The Make America Healthy Again movement is facing major challenges in trying to reverse decades of food policy that led to increases in chronic disease and diet-related illness — according to the official who oversees the federal government’s nutrition agenda.
As the Food and Drug Administration’s deputy commissioner for human foods, Kyle Diamantas has a packed to-do list next year.
In a wide-ranging interview with POLITICO, Diamantas said 2026 will be a critical time for the administration to make progress on MAHA priorities, from reviewing commonly used additives to moving forward with new packaging requirements that food companies have fought.
The head of FDA's Human Foods Program, which oversees all of the agency's work on food safety and nutrition, touted the dozens of voluntary commitments the Trump administration has secured from companies on eliminating artificial dyes and acknowledged the challenges ahead on defining ultra-processed food — which can refer to manufactured goods with high levels of additives — and creating consistency across several state-led food laws.
“We're not going to be able to do it alone through FDA,” Diamantas said. “I've said several times that we can't regulate ourselves out of this problem. And it really does take more than just federal government regulation to solve these chronic diseases.”
Diamantas, a former food and drug attorney, replaced former deputy commissioner of human foods Jim Jones, who resigned from the FDA in February due to the Trump administration’s mass layoffs of federal employees.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What would you say has been your biggest achievement in the first year of the Trump administration?
One of the very first things we did when we got into office was immediately ask and work with industry to remove petroleum-based artificial dyes from their products. And we've been very successful in that effort.
And look, I'm not saying by any means that removing dyes is a silver bullet, nor am I saying that that is the number one cause of chronic disease. But it's part of the solution.
We know that these petroleum-based dyes have no nutritional value. And they're also used primarily to make foods more attractive for youth.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Bloomberg that he's not sure if federal officials will be able to define ultra-processed food. Do you agree? And is there a timeline on developing that definition?
We don't have a definitive timeline to publicly share at this time.
Developing a definition is a priority for the administration [in 2026]. Secretary Kennedy is right that it will be difficult to do, and that's partly because there is generally a lack of expert consensus on what that should include.
You see states like California that have defined it one way. There's other states like Massachusetts that also have legislation in the works to define it, and so it is a priority for us.
If we don't do it at the federal level, what you will end up with is a system where you may have 10 different states defining ultra-processed in a different way. And so then you have companies that may have to factor different state interpretations of what's ultra-processed.
Kennedy has said that a federal standard for food ingredients is on the table, given that states are working on a variety of different additive bans and restrictions. Where are you at in terms of discussing that?
You're seeing some of the state laws ban this additive, these artificial dyes, this preservative. And what you’re seeing the [food] industry say is that, similar to nutrition labeling, there should be preemption on ingredients, where FDA should be the authority to determine whether ingredients are safe.
I would say we struggle with resources, and so my goal as the head of [HHS’] Human Foods Program is to make sure that if we're asked to do that, or given that authority through Congress, that we have the appropriate resources in place. Because that's why the states have led. They've seen a historic gap in FDA’s regulation of food additives.
Is Kennedy, or are you, working with Congress on that? Food industry leaders are pushing hard for lawmakers to introduce something to preempt them from state laws.
When asked to provide [technical assistance], we provide that to Congress. You know, we often will meet with industry, with consumer groups, we meet with all stakeholders as does the White House.
Is next year a crucial time for a decision to be made about federal preemption? A couple of the state laws on ingredient bans take effect early 2027.
I don't think it's crucial from my perspective. I think industry would view it that way.
We’re hearing that MAHA allies are unhappy with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for not being harsh enough on pesticide manufacturers. From the FDA standpoint, and as a leader in the MAHA movement, are you considering any moves that would reduce pesticide exposure?
We really don't have much control or insight over that. By statute, EPA sets those levels, and we enforce those levels that are set by EPA when it's applied to a food that we regulate at FDA. The reality is there's very little that we can do there at FDA.
Obviously, the MAHA movement, there has been a focus on pesticides, you know, I think that that's something that Secretary Kennedy's talked a lot about. But it's not up to us to be able to shape policy on approvals of pesticides or uses of pesticides.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are set to come out early next year. What should we expect?
What I can tell you is that the goal is to promote healthy foods. Whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins, dairy, beef, poultry, and minimize the consumption of ultra-processed foods that are high in things like added sugars.
I think you're going to see a real push to return to foods that, you know, our grandmothers would have cooked, for example, foods that you can make in the kitchen.
Won’t it be difficult to have people consume less ultra-processed food when there's not a definition? Or could it be confusing?
There's ultra-processed foods with high levels of sodium and sugar and fat. And then there's also foods, like canned or frozen food, that don’t have the same level of unhealthy additives and ingredients, but could be considered highly processed.
It is difficult. That’s part of why we think it's important to have a definition. There's some people that think it should focus just on additives. There's some people that think it should be on cosmetic additives. There's some that think it should just be nutrient density, you know, some that think it should just reference added sugars, sodium and fat. And so there's really disparate camps and views on ultra-processed right now.
If you go back to the Supreme Court case of “what is pornography?” It's like, “I know it when I see it.” That's sort of the current view of ultra-processed food.
We're not looking to ban people from eating ultra-processed foods. If you want to go have a box of Ding Dongs after this, you can do that. This is America. What we're saying is people should understand what these products are, and consumers should make choices.
On the foodborne illness side of your work: What are the next steps for Operation Stork Speed, and what kinds of lessons are you taking from the recent ByHeart infant botulism outbreak? I know you previously represented Abbott in litigation after its infant formula recall a couple years ago.
I'm going to be diving back into infant formula in January.
Every government employee, if you did any work for anybody, has a one year recusal. So, I [had] a recusal from Abbott. I voluntarily recused myself from larger infant formula matters, just given the consolidated nature of the market.
Operation Stork Speed will be a priority of mine. You know, we want to do things like ensure the safety of formula, not just from chemical additives, but also microbiological issues like what we saw with ByHeart.
A big priority of both myself and [FDA Commissioner Marty Makary] is increasing access to donor human milk. That's something that we believe is really important in this country. ... And so we're going to be working with our colleagues at HHS on ways to increase access supply and potential regulatory reforms to donor human milk.
from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/o51amXF
https://ift.tt/l3crHTo
0 Comments