Since the advent of processed food, the industry has arguably never had to contend with a federal administration that wasn’t brazenly favorable to its interests.
As just one example, Donald Rumsfeld, long before he became a household name for his role in the Bush administration, in 1981 served as the CEO of drug company G. D. Searle, which held the patent on the now-ubiquitous artificial sweetener aspartame and was itching to use it.
Related: Autopsy: ‘Miracle’ Weight Loss Drug Kills Fat Nurse
Picked as a member of Reagan’s transition team, Rumsfeld managed to get his guy into the FDA and ram aspartame through the approval process despite serious safety concerns.
The rest is history.
Via Virginia Tech (emphasis added):
Ninety-eight out of 196 infant mice died after exposure to aspartame in a 1977 Food and Drug Administration investigation. The results, published in a document known as the Bressler Report, revealed these FDA findings as well as numerous other troubling data submitted to the FDA by the primary producer of aspartame, G. D. Searle & Company. Astonishingly, just four years later, the FDA approved aspartame for human consumption in dry foods, and two years after that authorized its use in carbonated beverages…
Although numerous studies were conducted documenting negative findings concerning the effects of aspartame, the sweetener remains legal, partially due to the political power of companies who manufacture it. In 1981, Ronald Reagan, with help from members of his transition team, including the CEO of G. D. Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, appointed Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. as the new FDA commissioner. Just weeks later, Rumsfeld submitted a reevaluation of aspartame and Hayes, ignoring the recommendations of several doctors, approved the substance for human consumption. This article argues that the numerous conflicts of interest within the government and big business allowed aspartame to be approved for human consumption even when it was demonstrated to be a carcinogen and a cause of other harmful side effects in animals. Rumsfeld was able to use political power and connections in Washington to influence key decisions of the FDA in the early 1980s.
Whether aspartame should have been approved or the extent of its health risks are debatable points; the central point here is that the insertion of one bureaucrat into a key position by a political actor with a financial interest essentially paved the way for a profit windfall in the hundreds of millions.
Via Encyclopedia.com (emphasis added):
As a tabletop sweetener and a food additive in cold cereals and dry drink mixes, sales [of aspartame] between 1981 and 1982 increased from $13 million to $74 million. As the product was ready to enter into the immensely profitable soft drink market, Searle invested $25 million to expand production in the United States. Once Searle received the expanded FDA approval in 1983, carbonated drink companies lined up to secure contracts. By the end of 1983 virtually all major bottlers became Searle customers…
Sales of aspartame reached $336 million in 1983.
Again, this is not to pick on Rumsfeld; such examples of fascistic hijackings of public agencies for the benefit of private interests abound.
All that to say: it appears that MAHA founder Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is making good on his promise to bring the industry to heel and actually make decisions in the interest of the public.
Predictably, industry lobbyists have flocked to the D.C. insider whisperer Politico to voice their objections.
The most interesting aspect of the quiet pressure campaign, though, is that none of the almost dozen sources quoted by Politico were willing to go on the record.
Instead, they complained behind the veil of anonymity, apparently afraid of challenging the MAHA agenda publicly and perhaps signaling a sea-change in just how much power these lobbying groups actually believe they wield these days.
Via Politico (emphasis added):
Some of the world’s biggest food companies are confronting a strange reality in Washington: They’re no longer getting their way.
After decades of seeing glad-handing on Capitol Hill and positive relations with the White House pay off in policy wins, food industry lobbyists are finding fewer receptive audiences and even struggling to get key meetings as consumer trends and a triumphant political movement fracture old alliances…
This account, which is based on nine interviews with representatives across the food and consumer packaged goods industry, paints a picture of a food sector at war with itself over how to respond to White House attacks — or whether to respond at all…
In April, the American Beverage Association — a trade group representing Coca-Cola and PepsiCo among others — criticized the Trump administration for supporting a ban on food stamp recipients purchasing soda with their benefits.
Calley Means, who serves under Kennedy as a special government employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, immediately shot back: “You have lobbied millions to ensure taxpayer money funds soda for poor kids,” he posted on X.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins piled on. “It’s disappointing that the American Beverage Association’s leadership dragged its entire membership ... into direct conflict with this Administration’s priorities for American health, well-being, and taxpayer protection.”
Publicly, this industry has been mostly quiet about MAHA. Privately, they’re panicking.
The episode left an impression.
“There’s a keen hesitance to say anything and call a spade a spade,” said a fifth industry representative. “That’s a very different universe. Since when do big companies refrain?”
