When the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission unveiled its Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment on May 22 (reissued May 28), it framed the document as a clarion call: U.S. regulators must combat childhood chronic disease by focusing on four potential drivers: “ultra-processed” diets, cumulative chemical exposures, excessive screen time, and widespread medication use. More than forty percent of American children live with at least one chronic condition, according to the Assessment, and it places a significant share of the responsibility on chemicals in and on food.

The Assessment identifies seven broad chemical categories—PFAS, microplastics, fluoride, electromagnetic radiation (EMR), phthalates, bisphenols, and pesticides—as priorities for further study using “gold-standard science” to foster “radical transparency” and inform potential policy changes. While the Assessment makes no specific recommendations, each of these categories is slated for further scrutiny when the Assessment delivers its “MAHA Strategy” report this August. That report, in turn, could drive potentially significant policy shifts in chemical regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Food producers and chemical manufacturers should closely monitor the agencies’ regulatory proposals and actions to understand this shifting legal landscape.

Focus on the Chemical Industry

The Assessment does not draw a direct link between its harsh depiction of the status of children’s health in the United States and chemical exposures. Instead, the Assessment identifies a lack of available information—“[no] country in the world has fully accounted for the fact that children are often exposed to complex mixtures of chemicals.” It also notes that some scientific evidence is conflicting: “Though findings that show risk often contrast with findings that show minimal, if any, risk, this still demonstrates the need for continued studies from the public and private sectors, especially the NIH, to better understand the cumulative load of multiple exposures and how it may impact children’s health ….”

While acknowledging concerns about undue corporate influence in scientific research, the Assessment also emphasizes the importance of “private sector innovation” over a “European regulatory system that stifles growth.” This at least suggests that food chemical manufacturers, importers, and users will continue to have an important role as the federal government moves to “evolv[e] our frameworks for promoting children’s health.”

Chemicals of Interest

While it focuses attention on seven exposure-risk categories (six chemical families and electromagnetic radiation), the Assessment does not present any new issues for the federal government to address. The safe use of the identified chemicals is already addressed by several federal agencies, including FDA, EPA, and CPSC.

PFAS:

• The Assessment calls for continued studies of PFAS exposure and children’s health. It notes that in May 2025, EPA announced the national implementation of enforceable drinking water standards for two PFAS compounds and is considering regulatory action for another four PFAS compounds.
• Current regulatory position: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recently announced the Agency’s overarching plan to address PFAS. The plan broadly outlined upcoming agency actions guided by the principles of strengthening the science, fulfilling statutory obligations, enhancing communication, and building partnerships (see B&D’s alert here). EPA is already subjecting new PFAS compounds and uses to additional scrutiny under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by making them ineligible for the low volume (40 C.F.R. § 723.50(d)(2)(i)) and polymer (40 C.F.R, § 723.250(d)(6)) exemptions, and by requiring additional testing. Additionally, EPA adopted significant new use rules (SNURs) for hundreds of PFAS under the prior administration (see B&D’s alert here).

Microplastics:

• The Assessment discusses the accumulation of microplastics in the human body and cites to several exposure studies.
• Current regulatory position: EPA states that there is research pointing to microplastic accumulation in the human body and the potential health impacts of that accumulation, but concludes that more research is needed to better understand the health impacts. EPA received a petition on November 25, 2024, asking for regulation of microplastics under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but it has not yet acted on the petition.

Fluoride:

• The Assessment highlights certain fluoride exposure studies and notes that EPA is currently conducting research to inform future regulatory decisions for fluoride in drinking water.
• Current regulatory position: Though not currently regulated under TSCA, a federal district court has ordered EPA to consider regulating fluoride in public drinking water under that statute (see B&D’s alert here). EPA has appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit.

Electromagnetic Radiation:

• The Assessment generally finds a lack of adequate evidence to comment on the direct impact of EMR on children’s health.
• Current regulatory position: Not currently regulated by the U.S. government.

Phthalates:

• The Assessment references phthalate exposure research, and further notes FDA’s preexisting ban on certain phthalates in food packaging and the waning use of phthalates by industry.
• Current regulatory position:
  • EPA is currently conducting TSCA risk evaluations for several phthalates: di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP), and dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP). It has completed risk evaluations for di-isononyl phthalate (DINP), and di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP). The risk evaluation process is the second step for regulating existing chemicals under TSCA and is intended to determine whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under the conditions of use, which may require use or other risk management restrictions.
  • The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 restricts uses in children’s toys and childcare articles of the following eight phthalates: DEHP, BBP, DBP, DIBP, DCHP, DINP, di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), and di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP). A children’s toy or childcare article cannot contain more than 0.1% of any of the listed phthalates in an accessible plasticized component (see B&D’s alert here).

Bisphenols:

• The Assessment cites to a review of bisphenol exposure studies and notes that public concern resulted in a use ban for some products containing bisphenols.
• Current regulatory position: EPA has identified bisphenol A and bisphenol S as potential candidates for designation as high-priority substances for a risk evaluation under TSCA. It has also required the submission of health and safety studies on several bisphenols, including bisphenol A and bisphenol S, among others.

Pesticides:

• The Assessment summarizes several pesticide exposure studies. Further, the Assessment notes that virtually all food samples tested in 2023 were compliant with EPA safety limits for pesticide residues. The Assessment concludes by commenting that an updated health assessment for common herbicides is expected in 2026. The Assessment’s approach specifically identifies a need to protect American farmers’ economic interests and the domestic and global food supplies.
• Current regulatory position:
  • EPA closely regulates pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including through safety data review and registration under FIFRA and by setting tolerances (the maximum amount of residue allowable on a food product) under FFDCA. FDA enforces the pesticide tolerances set by EPA.
  • In March 2025, FDA honed in on a subset of pesticide residues that EPA does not regulate (for instance, because the pesticide’s registration had been cancelled) with its release of a new “Chemical Contaminants Transparency Tool” (see B&D’s alert here). In consultation with EPA, FDA can set and enforce “action levels” for residues of these pesticides.

What comes next?

The Commission’s MAHA Strategy is due in August, after which point FDA, EPA, and CPSC are expected to begin rulemakings or guidance updates that translate the Strategy into policy. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has already directed FDA to revisit its Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) self‑affirmation process. FDA has also moved to prohibit synthetic food dyes commonly used in the U.S. food supply—signals that similar mechanisms could be deployed against other high‑profile food chemicals. State legislators are watching closely, too. If federal agencies move slowly, we may expect a fresh wave of state‑level food‑chemical restrictions similar to California’s and West Virginia’s recent color additive bans.

Companies that manufacture, import, or use food ingredients, food contact substances, or agricultural chemicals would be well‑served to map where the MAHA Commission’s seven target chemical categories intersect with their portfolios. Thoughtful stakeholder engagement—particularly during the Commission’s anticipated comment periods—may help shape pragmatic implementation timelines and limit the risk of patchwork state requirements. Beveridge & Diamond is available to assist.

Kirsten Flinn contributed to this article