Commission members endorsing the report included nearly every relevant cabinet secretary. But it also included Russell Vought (head of the Office of Management and Budget), Stephen Miller (anti-immigration czar and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), and Kevin Hassett (Director of the National Economic Council). They promised to offer a plan by mid-August that would “get to the truth of why we are getting sick” while “spurring pro-growth policies and innovations.”

That, too, is something the left has been offering for decades. There is no reason why American corporatized farms have to pursue mono-crop agriculture that relies on heavy doses of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. Smaller, family-owned farms can earn just as good a living by including more nutritious foods for local use in their crop mix.

For decades, the left has also bemoaned the lack of regulation over the thousands of chemicals used by industry that are being dumped into the air and water without being tested for their potential effects on humans. Progressives have long argued that scientists funded by government or truly independent non-profit research institutes should be the sole determinants of what chemicals can be unleashed on the public.

An agenda for change

If RFK Jr. at the Health and Human Services Department, Martin Makary at the Food and Drug Administration, Jayanta Bhattacharya at the National Institutes of Health, and Lee Zeldin at the Environmental Protection Agency (all signatories to the report) want items for their action agenda, here’s one place they could look. Last January, the 25-member Consortium for Children’s Environmental Health issued a call, published by the New England Journal of Medicine, for a new law governing the regulation of chemicals used by industry.

Here’s some facts drawn from that article:

• Fewer than 20 percent of the estimated 350,000 chemicals, chemical mixtures, and plastics used by industry, most produced from gas, oil and coal, have been tested for toxicity, “and fewer still for toxic effects in infants and children.
• “Over the last half century, rhe incidence of childhood cancers has increased by 35 percent.Male reproductive birth defects have doubled in frequency.Neurodevelopmental disorders now affect 1 in 6 children, and autism spectrum disorder is diagnosed in 1 in 36.Pediatric asthma has tripled in prevalence.Pediatric obesity has nearly quadrupled in prevalence and has driven a sharp increase in type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents.
• “Even brief, low-level exposures to toxic chemicals during early vulnerable periods are linked to increased risk of disease and disability in children that can persist across the life course.
• “Diseases caused by toxic chemical exposures in childhood can lead to massive economic losses,including health care expenditures and lifelong productivity losses resulting from reduced cognitive function, physical disabilities, and premature death. The chemical industry largely externalizes these costs and imposes them on governments and taxpayers.”

The Toxic Substances Control Act, passed in 1977, failed to give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to prevent dangerous chemicals from being introduced into the environment or food supply. It assumes all manufactured chemicals are safe and puts the onus on government to prove otherwise.

The EPA was never given the resources to conduct the necessary research. And now, under the Trump regime, the entire research department is being eliminated.

Even before Elon Musk wielded a meat-axe at the EPA and other agencies, most research about potential toxicities from chemicals came from industry-funded scientists. The same held true for the FDA when it looks at studies of food additives, most of which, not surprisingly, claim no harms are caused from their use. I participated in a 2007 study documenting this bias entitled, “Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles,” which was cited in the MAHA Commission report.

The Consortium for Children’s Environmental Health action agenda included these items:

• The U.S. should pass a new law that no new or existing chemical or chemical-based product be allowed to enter or remain on the market if their manufacturer hasn’t proved through independent testing that they are not toxic.
• All toxicity testing must be undertaken in laboratories that are free from financial conflicts of interest. Manufacturers should be required to bear the cost of independent testing, but not be allowed to conduct it themselves.
• Chemical manufacturers must conduct postmarketing surveillance to determine long-term adverse effects, especially in pediatric populations.
• The U.S. should join in international efforts to create a treaty aimed at protecting children here and around the world from the proliferation of toxic chemicals in foods, products and the environment. An international panel of independent physicians and scientists should adopt regulations that all treaty signatories adhere to, which will create a level playing field for industry.

“Pollution by synthetic chemicals and plastics is a major planetary challenge that is worsening rapidly, “ the Consortium’s authors concluded. “Continued, unchecked increases in production of fossil-carbon–based chemicals endangers the world’s children and threatens humanity’s capacity for reproduction… Inaction on chemicals is no longer an option.”

Had the MAHA report eschewed vaccine skepticism, it might have been greeted with less skepticism in the media. Will they take actions this summer that actually limit the ability of Trump’s corporate campaign contributors to spew toxics into the air and water and adulterate the food supply?

Yesterday, RFK Jr. announced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is withdrawing its recommendation that pregnant women and children get vaccinated for COVID. That suggests his priorities lie elsewhere.