How the Food and Chemical Industries Will Push Back Against RFK Jr.’s MAHA Agenda

Kennedy’s clean-food crusade faces formidable opposition—from a deeply entrenched industrial complex whose economic survival depends on keeping the status quo, no matter the cost to public health.

This article originally appeared on TrialSiteNews and was republished with permission.

Guest post by TrialSiteNews, a leading independent source for stories on the bio-pharmaceutical industry.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s populist rallying cry to “Make America Healthy Again” has found resonance among voters disillusioned by chronic illness, toxic food systems, and a government captured by corporate influence. Central to his campaign is a promise to root out harmful chemicals from the American food supply, particularly substances banned in Europe but still present on U.S. shelves. But Kennedy’s clean-food crusade faces formidable opposition—from a deeply entrenched industrial complex whose economic survival depends on keeping the status quo, no matter the cost to public health.

Before delving into such opposition, TrialSite reported that RFK Jr likely helped Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement cross the electoral finish line in 2024. So, one would think Trump would owe Kennedy a favor or two. But it’s not POTUS’ nature to be too loyal.

The food and chemical industries are unlikely to take this lying down. They did meet with him recently, and the meeting outcomes seemed cordial. But billions of dollars are at stake. Synthetic additives, preservatives, dyes, emulsifiers, and pesticide residues aren’t just artifacts of industrial agriculture—they’re pillars of corporate profit margins.

Behind the bright packaging and mass distribution lie deeply intertwined interests between Big Ag, Big Food, and Big Chem. These industries have spent decades perfecting the art of regulatory capture—embedding their scientists on advisory panels, funding academic research to obfuscate harm, and lobbying lawmakers to preserve regulatory loopholes. Kennedy threatens to unravel that cozy arrangement with one clean stroke.

Expect aggressive resistance for sure. Trade associations like the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) will mobilize swiftly, launching PR campaigns to frame Kennedy’s policies as “anti-science” or “job-killing.” Industry-funded think tanks and media surrogates will spin a narrative of economic catastrophe, warning of food shortages, skyrocketing prices, and crippled innovation. Corporate media, reliant on advertising dollars from the very companies Kennedy seeks to challenge, may echo these warnings with little scrutiny. The goal won’t be to debate Kennedy’s claims—it will be to delegitimize them entirely.

In parallel, legal warfare could very well escalate. Kennedy’s push for regulatory overhaul—particularly if it involves the FDA or EPA banning certain ingredients or tightening chemical safety standards—will likely trigger lawsuits from industry giants citing “regulatory overreach.” Expect appeals to trade agreements and claims of “unfair targeting” of U.S. producers. These companies will also exploit the slow grind of the administrative state, leveraging bureaucratic inertia and political connections to delay, water down, or bury proposed reforms.

There’s also the matter of scientific ambiguity—a battlefield the chemical and food giants have long dominated. For every study showing harm from endocrine disruptors, artificial dyes, or ultra-processed food, there’s a counter-study funded by the industry concluding “no significant risk.” This manufactured uncertainty allows regulators to stall and the public to remain confused. Kennedy’s campaign may seek to pierce that fog, but it will not do so without intense friction.

Yet perhaps the greatest resistance will be cultural. For decades, the American consumer has been conditioned to prize convenience over quality, and speed over scrutiny. The industries in Kennedy’s crosshairs have spent billions shaping habits, tastes, and expectations. Changing that matrix requires more than science and policy—it requires a shift in national consciousness. That’s a tall order, even for a Kennedy.

In sum, Kennedy’s attempt to detoxify America’s food chain will pit him against a triad of influence: entrenched industry power, regulatory complicity, and cultural inertia. The backlash will be fierce, well-funded, and sophisticated. But it will also be a moment of clarity—an opportunity to ask what kind of nation America wants to be: one that prioritizes corporate profit, or one that finally takes the health of its people seriously.

Interestingly Food and Water Watch’s Rebecca Wolf wrote a piece opposing RFK Jr’s confirmation. Why? They argue that his history of promoting conspiracy theories and allegiance to former President Donald Trump makes him unfit to lead agencies like the FDA and CDC. The organization expresses concern that Kennedy’s appointment could undermine science-based public health policy and instead further a deregulatory agenda that benefits corporations over constituents.

Wolf outlined eleven policy priorities to reform the U.S. food system, including stronger oversight of zoonotic diseases like bird flu, closing FDA loopholes for food additives, banning harmful chemicals and drugs in food and livestock production, regulating misleading food labeling, and protecting farmworkers from unsafe conditions.

The organization emphasizes the urgent need to address factory farm pollution, antibiotic overuse, and the unregulated spread of genetically engineered animals. These reforms are presented as essential to reversing the corporate-driven degradation of public health and environmental safety.

Wolff’s firm stance against RFK reeks of bias. The author lacked specific examples of his alleged conspiratorial beliefs and presumes alignment with Trump’s corporate interests—claims that remain speculative.

In the meantime, reports are in that the U.S. food industry is mounting strong opposition to RFK Jr’s push to eliminate artificial dyes from consumer products by 2029.

For example, according to a report in Food Safety News, after a March 10 meeting with executives from PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, and General Mills reported on by TrialSite, Kennedy issued a firm ultimatum: remove harmful dyes or face federal action.

In response, the Consumer Brands Association and National Confectioners Association have sounded alarms, warning that sweeping reform could disrupt production, raise prices, and compromise product appeal, particularly for iconic items like Froot Loops and Flamin’ Hot Cheetos.

The Consumer Brands Association issued the following statement from President & CEO Melissa Hockstad following this roundtable meeting with Kennedy.

“Today, industry leaders met with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to discuss his Make America Healthy Again agenda and working together to maintain consumer access to safe, affordable and convenient product choices. It was a constructive conversation and we look forward to continued engagement with the secretary and the qualified experts within HHS to support public health, build consumer trust and promote consumer choice.”

Industry stakeholders argue that Kennedy’s tight timeline and broad demands pose significant logistical and economic burdens. They maintain that synthetic dyes are essential for preserving color consistency, consumer preference, and affordability. Yet critics like nutrition expert Marion Nestle counter that global companies already sell dye-free versions in Europe, showing reformulation is possible.

The friction intensified when Kennedy ordered a federal review of the FDA’s “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) loophole, which currently allows companies to self-approve additives without rigorous oversight — a move that could upend long-standing regulatory norms.

Legal resistance is gaining momentum, as companies brace for possible preemption battles between state and federal laws.

Despite the FDA banning Red No. 3 over cancer concerns in 2024, it continues to approve other dyes like Red No. 40, last seriously studied in the 1990s. In the first days, RFK has been able to gain some momentum.

Kennedy’s team points to research linking synthetic dyes to child hyperactivity, branding them as “unnecessary toxins.” While Kennedy calls for a public health reckoning, the industry is mobilizing to delay or derail his plans through lobbying, litigation, and appeals to regulatory precedent — setting up a pitched battle over the future of America’s food system.

Undoubtedly, for some corporations, protecting profits may outweigh any commitment to the public health goals of MAHA. Will RFK Jr. drive enough internal support to take on the big fights, and win?

© 2025 - Trial Site News