How the MAHA Movement Quietly Pivoted Away from Plastics And Corrected RFK Jr.’s Previous Positions

In early 2025, the MAHA movement, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appeared poised to launch a comprehensive regulatory assault on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Central to this platform was Bisphenol A (BPA), a ubiquitous petrochemical used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. However, by January 2026, the rhetoric surrounding BPA has been largely “scrubbed” from official policy documents, replaced by a narrower focus on food dyes and “Radical Transparency.”

1. The Rhetorical Evolution: From “Metabolic Destruction” to “Further Research”

The trajectory of the MAHA movement’s policy on BPA can be mapped through three distinct phases:

• The Assessment Phase (May 2025): The movement’s initial policy framework, the MAHA Assessment, was explicit in its condemnation of synthetic phenols. It specifically named BPA, BPS, and phthalates as primary drivers of the “metabolic destruction” of American children, linking them directly to rising rates of obesity, PCOS, and early-onset puberty¹.
• The Strategic Shift (September 2025): When the finalized Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy was released on September 9, 2025, the language had shifted. Explicit calls for BPA bans were moved into Appendix A, categorized under a broad initiative to “evaluate the risks and exposures to microplastics and synthetics.” This effectively transitioned BPA from an “immediate action” item to a multi-year research pipeline managed by the NIH and EPA².
• The Administrative Phase (January 2026): Under the current administrative priorities, BPA has been largely sidelined. The FDA Human Foods Program 2026 Priority Deliverables focus heavily on “Chemical Additives” (such as Red No. 40) and heavy metals in baby food, while bisphenols are relegated to a “Cumulative Exposure Evaluation Framework” with no set deadline for restriction³.

2. The Petrochemical Paradox

The reason for this pivot is likely rooted in the chemical’s economic origin. BPA is a cornerstone of the global plastics economy, synthesized from petroleum-derived phenol and acetone⁴. While the MAHA movement has maintained a high-profile crusade against petroleum-based food dyes, these dyes represent a statistically negligible fraction of total petroleum demand.

Targeting BPA, conversely, would represent a direct confrontation with the multibillion-dollar petrochemical sector—a conflict that appears to be at odds with the administration’s broader goal of domestic energy and industrial dominance. By focusing on “food dyes,” the movement achieves a populist health victory against “Big Food” without disrupting the primary industrial infrastructure of “Big Oil”⁵.

3. “Radical Transparency” as a Regulatory Placeholder

Rather than instituting federal bans, the administration has championed a policy of Radical Transparency. This approach shifts the burden of safety from the government to the consumer and the manufacturer:

• The GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) Loophole: On January 6, 2026, the FDA signaled a mandatory notification program for new food additives, effectively closing the “self-affirmed” GRAS loophole. While this is a major reform, it primarily impacts new specialty chemicals rather than the legacy BPA-based plastics already in the supply chain⁶.
• The PFAS Cosmetic Report: A December 29, 2025, report on PFAS (forever chemicals) in cosmetics concluded that data on most of these chemicals was “incomplete,” resulting in no new federal restrictions. Critics argue this uses “transparency” as a placeholder for actual regulatory action⁷.

4. The Metabolic Blind Spot: MBP

For the biomedical researcher, the most conspicuous absence in the “Radical Transparency” filings is any mention of 4-Methyl-2,4-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)pent-1-ene (MBP). MBP is a potent metabolite formed when the body—or environmental bacteria—processes BPA. It has been shown to be up to 1,000 times more estrogenic than BPA itself. Despite early promises to investigate these technical metabolic pathways, current priorities emphasize “whole-person health” and “voluntary phase-outs,” leaving the specific danger of active metabolites like MBP in the “long-term research” category⁸.

Conclusion

The scrubbing of BPA from the MAHA rhetoric suggests a tactical retreat designed to avoid industrial friction. For the intelligent observer, the shift demonstrates that “Radical Transparency” may be less about total disclosure and more about choosing which technical battles are politically convenient to fight.

Sources & Citations

1. MAHA Commission Unveils Sweeping Strategy to Make Our Children Healthy Again. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2025, September 9). HHS Press Office. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/maha-commission-report-childhood-disease-strategy.html
2. Make Our Children Healthy Again: Strategy Report. The White House. (2025, September 9). Official Strategy Documents. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-MAHA-Strategy-WH.pdf
3. Human Foods Program 2026 Priority Deliverables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2026, January 23). FDA Human Foods Program. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/human-foods-program/human-foods-program-2026-priority-deliverables
4. 2026 Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy. Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (2025, December). Chemical Regulatory Insights. https://www.lawbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2026-Forecast.pdf
5. RFK Jr.’s MAHA Report Is a Huge Gift to Big Ag. Food & Water Watch. (2025, September 22). Environmental Advocacy Analysis. https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2025/09/22/rfk-jr-s-maha-report-is-a-huge-gift-to-big-ag/
6. Reforming GRAS: Digesting the Proposed “Better Food Disclosure Act” (S. 3122). Wiley Rein LLP. (2025, November 21). Consumer Product Advisories. https://www.wiley.law/alert-Reforming-GRAS-Digesting-the-Proposed-Better-Food-Disclosure-Act-S3122
7. FDA Issues Report on PFAS Use in Cosmetics. Covington & Burling LLP. (2025, December 31). Legal & Regulatory Alerts. https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2025/12/fda-issues-report-on-pfas-use-in-cosmetics
8. BPA Exposure Linked to 127 Million Global Metabolic Disease Cases. American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC). (2025, November 20). AJMC Research News. https://www.ajmc.com/view/bpa-exposure-linked-to-127-million-global-metabolic-disease-cases

Would you like me to analyze the specific pharmacokinetic data on MBP mentioned in Source 8 to see how it contrasts with the current FDA safety thresholds?

Would you like me to look for any recent testimony from the January 2026 MAHA Chronic Disease Task Force hearings to see if any researchers have challenged the omission of MBP?