73% of Americans Back MAHA Food Policies — Even Non-Supporters

By Daniel Okafor

Seventy-three percent of U.S. adults support six core food policies tied to the Make America Healthy Again movement — including 73% of people who don't back MAHA at all. That's the central finding of a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and it reframes how food marketers should read the reform debate.

Only about a quarter of Americans call themselves MAHA supporters. Yet the movement's food agenda travels far beyond its base.

What does the survey actually show?

The APPC study asked participants to rank 17 MAHA agenda items, from food policy to vaccine regulation. Regulating chemical additives in food was the top priority for every group — MAHA supporters, nonsupporters, and the unsure. Removing highly processed foods from school lunches also ranked near the top for all three.

Labeling ultraprocessed foods drew the highest overall support: 80%. It mattered more to non-MAHA supporters than to MAHA backers. Thirty-one percent of nonsupporters ranked labeling among their top three priorities.

The findings suggest the policy and the movement are separate things, said Laura A. Gibson, an APPC research analyst. "The findings suggest that it's important to distinguish support for MAHA from support for specific MAHA policies," Gibson said in a statement. "Many people who say they don't support the movement nonetheless share its concerns about additives, chemicals, and highly processed foods."

What does this change for food marketers?

Bipartisan appetite means food reform likely survives political turbulence. The Annenberg results suggest the issue stays on the table even if the MAHA movement fractures or Republicans lose ground in the midterms. That durability matters for brands weighing reformulation, labeling, and ingredient disclosure decisions on multi-year timelines.

Lawmakers have already moved. States across the political spectrum have passed legislation regulating food additives and ingredient disclosures. In Congress, Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Cory Booker introduced legislation requiring the FDA to define "ultraprocessed" while the agency delays its own interpretation of the term.

The label fight and the $14 billion price tag

Pressure on the FDA is mounting. Last week, more than 100 nutrition and medical experts signed an open letter to the Office of Management and Budget urging the administration to release its delayed ultraprocessed food definition. That definition would clear the path for future labeling mandates or other regulation.

The cost of ignoring it is quantified. A University of Chicago study released earlier this week found a mandatory ultraprocessed food label could cost the food industry $14 billion a year — including $9.5 billion in reformulation alone.

The practical takeaway for CPG brands: consumer demand for additive reform and processing disclosure now spans the political spectrum, the regulatory trigger is an FDA definition that could arrive any month, and the bill for a mandatory label already has a number attached. Companies that reformulate ahead of a mandate, rather than after one, control how that $9.5 billion gets spent.