Kids’ Health and the MAHA Report: Why Getting the Problems Right Matters

Reading the Make America Health Again (MAHA) Report felt, at first, like a relief. Yes, nutrition matters. Yes, kids today are more stressed, moving less, and not getting enough sleep. But then came the “oh no.” Because after those first nods of agreement, the cracks began to show: sweeping statements, glaring omissions, and framing that risks doing more harm than good.

The goal of this report is important to clarify. As the commission itself wrote, this assessment was meant to “provide a shared understanding of the magnitude of the crisis” and to identify “four potential drivers behind the rise in childhood chronic disease.”

In other words: this is not the strategy. It is the diagnosis. MAHA’s task was to name the problems, not prescribe solutions. That matters, because before you can build meaningful solutions, you have to admit what’s wrong.

And to its credit, the report does name several issues that are real and urgent: food systems, chemical exposures, digital-era stress, and an overreliance on medications. But it also leaves gaping holes, oversimplifies in ways that could feed mistrust, and misses some of the biggest threats to children’s health today.

So here’s a parent-to-parent walk-through: what MAHA gets right, where it gets it wrong, and why context is everything.

What the report gets right, and what it misses

One of the strengths of the MAHA report is that it doesn’t pretend everything is fine. It names four major drivers of poor health in children today: diet, environmental chemicals, behavior and stress, and medicalization. For parents, there’s something validating about seeing those problems laid out on paper. But for each pillar, there’s also important context missing, the parts that would make the diagnosis more accurate and useful.

Nutrition and food systems

MAHA isn’t wrong here. Data show that U.S. children get about two-thirds of their calories from ultra-processed foods (UPFs), and these diets are linked to higher risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic illnesses. The report is right to point out that UPFs often lack fiber and protein, the very nutrients kids need to feel full and regulate appetite. It even calls out “chewing” as a benefit of whole foods, which may sound simple but reflects real research on satiety and blood sugar.

What’s missing is the acknowledgment that families don’t make these choices in a vacuum. The report doesn’t talk about the cost of food, the aggressive marketing of unhealthy products to children, or the way school systems and neighborhood food environments make UPFs the default. It also skips over policy levers,  like regulating advertising, reformulating products, or strengthening nutrition education, that could actually change what’s on kids’ plates.

Environmental chemicals

The commission is right to say that kids are uniquely vulnerable to exposures. Parents can’t see PFAS in drinking water or phthalates in plastics, but they worry about them, and with reason. Some of these chemicals have well-documented links to developmental delays, hormone disruption, and long-term disease. Naming that risk is important.

But simply saying “chemicals are bad” oversimplifies the reality. The real challenge isn’t one compound in isolation, it’s the cumulative and interactive effects of many low-dose exposures over time. And science is still catching up on how those exposures combine. Families need clear distinctions between what we know, what we suspect, and what’s still being studied. Without that nuance, broad warnings can fuel fear instead of providing clarity.

Behavior, sleep, and stress

MAHA is also right that modern childhood looks different, less outdoor play, more screens, shorter nights of sleep, and higher stress. These shifts contribute to obesity, anxiety, depression, and poorer learning outcomes. For parents, it’s validating to see those realities recognized.

But the report frames them almost entirely as family-level problems. It doesn’t address the broader roots of stress and inactivity: family instability, poverty, high housing costs, unsafe neighborhoods, inequitable schools, and academic pressures. Nor does it connect the dots to systemic barriers like early school start times, schools cutting recess, or unsafe streets that keep families indoors. And while it names “chronic stress,” the same policymakers are cutting away at supports like school counselors and after-school programs. Without that context, the diagnosis falls short.

Overmedicalization

The report resonates here, too. Overprescribing happens: antibiotics for viral infections, psychiatric medications without therapy support, and unnecessary imaging are all real issues. There are legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest in pharma and regulation.

But MAHA paints with too broad a brush. By implying that vaccines and common pediatric prescriptions belong in the same category, it risks misleading families. Vaccines are rigorously studied and overwhelmingly safe. Lumping them together with inappropriate antibiotic use downplays the lifesaving role of many therapies while pointing to genuine but narrower issues. Without that nuance, this framing risks fueling mistrust at a time when clarity is what parents need most.

The bigger picture concerns

Beyond the four pillars, MAHA stumbles most in the way it frames the larger story of children’s health. Because while the commission names real problems, it misses the deeper forces shaping them, and sometimes introduces new concerns of its own.

Systemic drivers forgotten

MAHA talks about poor diet, stress, and inactivity, but it doesn’t grapple with the root causes. Poverty, unsafe neighborhoods, inequitable schools, and time poverty are the backdrop for nearly every health struggle families face. A parent can’t just “choose whole foods” when fresh groceries aren’t affordable or available. Kids can’t “just go outside” when streets aren’t safe or when schools cut recess. Parents can’t spend time with their kids and do enriching activities when they’re working 3 jobs just to pay rent. And yet, while those systemic realities are ignored in the report, the same policymakers cut Medicaid, SNAP, and public health funding, the very supports that could make prevention possible.

Pseudoscience framing

By exaggerating the harms of chemicals, questioning the safety of vaccines, and portraying peer review as “broken,” MAHA opens the door for fringe voices to dominate the conversation. Parents don’t need sweeping dismissals of science. They need clear, careful communication that separates what’s well-established from what’s still under study.

Trust undermined

Instead of acknowledging how clinicians blend evidence, judgment, and family context, the report depicts physicians as passive “pawns of pharma.” That framing erodes trust in the very people families rely on for guidance. Most pediatricians work under real system pressures, but they are not the enemy. They are partners doing their best within those constraints.

Missing the why behind overmedicalization

Yes, overprescribing happens. But it doesn’t stem from careless doctors or pharma marketing alone. It stems from a lack of therapy access, school pressures, short pediatric visits, and parent demand for immediate relief when kids are struggling. Without that context, MAHA risks blaming the wrong actors and oversimplifying a complex problem.

Ignoring urgent threats

Finally, the report never mentions gun violence. The leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S. It also continues to miscast autism as a disease to be “reversed.” Both choices reveal bias more than genuine concern. You cannot write an honest report on children’s health and leave out the most urgent causes of harm, or stigmatize neurodivergent children by suggesting they should be “fixed.”

Section 1: The Shift to Ultra-Processed Foods

On the surface, this sounds simple: eat more whole foods, cut back on processed ones. And the report is right that diet plays a huge role in chronic disease. But for families, the reality is more complicated.

• Shelf life and logistics. Whole foods spoil quickly. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) exploded because they’re shelf-stable, transportable, and cheap. If storage and distribution aren’t part of the conversation, “eat more whole foods” becomes unrealistic advice.

• Cost barriers. Fresh produce and proteins usually cost more per calorie than boxed or frozen meals. Without subsidies or price reform, the burden falls hardest on the families least able to afford it.

• Farm policy contradictions. U.S. subsidies pour into corn, soy, and wheat, the very crops that fuel UPFs, while fruits and vegetables receive far less support. Calling farmers the “solution” without addressing these policies is misleading.

• Equity. For families without stable grocery access or time to cook, putting whole foods “at the center of healthcare” sounds good, but it’s aspirational unless paired with systemic fixes like SNAP expansion, healthier school meals, and food infrastructure improvements.

This framing is spot on, UPFs became dominant because of convenience and policy. And I appreciated that the report even mentions things like fiber, protein, and “more chewing” as protective. Those are small but powerful reminders: foods that take longer to chew slow kids down, make them feel fuller, and help stabilize blood sugar.

But again, the report skips over the “how.”

• Marketing to kids. Children are relentlessly targeted with ads for sugary cereals, snacks, and drinks, often online where parents can’t see it. Policy could step in here, just like we did with tobacco, to restrict junk food advertising to children.

• Cost and incentives. Fresh food is consistently more expensive per calorie. Families need policy solutions like subsidies for fruits and vegetables, stronger school meal programs, and even disincentives for sugary drinks.

• Education and community programs. Advice alone isn’t enough. Parents need practical, realistic support, like cooking classes, culturally relevant recipes, and nutrition programs that show how to make whole foods fast and affordable.

This part was frustrating. It risks sounding like SNAP families are the problem, when in reality the system is stacked against them.

• Food deserts and swamps. Many SNAP households live in areas dominated by fast food or corner stores. Even with benefits, the affordable options are calorie-dense and nutrient-poor.

• Time poverty. Parents working multiple jobs rarely have the time for scratch cooking. Ready-to-eat, shelf-stable foods become the default out of necessity, not choice.

• Marketing pressures. Low-income communities are targeted more heavily with junk food advertising, shaping kids’ preferences from an early age.

• Education gaps. SNAP-Ed exists, but it’s underfunded and inconsistent. Many families never get the cooking skills, label-reading tips, or meal-prep strategies that would make healthy eating realistic.

• Healthcare inequities. Preventive care is harder to access, so conditions like obesity or diabetes aren’t caught early, even if diets improve later.

The takeaway?

MAHA is right: food matters. Diet is a powerful driver of chronic disease. But naming the problem isn’t enough. Families don’t just need to be told to “eat better,” they need systems that make healthy choices affordable, available, and realistic. That means better food subsidies, clear front-of-pack labeling (like Mexico’s warning signs), expanded SNAP/WIC, healthier school meals, and support in every community.

Until then, UPFs will remain the default. Not because parents don’t care, but because the system makes them the easier, cheaper, and sometimes only option.

Section 2: The Cumulative Load of Chemicals in our Environment

This part is true: kids are not exposed to chemicals one at a time. They encounter mixtures of pesticides, plastics, PFAS, flame retardants, and more. And science is still working to understand how low doses of many chemicals might interact in the body over years. That uncertainty is worth naming.

But here’s the nuance: uncertainty is not the same as danger. It doesn’t mean that every trace exposure is harmful, or that families should panic about daily life. Gold-standard science tells us some chemicals clearly cause harm (like lead or high-dose pesticides). Others are still being studied. Parents deserve that distinction.

That’s certainly valid. Kids are not “little adults.” Their biology really does make them more vulnerable to certain exposures.

Where the report risks going too far is in the tone. At times it reads like “everything is toxic,” and that’s not helpful. The message shouldn’t be fear, it should be clarity. Families need to know which risks are established, which are still emerging, and what simple steps make the biggest difference.

The takeaway?

Chemicals are not inherently the enemy. They’re also the reason our food supply is safer, our water is clean, and our homes are livable. The problem is when regulation lags behind science, or when industry incentives overshadow children’s health.

For parents, the take-home isn’t to throw out every product in the house. It’s to focus on low-lift, practical steps that reduce risk without fear: ventilating the home, vacuuming and dusting to limit particles, washing hands before meals, using glass instead of microwaving plastic, and choosing fragrance-free when possible.

The real responsibility lies with systems, updating regulatory frameworks, funding gold-standard research, and holding industries accountable, so that families aren’t left carrying the full burden.

Section 3: The Crisis of Childhood Behavior in the Digital Age

This is true, and the data back it up. Rates of physical activity are down, and today’s kids are more sedentary than ever. Parents see it every day: recess gets cut, kids sit longer in classrooms, and screens often fill the gap. MAHA is right to call this out. We do need more breaks, more movement built into the school day, and more opportunities for unstructured play.

But again, the report misses context. Sedentary behavior doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s not just that kids “prefer screens.” It’s also that schools have limited recess, neighborhoods aren’t always safe, and parents are stretched too thin to make sure there is always outdoor play time.

This section lands, too. Kids are sleeping less, and it matters. Later school start times have been shown to improve both mental health and academic performance, yet most districts still start the day early. Chronic stress and loneliness are on the rise, and tech companies have built platforms that pull teens (and adults) in for hours every day. MAHA deserves credit for naming those dynamics.

Where it falls short is in recognizing the systemic barriers that keep families from making the “right” choices.

• Neighborhood safety. In many communities, families avoid outdoor play because of crime, traffic, or unsafe housing complexes. Parks may exist but feel too dangerous or poorly maintained to use.

• Lack of green space. Urban planning has historically placed low-income housing away from well-maintained parks. Even when parks exist, they’re often underfunded or inaccessible.

• Socioeconomic overlap. The same families struggling with food insecurity are often the ones with limited safe spaces for play. Poor nutrition and reduced activity compound one another.

• Time poverty. Parents working multiple jobs or irregular shifts may not have the bandwidth to supervise outdoor activities. Kids default to screens not out of preference, but out of necessity.

• Unequal school and community resources. Wealthier schools often have recess, sports, and after-school programs. Lower-income schools may cut those programs, leaving kids with even fewer options.

And notably, gun violence: the number one cause of death for children and teens in the U.S., doesn’t appear in MAHA’s assessment. 

If we’re assessing child health in America, it is impossible to leave out the number one cause of death for children and teens. Gun violence kills more young people than car accidents, cancer, or any other single cause. That is not an opinion, that is data. Yet this report doesn’t address it at all.

The omission matters. We can’t talk about neighborhood safety, schools, or mental health in children without acknowledging the reality that firearms now take more young lives than anything else. Families are sending their kids to school worried about whether they’ll come home. Teenagers are growing up with active shooter drills as part of their routine. Communities are dealing not just with lives lost, but with trauma that stretches into classrooms, homes, and futures.

If we’re serious about child health, the assessment has to reflect the risks children actually face. Leaving gun violence out creates a distorted picture of what threatens kids’ safety and well-being in this country.

The takeaway?

MAHA is right: kids are moving less, sleeping less, and feeling more stressed. But the solutions can’t just be “more discipline at home” or “less screen time.” Families already know their kids need movement, sleep, and social connection. The bigger question is whether systems make those things possible.

That means schools guaranteeing recess and considering later start times. It means city planning that funds safe parks and green spaces in all neighborhoods. It means tech companies facing accountability for targeting kids. And it means remembering that family time like shared meals, time outdoors, nature exposure, builds resilience, but only when parents have the time and resources to make it happen.

And we can’t ignore the most urgent safety issue of all: gun violence. MAHA never mentions it, yet it remains the leading cause of death for children in the U.S. Any honest conversation about stress, safety, and child health has to acknowledge that reality.

Section 4: The Overmedicalization of Our Kids

There’s truth here, but the story is more complicated than kids being “overdiagnosed.” Much of it comes back to how the system is built. Here are just a few additional reasons why ADHD (and other conditions) may look “overdiagnosed”:

• Increased awareness and screening. More teachers, parents, and clinicians recognize ADHD behaviors now. That means more kids get assessed, including some with milder symptoms who might once have been brushed off as “the class clown.”

• Educational pressures. Schools are more structured, test-driven, and less flexible. Teachers under pressure may see diagnosis as the only way to get a child support.

• Lack of neurodivergence support. Bigger class sizes, fewer aides, and less recess make kids who thrive in flexible, hands-on settings look “disruptive” in rigid environments.

• Access to services tied to diagnosis. Extra time on tests, occupational therapy, and other school-based interventions often require a formal diagnosis. Families push for labels because it’s the only way to unlock help.

• Cultural and healthcare shifts. Parents today seek explanations for struggles earlier, which can be good. But with short pediatric visits and limited therapy options, medication often becomes the fastest path. Not always because it’s the first choice, but because it’s the only accessible one.

This is true, and it worries many families. But overprescription isn’t usually about careless doctors. It’s about the pressures baked into our system. Here’s a little more context into why prescriptions have increased:

• Lack of behavioral therapy access. Evidence-based guidelines often recommend therapy first for ADHD, anxiety, or aggression. But therapy is expensive, undercovered by insurance, and comes with long waitlists. For many families, medication is the only timely option.

• Parental resource gaps. Families juggling low incomes, multiple jobs, or limited childcare can’t always manage the structure therapy requires. Medication becomes the more “manageable” route when time, money, and support are scarce.

• School and societal pressures. Schools under pressure to perform may see diagnosis + medication as the path of least resistance. A prescription can stabilize classrooms faster than adapting environments to diverse learning needs.

• Cultural expectations of quick fixes. U.S. healthcare leans heavily on medical interventions over prevention. Parents may even feel judged if they don’t act fast, pushing meds ahead of slower, resource-heavy options.

• Burnout in healthcare. Short pediatric visits and stressed providers can turn prescribing into the most practical choice, not because it’s careless, but because the system leaves few alternatives.

A note on asthma, and other essential medications: yes, overprescription is a real issue, but it doesn’t mean all prescribing is harmful. Asthma controller medications, for instance, are non-negotiable when they’re needed. Instead of blaming families or doctors, we should be tackling the root triggers, like pollution, climate change, environmental allergens, and ensuring kids are vaccinated against illnesses that worsen asthma in the first place.

This framing makes it sound like the AAP is recklessly pushing drugs, but that’s not the full story.

• Lifestyle and nutrition education are always the foundation.

• Some kids live in food deserts with limited access to healthy food or safe places to be active, so lifestyle changes alone aren’t enough.

• For children with severe obesity, GLP-1s can help prevent lifelong harm, and should be used alongside broader efforts to fix food systems and support families.

Yes, there are real harms when children are overtreated, but framing these medications and procedures as if they’re universally unnecessary drastically oversimplifies the issue.

• Context matters. Tympanostomy tubes, tonsillectomies, psychiatric medications, and antibiotics all carry risks and don’t help every child. But for the right child, they can be life-changing or even lifesaving. A teen with severe depression may not survive without medication. A child with significant sleep apnea may thrive after tonsil surgery.

• The problem is how and when they’re used. Families often land here because upstream supports are missing, like access to therapy, nutrition counseling, safe environments, or enough time for shared decision-making in a visit.

• Antibiotics and psychiatric drugs show this tension. Overuse is real, but much of it stems from parent demand for quick fixes, a healthcare model that feels like customer service, and burned-out clinicians who don’t have the time to explain why “doing nothing” may sometimes be the safest option.

• Science evolves. Some treatments, like topiramate for pediatric migraines, once looked promising based on adult data but later proved less effective and riskier in children. That’s not reckless medicine. That’s how evidence grows, and guidelines appropriately shift over time.

Calling gender-affirming care “mutilation” isn’t medicine, it’s propaganda. Here’s the reality:

• Puberty blockers are reversible. They’ve been used safely for decades in kids with precocious puberty and simply give more time for decision-making.

• Hormones may have long-term effects, but they’re prescribed thoughtfully, with careful monitoring, counseling, and consent.

• Surgeries are extremely rare in minors. When they do occur, it’s after years of evaluation, not rushed decisions.

Groups like the AAP and AMA base their guidance on evidence and clinical experience, not politics. For some kids, gender-affirming care prevents depression, self-harm, and suicide. That risk is real and backed by data.

Scary labels don’t make this a balanced debate. Honest conversations about risks, benefits, and safeguards do.

It’s true that early antibiotic use has been linked to conditions like asthma, allergies, and obesity, but these are associations, not proof that antibiotics cause them. Kids who receive more antibiotics are often already at higher risk because of genetics, environment, or other health factors.

The real issue isn’t appropriate use,  it’s overuse, like prescribing antibiotics for viral illnesses where they don’t help. When used correctly, antibiotics remain lifesaving.

The report is right about one thing: vaccines protect children from serious infectious diseases, and families deserve transparent information. That truth matters because transparency builds trust.

But the way MAHA frames this issue is misleading. It inflates the schedule by counting every component as a separate “injection,” and it compares the U.S. schedule to smaller European ones without acknowledging differences in disease burden, healthcare systems, or culture. It also leans on a familiar anti-vaccine talking point: that no trial has ever tested the “entire schedule” against no vaccines. That’s technically true, but also unethical, no child can be randomized to “no protection” from measles or polio.

Here’s how safety actually works: each vaccine is studied individually and monitored continuously. As clinicians, we report safety concerns through systems like VAERS, share patterns with colleagues, and when signals appear, the system acts. At one of my former jobs, we saw a cluster of febrile seizures tied to a DTaP lot. Every child recovered, the lot was flagged, and the issue was addressed. That’s science doing its job, not censorship.

What the report leaves out is context. Vaccines do not cause autism, asthma, or autoimmune disease. The evidence is clear. In fact, vaccines prevent infections that can worsen chronic illness. The real drivers of chronic disease in children are poverty, environment, and food systems, not immunization. And when uptake falls, diseases like measles, whooping cough, and polio return.

And yes, timing can always be revisited thoughtfully. For example, if a newborn with a hepatitis B–negative mother in a low-risk household doesn’t get the Hep B vaccine at birth, it’s fine as long as it’s started later in the series. But twisting those nuances into fear about vaccines themselves only harms kids and communities. It’s okay to get it at birth, and it’s okay to start it later, but it’s not okay to frame the vaccine itself as dangerous.

This section paints peer review and medical research as fundamentally broken, which sets up an attack on evidence-based medicine itself. Yes, it’s true that industry funds a large share of clinical trials and that conflicts of interest exist, we talk about this openly in medicine. It’s also true that journals and peer review are imperfect and sometimes biased. But to suggest the entire system is untrustworthy is misleading, and it conveniently sets the stage for elevating pseudoscience: denounce scientists and doctors, and then elevate self.

In reality, evidence-based medicine rests on multiple layers of checks, independent replication, regulatory oversight, post-marketing surveillance, and the daily judgment of clinicians. Doctors are not passive consumers of research. I, for one, am not just “fed” studies and told to follow along. I critically read the evidence, look for patterns in my patients, and listen to families. That’s how most of us practice.

Evidence-based medicine was never meant to be evidence-only medicine; it has always meant evidence plus clinical judgment plus patient values. When data are limited or nuance is needed, that’s when judgment and context matter most. Undermining both the process of science and the role of physicians who apply it thoughtfully doesn’t protect families, it only fuels pseudoscience and erodes trust in the very tools that help us improve care.

Yes, industry funding and conflicts of interest exist, and they deserve scrutiny. But this framing doesn’t reflect the reality of pediatrics. Our specialty is struggling, reimbursement is low, offices are closing, and pediatrics is one of the least lucrative fields in medicine. There is no big pharma “market” driving day-to-day pediatric care.

Most pediatricians practice based on evidence, clinical guidelines, and patient needs, not marketing dollars. Suggesting otherwise undermines both science and the clinicians who keep showing up for kids despite the financial and systemic strain.

The takeaway?

Overmedicalization is real, but not in the way MAHA frames it. Most families and doctors aren’t careless. They’re working inside a strained system where therapy is scarce, schools push quick fixes, and visits are too short.

Yes, some medications are overused, but many are lifesaving when used thoughtfully. The solution isn’t distrust, it’s giving families real upstream supports so meds aren’t the only option left.

And when it comes to vaccines or gender-affirming care, these are not examples of medical excess, they’re evidence-based care that protects kids.

Final thoughts

The MAHA report reminds us of something important: you can’t solve a problem if you’ve named the wrong one. Families don’t need fear or finger-pointing, they need accuracy. Because if the diagnosis is off, the solutions will be, too.

MAHA got part of the story right. Yes, food, chemicals, stress, and medicalization all shape kids’ health. But by leaving out poverty, unsafe neighborhoods, inequitable schools, gun violence, and the systemic reasons behind overprescribing, the report risks sending us down the wrong path.

As parents, that matters. We want to know what really affects our kids’ health, so we can push for the right changes. And while individual choices matter, the bigger picture is that families can only do so much without systems that make healthy options realistic.

Naming problems is necessary. But naming them with honesty and context is the only way to build solutions that actually help our kids thrive.

Ask Dr. Mona

An opportunity for YOU to ask Dr. Mona your parenting questions!

Dr. Mona will answer these questions in a future Sunday Morning Q&A email. Chances are if you have a parenting concern or question, another parent can relate. So let's figure this out together!