFAR actively seeks funding partnerships from agribusinesses, food companies, private foundations, universities, and research institutions to achieve the required match.
Each of these partnerships allows an industry player to influence FFAR. This influence is best demonstrated by Bayer’s yearly contributions (up to $249,999) and PepsiCo’s $6 million AgMission investment, which support regenerative agriculture but prioritize scalable GMO and pesticide solutions (Progressive.org, 2018; foundationfar.org, 2023).
FFAR’s 2022 tax filing reports $97,514,243 in contributions, of which $88,325,887 came from federal grants and $7,129,113 from private donors such as Corteva Agriscience, General Mills, Mars, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (FFAR Form 990, 2022).
Once FFAR secures federal and matching private funds, it awards competitive research grants to academic institutions, nonprofits, independent researchers, and public-private partnerships. These grants often focus on agricultural productivity, soil health, sustainable livestock, food security, and nutrition science. Although these topics appear broad, many projects align closely with industrial agriculture and food processing priorities rather than systemic reform.
In 2024 alone, FFAR awarded 68 grants totaling $150.6 million (foundationfar.org, 2025). Since 2016, it has distributed $366 million across 275 grants and held $400 million in assets as of 2023. A significant share of this funding supports precision agriculture, biotechnology, and pesticide efficiency approaches that directly conflict with MAHA’s goals of reducing pesticide use, banning harmful additives, and promoting regenerative, chemical-free farming (FFAR Form 990, 2023; foundationfar.org, 2023). Further raising concerns, FFAR’s board has included executives from major agribusiness corporations such as Bayer and Monsanto.
FFAR’s grantmaking history reveals a clear pattern. For example, it awarded $2 million to a maize genetics project and $7.6 million to a crop management study at Kansas State University, co-funded by Bayer (FFAR Awards Grant, 2023). While MAHA emphasizes reducing pesticide reliance, FFAR funded a $1 million honeybee health study with Syngenta, despite the known role of pesticides in pollinator decline.
Additionally, FFAR’s $10.3 million Eco-Harvest initiative, supported by Corteva Agriscience, promotes corporate-controlled carbon markets rather than truly sustainable practices (Progressive.org, 2018; foundationfar.org, 2023).
Kennedy’s vision for a decentralized, health-driven food system is undermined by FFAR’s funding and governance, which are inextricably tied to this $200 billion corporate food and agrochemical revenue machine. FFAR, therefore, is positioned as a significant opponent of MAHA, directing public and private funds into research that supports the very additives and processes it claims to champion against. (Statista, 2024; Technavio, 2025).
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with an endowment of $75.2 billion in 2024, wields immense financial influence to advance industrial agriculture, prioritizing scalability and profitability in ways that clash with MAHA’s vision for small-scale, chemical-free farming (gatesfoundation.org, 2024). Its agricultural program, once led by a former Monsanto deputy director, has invested over $100 million since 2010 in biotech initiatives, including $15 million for GMO seed breeding through the FFAR and $20 million to Corteva Agriscience and Bayer for “climate-resilient” seeds (FFAR Funding and Conflicts, 2023; gatesfoundation.org, 2024).
These funds support the $50 billion GMO market, which relies on patented seeds that require farmers to buy specific chemicals and fertilizers year after year. This system ensures steady profits for agribusiness giants, contributing to an industry worth over $200 billion (Statista, 2024; Technavio, 2025).
For example, FFAR contributed $7 million in 2022 and partnered with PepsiCo in 2023 on a $5 million precision agriculture initiative. These efforts promote high-input farming systems, including the use of glyphosate-resistant crops. Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide designed to kill weeds without harming genetically modified crops. However, it is controversial due to its links to environmental damage and potential health risks. These high-efficiency systems are built for large-scale monoculture farms but directly oppose MAHA’s goals of eliminating harmful pesticides like chlorpyrifos and atrazine (FFAR Form 990, 2022; gatesfoundation.org, 2024; Environmental Health Journal, June 6, 2019).
For example, FFAR’s $10.3 million Eco-Harvest program, backed by Corteva, rewards large-scale producers with corporate-controlled carbon credits, sidelining the 7,000 U.S. community-supported agriculture operations MAHA champions (foundationfar.org, 2023; USDA, 2023).
MAHA advocates for organic, open-pollinated seeds, which are supported by Rodale Institute studies showing they can achieve comparable yields while reducing chemical input costs. In contrast, the Gates Foundation promotes GMO seeds and precision agriculture tools—an approach that deepens farmer reliance on Bayer’s $14 billion pesticide portfolio and Corteva’s $17 billion seed business (Rodale Institute, 2023; Bayer Annual Report, 2024; Corteva Annual Report, 2024).
Critics, including MAHA supporters, contend that while the foundation frames its investments as efforts to combat global hunger, its strategies ultimately prioritize corporate profits over ecological sustainability and food sovereignty (Progressive.org, 2018; MAHA Commission Report, May 22, 2025).
By channeling resources into large-scale, high-tech farming models, the Gates Foundation reinforces the interests of the $1.5 trillion industrial food system. This alignment presents a significant obstacle to MAHA’s vision and Kennedy’s proposal to redirect $20 billion in commodity subsidies toward sustainable, community-based agriculture (Environmental Working Group, 2023; Technavio, 2025).
The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy, a global environmental nonprofit with $1.8 billion in assets and $1.1 billion in revenue for 2023, champions “climate-smart” farming initiatives that conflict with MAHA’s objectives of reducing chemical inputs and promoting food sovereignty (Nature Conservancy Form 990, 2023; InfluenceWatch, 2023).
Its $10 million partnership with Cargill, $6 million from McDonald’s and the Walmart Foundation for regenerative grazing, and ties to Bayer and Dow Chemical—members of its Business Council—promote precision pesticide application and corporate-controlled carbon markets, aligning with a $100 billion agrochemical market rather than MAHA’s chemical-free, decentralized vision (Vox, 2024; Nature Conservancy Annual Report, 2023; Statista, 2024).
The Nature Conservancy’s ties to Dow, which donated to funds linked to pesticide deregulation, and Bayer’s $8.2 million 2024 lobbying to defend the harmful herbicide glyphosate fuel accusations of greenwashing, as its “climate-smart” rhetoric often masks corporate profit motives (InfluenceWatch, 2023; OpenSecrets, 2024; Sustainable Views, 2023).
While it supports regenerative agriculture, the Nature Conservancy prioritizes favoring large-scale producers over the 7,000 small-scale community-supported agriculture operations MAHA champions, undermining local food systems (USDA, 2023; Vox, 2024).
Backed by $200 billion in agribusiness revenue, these efforts entrench a $1.5 trillion industrial food system, obstructing Kennedy’s goal of redirecting $20 billion in commodity subsidies toward sustainable farming (Statista, 2024; Technavio, 2025; Environmental Working Group, 2023).
Aspen Institute. In 2023, the Aspen Institute’s Food & Society Program received $10 million in corporate donations—including $500,000 from General Mills—as well as contributions from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Walmart Foundation (Aspen Institute Form 990, 2023; Statista, 2024). While the program promotes “food equity,” it simultaneously reinforces the industrial food system that MAHA aims to dismantle.
The program’s Food Leaders Fellowship, which includes fellows from General Mills and Walmart, is funded by major corporations like Walmart and PepsiCo. These partnerships help amplify corporate narratives in policy discussions where MAHA advocates are notably absent (Aspen Institute Annual Report, 2023).
Aspen’s emphasis on centralized food distribution further contrasts with MAHA’s push for decentralized, locally sourced systems. This is evident in the $5 million in 2024 grants awarded to “equity-focused” food access initiatives, many of which involve collaborations with Amazon’s food retail division (Aspen Institute, 2024).
Amazon’s partnership highlights the corporate direction of Aspen’s food initiatives. Supported in part by Aspen’s grants, Amazon utilizes its expansive logistics network to distribute food, often including ultra-processed products from corporate donors like General Mills, which contributed $500,000 in 2023 (Aspen Institute Form 990, 2023; web: 0.4).
Ultimately, these funding decisions prioritize large-scale suppliers and undermine the small, local farms MAHA supports. With only 1.3 percent of U.S. farms certified organic, these small-scale producers face significant systemic barriers (USDA Organic Survey, 2023).
Behind closed doors: How trade groups protect Big Food from reform
Despite its image as a grassroots voice for American farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation operates more like a corporate-aligned lobbying powerhouse. It collects at least $5 million annually from agribusiness giants like Monsanto and Cargill, raising questions about whose interests it truly represents.
Beneath the polished marble of Capitol Hill, an intricate web of influence quietly protects one of America’s most powerful industries. Trade associations—the political arm of Big Food and Big Agriculture—spend millions to defend a $1.5 trillion industrial food system from reform efforts, such as MAHA, a movement advocating for tighter regulations on nutrition, pesticides, and food additives (Technavio, 2025).
These industry-backed groups, funded by some of the world’s largest food and chemical corporations, have mastered the art of persuasion. Through lobbying, campaign contributions, and science-for-hire studies, they shape policy behind the scenes—often in ways the public never sees. Their mission is to ensure that proposed bans on controversial additives and stricter food labeling laws never make it out of committee.
At the center of this resistance is the Consumer Brands Association (CBA), which represents major players such as General Mills, Nestlé, and Kellogg. In 2023, CBA spent $2.1 million lobbying lawmakers on issues ranging from SNAP policy to food safety rules. By 2024, as MAHA gained momentum, that figure rose to $2.4 million (OpenSecrets, 2023, 2024).
Much of this effort was aimed at the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. In March 2025, CBA CEO David Chavern met with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), armed with a commissioned report predicting $12 billion in supply chain disruptions if MAHA’s proposed bans on red dye 40 and high-fructose corn syrup were enacted (Food Business News, March 23, 2025).
The stakes are enormous. The ultra-processed-food market in the U.S. is valued at $630 billion, and nearly 70 percent of General Mills’ $20 billion in annual revenue depends on products containing controversial additives (General Mills Annual Report, 2024; Technavio, 2025).
Behind polished language about “consumer freedom” and “regulatory overreach” lies a far more straightforward truth: For these companies, blocking reform is about protecting profits and preserving a food system built on ingredients that reformers say are contributing to the health problems of Americans.
CropLife America, the voice of pesticide giants such as Bayer and Syngenta, matches the financial fervor, spending $1.5 million in 2023 and $1.7 million in 2024 to defend a $100 billion agrochemical industry (OpenSecrets, 2023, 2024; Statista, 2024).
Framing MAHA’s push to reinstate bans on chlorpyrifos and atrazine as “unscientific,” CropLife’s CEO Chris Novak, a former Grassley aide, leveraged 1,200 congressional meetings in 2023 to push “science-based” regulations (CropLife America, 2023; CropLife America Press Release, February 2025).
In 2024, a $500,000 “Pesticide Discussion” campaign trained allies to address public concerns about chemical inputs, safeguarding Bayer’s $14 billion pesticide portfolio in a nation where 98 percent of cropland relies on them (CropLife America Annual Report, 2024; USDA, 2023; Bayer Annual Report, 2024).
The American Farm Bureau Federation, cloaked in the mythos of family farmers, wields even greater clout. From 2019 to 2024, it spent $15.7 million to block MAHA’s GMO and pesticide restrictions (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2024; OpenSecrets, 2024).
Despite its image as a grassroots voice for American farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation operates more like a corporate-aligned lobbying powerhouse. It collects at least $5 million annually from agribusiness giants like Monsanto and Cargill, raising questions about whose interests it truly represents (UCS, 2024). Its influence is further inflated by a membership base that includes millions of non-farmers, many of whom are customers of Farm Bureau-affiliated insurance companies. These insurance arms—technically separate but deeply intertwined—generate billions in revenue, often steering organizational priorities toward protecting insurance profits over advocating for small farmers.
In practice, this means that policy stances can reflect the needs of insurers and agribusiness donors, rather than those of the independent or regenerative farmers the group claims to represent.
In early 2025, the Farm Bureau joined forces with the National Corn Growers Association to launch the $1 million Modern Ag Alliance campaign, which labeled MAHA’s proposals for regenerative agriculture as “economically disastrous.” The opposition was framed around the potential impact on the roughly 2 million U.S. farmers who rely on $20 billion in federal commodity subsidies—a system that disproportionately benefits large-scale, industrial operations (MAHA_PAC, May 29, 2025; Environmental Working Group, 2023; American Farm Bureau, 2024).
Critics argue that the Farm Bureau’s resistance to MAHA reveals a deeper alignment with agribusiness interests and a prioritization of federal subsidies over sustainable practices and long-term farmer resilience.
Other players pile on. The American Beverage Association, which represents companies such as PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, spent $1.9 million in 2024 to maintain SNAP funds for soda purchases (OpenSecrets, 2024; Statista, 2024).
The National Confectioners Association, which represents a $44 billion candy industry, spent $800,000 to oppose sugar restrictions (OpenSecrets, 2024; NCA Industry Report, 2024). In coalitions like the Modern Ag Alliance, fueled by $2 million from CropLife and the Farm Bureau, these groups blanketed farm states with ads warning of MAHA’s “rural devastation” (Food Business News, April 10, 2025).
In 2023, these associations collectively spent $178 million on lobbying—a 22 percent increase from 2019—dwarfing the $10 million spent by sustainable agriculture advocates (UCS, 2024). This chasm reveals a pay-to-play system in which corporate dollars, channeled through trade groups, influence policy to prioritize profit over public health. As MAHA fights to redirect subsidies and ban harmful inputs, the lobbying leviathan stands firm, its influence a testament to the enduring power of the industrial food empire.
Courts, Congress, and the corporate shield
It is not just former federal employees who turn into lobbyists. Michael Taylor is a former Monsanto executive who later served as FDA deputy commissioner.
While the MAHA movement gains traction in the court of public opinion, it faces powerful, coordinated opposition in courtrooms, congressional backrooms, cable newsrooms, and university classrooms. In these places, Big Food and Big Ag are executing a multipronged campaign to stall, discredit, and ultimately defeat MAHA’s reform agenda.
Legal and Legislative Countermeasures. The opposition’s efforts begin in the courts. In early 2025, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA)—representing companies like PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz—filed suit to block the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from implementing its proposed ban on synthetic dyes such as red no. 3 and yellow no. 5. The lawsuit challenges the agency’s use of the Delaney Clause, which prohibits carcinogenic additives, calling it an overreach of federal authority (Food Business News, Feb. 25, 2025).
FEMA’s $3 million legal fund, backed by companies with billions at stake in additive-heavy products, is emblematic of a broader strategy: use litigation to delay reform while maintaining the appearance of scientific legitimacy.
Capitol Hill lobbying groups apply pressure with equal force. The Consumer Brands Association, representing General Mills and Nestlé, spent $2.4 million lobbying Congress in 2024. They and the National Confectioners Association helped insert language into the 2025 Agriculture Appropriations Bill to restrict HHS’s authority to enforce additive bans without congressional approval—an amendment backed by 79 lawmakers who collectively received over $12 million in campaign contributions from agribusiness (OpenSecrets, 2024).
Messaging Wars and Media Manipulation. MAHA opposition has perfected the one-two punch. While legal and legislative efforts slow regulatory momentum, industry groups flood the airwaves with carefully crafted messaging. In 2024, CBA launched a $25 million “Science of Safety” campaign, funded by General Mills and PepsiCo, to counter MAHA’s push to eliminate synthetic dyes and high-fructose corn syrup. Full-page newspaper ads, paid academic endorsements, and targeted social media content promoted these additives as harmless, despite mounting evidence of their health risks (Statista, 2024; MAHA Commission Report, 2025).
The American Beverage Association added its own $1.9 million “Freedom to Choose” campaign, casting MAHA’s proposed soda and dye restrictions as an assault on personal liberty and working-class autonomy. CropLife America, with backing from pesticide giants like Bayer, revived its “Chlorpyrifos Protects” campaign, framing MAHA’s pesticide bans as a direct threat to American farmers and national food security (CropLife Annual Report, 2024).
Major media outlets often amplify these narratives. A May 2025 Washington Post editorial dismissed MAHA as a “nutritionist’s fantasy,” while The Guardian painted Kennedy’s HHS leadership as a “dangerous experiment,” conflating his food policies with unrelated controversies (Washington Post, May 6, 2025; The Guardian, Jan. 13, 2025). These narratives are reinforced by $4.7 billion in 2023 food industry advertising that shapes editorial priorities and limits dissenting viewpoints (Statista, 2023).
Regulatory Capture and Industry Influence. Despite all this ammunition, the opposition’s most effective weapon may be its grip on the regulatory battlefield. Corporations have mastered the revolving door between government agencies and industry lobbying firms.
This system ensures that policy remains aligned with the priorities of wealthy corporations. Former USDA employee Ken Barbic now lobbies on behalf of PepsiCo and the Corn Refiners Association at lobbying powerhouse Invariant (OpenSecrets, 2023).
It is not just former federal employees who turn into lobbyists. Michael Taylor is a former Monsanto executive who later served as FDA deputy commissioner. When the influence shifted in this direction, Big Food and Big Ag successfully established favorable regulations, such as those he enacted, which still shape agency norms today (SourceWatch, 2020).
Sometimes, having the right person on the inside ensures the wheels of progress do not spin too quickly. FOIA-obtained memos from 2024 reveal that FDA officials delayed efforts to reclassify synthetic dyes like red no. 3 and yellow no. 5, despite clear links to behavioral disorders in children. At the USDA, school meal standards rely heavily on highly processed foods, despite data linking them to the nation’s obesity epidemic. MAHA’s reforms directly challenge this status quo (MAHA Commission Report, May 22, 2025).
This regulatory stagnation is no accident. It is fueled by the $178 million agribusiness lobbying effort reported in 2023, which ensures that federal policy prioritizes commercial interests over public health (UCS, 2024).
A Fortress Built to Last. Together, these legal, legislative, and media forces form a coordinated resistance—a billion-dollar fortress built to protect the profits and policies of an entrenched food system. With $200 billion in annual revenue tied to additives and agrochemicals and with narrative control stretching from Capitol Hill to university labs, MAHA’s most significant obstacle may not be scientific controversy or public confusion. The system is engineered to reject reform regardless of how urgent the need may be.
As MAHA fights to ban toxic ingredients and reallocate $20 billion in commodity subsidies, the outcome may depend less on facts than on whether truth can break through the layers of influence shielding the status quo.
MAHA’s rebellion
Framing food reform as a fight for freedom—freedom from toxins, corporate monopolies, and rigged science—MAHA is fusing rural growers, urban consumers, and wellness rebels into a rare bipartisan front.
What began as a reform effort is evolving into a full-fledged MAHA rebellion—built not in boardrooms but in townhalls, farmers markets, and digital feeds.
MAHA’s strength lies in its logic and ability to form unlikely alliances. Supporters of the MAHA agenda include libertarian contrarians, conservative wellness advocates, and progressive food justice organizers—groups that rarely share a common goal—but who unite in their desire for sovereignty.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) backs MAHA’s pesticide bans, while watchdogs like Food & Water Watch cautiously support its regenerative ambitions (WIRED, Jan. 2025). The movement’s populist edge pulses through townhalls and X threads, fueled by a growing distrust of corporate science and government indifference.
Support for MAHA is also growing among the over 7,000 community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, including West Virginia’s 2025 CSA initiative. MAHA-backed pilots bring organic produce to low-income families, chipping away at SNAP’s dominance of processed foods (Civil Eats, December 2024). Across rural towns, small-scale canneries and mobile food hubs are quietly rebuilding the infrastructure for a decentralized food future.
Online, MAHA promotes raw, resonant messaging. Influencers like Vani Hari and Dr. Mark Hyman reach millions, and independent podcasts carry the movement’s message far beyond traditional media filters (PR Week, 2023; Statista, 2023).
A MAHA-branded podcast network and documentary series are in the works—tools to sustain momentum and challenge corporate spin long-term. In addition, states such as Maine and Indiana have adopted MAHA-aligned rules, ranging from limits on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide to soda restrictions in SNAP programs (Politico, April 15, 2025).
MAHA is also partnering with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition to push for a historic reallocation of $20 billion in federal subsidies—from industrial agriculture to organic and regenerative farms (Environmental Working Group, 2023).
Framing food reform as a fight for freedom—freedom from toxins, corporate monopolies, and rigged science—MAHA is fusing rural growers, urban consumers, and wellness rebels into a rare bipartisan front.
The future of food
What is unfolding is a fight over additives in school lunches and a reckoning over who controls America’s food supply. The opposition is vast: $178 million in annual agribusiness lobbying, $3 billion in nonprofit capital, and legacy media shaped by corporate ad dollars (OpenSecrets, 2023; UCS, 2024; Aspen Institute Form 990, 2023). It is a network built to outlast reform, disguise intent, and dilute urgency.
MAHA’s insurgency exposes this machinery. It challenges a system where 98 percent of farms are industrially tethered, and just 1.3 percent are organic, primarily due to structural barriers and policy neglect (USDA, 2023). It highlights the dyes, pesticides, and subsidies that have quietly impacted children’s health and family dinners (MAHA Commission Report, May 22, 2025).
The question now is whether this groundswell can grow fast enough, loud enough, and coordinated enough to push back against the seemingly insurmountable, multi-million-dollar effort focused on financing a fractured food industry. Our future depends on Americans understanding that it is not just about what ends up on America’s plate but also about who gets to decide.
As the nation stands at this fork in the road, one thing is clear: The future of food will not be chosen by default. It will be won—or lost—by who shows up, speaks out, and refuses to be fed the status quo.
Tiffany Gabbay is a writer and communications specialist.
