Report on the “Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy” and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

The “Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy,” released by the Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, presents a framework for addressing childhood chronic disease. However, an analysis of the strategy reveals significant inconsistencies with the administration’s concurrent policy actions, particularly concerning the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report assesses the strategy’s alignment with key SDGs, including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The findings indicate that while the report’s stated objectives align with certain SDG targets, its recommendations and the administration’s actions appear to prioritize agro-industrial economic interests, potentially undermining progress toward a sustainable and healthy future for children.

Assessment Against SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The MAHA report’s focus on children’s health directly relates to SDG 3. However, its approach to chemical management and pesticide regulation raises concerns regarding its commitment to SDG Target 3.9, which aims to substantially reduce illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution.

• The strategy lacks substantive recommendations to reduce public exposure to hazardous pesticides, such as atrazine, which are linked to cancer and hormone disruption.
• The report endorses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory framework as ‘robust’. This assessment is contested, given that the EPA permits the use of over one billion pounds of pesticides annually, including 85 pesticides that are banned in other nations due to health and environmental risks.
• Actions by the EPA, such as re-registering the pesticide dicamba and rolling back protections from PFAS chemicals, directly contradict the objectives of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all ages.

Assessment Against SDG 2: Zero Hunger and Sustainable Agriculture

The report contains recommendations supporting whole foods, organic farming, and regenerative agriculture, which are crucial for achieving SDG Target 2.4 (ensure sustainable food production systems). However, these recommendations are undermined by conflicting policy decisions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Contradictory USDA Actions Impacting SDG 2

1. Reduced Access to Nutritious Food: The termination of the Local Food for Schools program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program, totaling over $1 billion, directly impedes progress on SDG Target 2.1 (end hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious food).
2. Weakened Sustainable Farming Infrastructure: The elimination of Farm to School funding and the reduction of thousands of conservation staff positions limit the capacity of communities and farmers to build resilient and sustainable food systems.
3. Stifled Innovation in Sustainable Agriculture: The withholding of $50 million in funding for sustainable agriculture research obstructs the development and adoption of regenerative and organic farming practices necessary for achieving SDG 2.

Assessment Against SDG 12 & 15: Responsible Production and Life on Land

The MAHA report’s recommendations are misaligned with government actions related to environmental stewardship, impacting SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

• The promotion of conservation projects is contradicted by the administration’s cancellation of billions of dollars in existing farm conservation programs, hindering efforts to restore land and soil as per SDG Target 15.3.
• The EPA’s regulatory rollbacks and planned weakening of 31 environmental regulations concerning clean air and water conflict with SDG Target 12.4, which calls for the environmentally sound management of chemicals to minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

Assessment Against SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The effectiveness and accountability of key governmental institutions, a cornerstone of SDG 16, have been questioned. The perceived influence of the agrochemical industry on regulatory bodies undermines SDG Target 16.6 (develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions).

• Key leadership positions at the EPA overseeing chemical and pesticide regulation have been filled by individuals with backgrounds as lobbyists for the chemical and agricultural industries.
• The elimination of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development removes critical scientific expertise required for independent and effective environmental and health protection.
• These actions suggest a weakening of institutional integrity, prioritizing industry influence over transparent, science-based decision-making essential for achieving sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article connects to SDG 2 through its extensive discussion on food systems, agriculture, and nutrition. It addresses issues like “healthy school meals,” “local food infrastructure,” “conservation and regenerative agriculture,” and the sourcing of food from “organic and regenerative farmers.” The critique of funding cuts to programs like “Local Food for Schools” and “Farm to School funding” directly relates to ensuring access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food, particularly for children.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  This is a central theme, as the article focuses on the “Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy” and the “childhood chronic disease crisis.” It directly links agricultural practices to health outcomes by highlighting the dangers of pesticides like “atrazine that are linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and infertility” and other toxic exposures from chemicals like “dicamba” and “PFAS.” The article argues that current policies prioritize “agrochemical industry profits over children’s health.”

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article addresses SDG 12 by focusing on the environmentally sound management of chemicals. It criticizes the EPA for allowing “more than 1 billion pounds of pesticide use on U.S. crops each year” and for failing to regulate hazardous chemicals. The call to “reduce use of toxic pesticides” and the criticism of the EPA’s “lax, flawed, and notoriously industry-friendly pesticide regulation process” are directly related to achieving sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  SDG 15 is relevant through the article’s discussion of agricultural practices and their environmental impact. It promotes “conservation and regenerative agriculture” and criticizes the cancellation of “billions of dollars’ worth of conservation projects.” These practices are crucial for maintaining ecosystems and improving land and soil quality, which are key components of protecting life on land.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article strongly connects to SDG 16 by critiquing the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of government institutions like the USDA and EPA. It alleges that these agencies are failing in their duty to protect public health and the environment due to “entrenched industry influence.” Specific examples, such as the appointment of “chemical industry executives and Big Ag lobbyists to key posts” and the elimination of the EPA’s “Office of Research and Development,” highlight a perceived weakening of institutional integrity and accountability.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 2.4: Sustainable food production and resilient agricultural practices

   This target is identified through the article’s advocacy for “organic and regenerative farming practices” and the expansion of “conservation agriculture programs.” The text criticizes the administration for cutting funding for “sustainable agriculture research” and for programs that support local, resilient food systems, such as the “Local Food for Schools program.” These actions are contrary to the goal of ensuring sustainable food production systems.

2. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution

   This target is directly addressed by the article’s focus on the health risks posed by pesticides and other chemicals. The text explicitly mentions the need to reduce exposure to “dangerous pesticides like atrazine,” “dicamba,” and “forever chemicals like PFAS,” which are linked to “cancer, hormone disruption, and infertility.” The criticism that the MAHA report lacks recommendations to “meaningfully reduce our exposure to dangerous pesticides” points directly to the failure to address this target.

3. Target 12.4: Environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes

   The article’s critique of the EPA’s regulatory process directly relates to this target. It highlights the failure to manage chemicals soundly by pointing out that the EPA “currently allows more than 1 billion pounds of pesticide use on U.S. crops each year, including the use of 85 pesticides that are banned in other countries.” The call for a plan to “fix the EPA’s broken processes” and “decrease our exposure to toxic pesticides” aligns with the objective of this target.

4. Target 15.3: Combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil

   This target is relevant through the article’s promotion of “conservation and regenerative agriculture practices.” These farming methods are designed to improve soil health and restore land, directly contributing to the goal of achieving a land degradation-neutral world. The article criticizes the cutting of “thousands of conservation staff that provide critical technical assistance to farmers,” which undermines progress toward this target.

5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions

   This target is central to the article’s argument. The text provides numerous examples of institutional failure, such as the EPA’s “notoriously industry-friendly pesticide regulation process” and the appointment of industry lobbyists like “Lynn Ann Dekleva” and “Kyle Kunkler” to key regulatory positions. The article argues that these actions “curb the influence of the chemical industry over the agency” is necessary, highlighting a deep concern about the lack of accountability and transparency in these institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for Targets 3.9 and 12.4:

  The article provides specific quantitative data that can serve as indicators:

  • Volume of pesticide use: The article states that “more than 1 billion pounds of pesticide use on U.S. crops each year” is allowed. A reduction in this number would indicate progress.
  • Number of hazardous pesticides in use: The article mentions the “use of 85 pesticides that are banned in other countries.” Tracking and reducing this number would be a clear indicator of improved chemical management.

• Indicators for Targets 2.4 and 15.3:

  Progress can be measured by tracking government investment and support for sustainable practices:

  • Funding for sustainable agriculture programs: The article mentions specific funding amounts, such as the slashing of “more than $1 billion in funding for fresh whole foods from local farmers” and withholding “$50 million from farmers for sustainable agriculture research.” The level of funding allocated to these and similar programs (e.g., “Farm to School funding”) is a direct indicator.
  • Support for conservation efforts: The article mentions the cutting of “thousands of conservation staff.” The number of staff providing technical assistance and the budget for conservation projects are measurable indicators.

• Indicators for Target 16.6:

  Institutional integrity and effectiveness can be measured by:

  • Number of weakened regulations: The plan to “rescind or weaken 31 significant environmental regulations” is a direct, quantifiable indicator of institutional performance in protecting public health and the environment.
  • Industry influence in regulatory bodies: The article implies an indicator by naming specific “chemical industry executives and Big Ag lobbyists” appointed to key posts. The proportion of regulators with direct ties to the industries they regulate could be tracked as an indicator of potential conflicts of interest.
  • Funding and staffing of scientific bodies: The elimination of the “Office of Research and Development” and the laying off of “hundreds of scientists” serve as indicators of an institution’s capacity to make science-based decisions.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foe.org