Thank you for the thoughtful, well-cited essay. I can’t find it right now, but I read something recently about how citing scientific studies actually makes antivaxxers even more antivax. No wonder they want to cut funding to scientific research. It does seem to be that one reason MAGA has been so successful is that their platform actually works together pretty well. If you don’t want vaccine mandates, you’re also ok with smaller government. If vaccines are a requirement for public school, then of course you would support private school vouchers. You can justify cutting school lunch programs because moms should be making their children’s lunches anyway—which satisfies the misogyny of Christian nationalists who believe that women should, if not be tradwives, at least take on a disproportionate amount of the childcare load. You can justify cutting scientific research because mainstream science supports woke propaganda like how vaccines are safe and climate change is real. According to my friend who married into a libertarian family that went MAGA, MAHA believes that pharmaceutical companies make vaccines which gives people chronic diseases so that they can make money long-term. It’s difficult to prove a negative.
Regarding the idea about systemic change and the privilege of MAHA wellness, that’s kind of the point. I believe that MAGA is, at its core, racist, classist, and sexist. They don’t want welfare because Black people might benefit, but also they believe that people should bootstrap their own health instead of relying on government handouts. No matter how privileged or lucky they are, they will say that they are not privileged. Like, you can own multiple properties, but not really be that rich. And like you wrote, if you need to bootstrap your own children’s welfare by cooking homemade meals from scratch, by homeschooling, by “doing your own research” on commonly accepted facts—then women don’t have time to look around and wonder about the cage that they’re in.
I have ovarian cancer and the BRCA gene. I’ve eaten healthy my whole life and exercises etc not MAHA but still 😀 it didn’t keep me from getting cancer I’m outraged to think people actually believe that eating right will keep them healthy
This sent me on a deep dive down The Christian Nutritionist's feed and ohhh nooooo.... 🫠 That's like next-level Christian right-wing ideology right there.
Also I fed my 9-year-old (and myself!) breakfast from McDonald's this morning after he had an early eye doctor appointment, so pretty sure I'm automatically disqualified from ever joining MAHA. (That's okay. Those hashbrowns SLAP.)
The petty person in me is glad that her feed looks bad because of the shift from squares to rectangles (though I generally hate that change) but other than that, it's a big feed of YIKES.
I love this essay. The scope, the compassion, the clarity. The accuracy.
MAHA opting out of public health by destroying public health… it’s so insane. And I was in the proto MAHA orbit when my kid was young. 2011 era. It’s one fear, distrust after another, and then you’re in it. It was crazy. To my great luck, and for a few different reasons, it didn’t go too deep, but wow, the spiral was waiting and hungry.
That line from Slice, paraphrasing here: I thought I could be perfect and goodness came from the right choices and hard work. Holy hell. White culture in a sentence.
“how do nice moms with chicken coops turn into unreasonable zealots who prioritize the regulation of red food dye over saving the US from fascism? And the answer to this question has everything to do with the cultural construction of the ideal mother and the cultural construction of wellness and health.”
I wrote about something similar this week - the idea that moms are blamed for the health choices they make for their kids (especially when it leads to illness or death, like the girl in Texas who died of measles), not the man who is pushing dangerous ideas about health or the government that is currently backing him.
This piece hits at a slightly different angle -- that MAHA moms are truly missing the point and have lost the plot when it comes to health.
We end with a similar idea, which is that public health is a group project. MAHA moms are trying to make the personal public, which actually hurts everyone. And the government is washing its hands of the responsibility by letting moms take the blame, thanks to the benefits of "personal choices" around vaccines and how to make America healthy, one privileged white child at a time.
Any casualties are unfortunate, but to be expected.
Fun fact--when I was a kid this was not the case, and the reason I know that is that Doritos weren't kosher, so they probably somehow had a meat-adjacent product in them? Ditto Oreos, which had gelatin when I was growing up and now they are vegan.
Thanks for this essay! I’ve probably said it before, but the MAHA moms who confuse me the most are the farm and homestead wives. Those women who have husbands who farm conventionally or who have livestock and have seen first hand how cruel and uncaring life can be. Then they actively turn around and support policies that would either cripple their farms or sicken their children more than whatever dye is the devil this week. Those women along with the ones in your essay have absolutely lost the plot despite it being right in front of their eyes.
I absolutely loved this and wish it would’ve been published before we recorded our MAHA episode, because you cited several sources I hadn’t seen in my research (like We Live for the We & that Guardian article) — the reflections of the mom living with a physical disability struck me as especially representative of how I felt reading about all the wackadoo preoccupations of the MAHA moms: that this shit was so small-potatoes compared to the actual health barriers we face in this country, and how *getting* to care about something like food dye is so symptomatic of immense privilege
"Even if that free lunch program includes “ultra-processed” French Toast bites once in a while?"
This article was good and reasonable so it was weird to me that you felt the need to add rhetoric like this. It's not once in a while--it's every single morning, and every single lunch and every after school snack. You've already articulated that crap is better than starving, so why be dishonest that crap is the norm?
I doubt there is any school in the country serving French Toast Bites and only French Toast Bites for breakfast and lunch every single day. So I think you mean that every school relies on a variety of ultra-processed foods to make their lunch programs (which are dreadfully underfunded and under-resourced) affordable, accessible and in compliance with federal nutrition standards every single day. Which yes! Of course they do! Ultra-processed foods are affordable, reliable, and most offer some degree of nutrition. It's actual wizardry that our school lunch programs pull off what they do, and millions of kids rely on those meals as a primary source of sustenance.
Is there room for improvement? Sure. But given what we're up against in with our MAGA/MAHA-driven government, I'm far more concerned that we keep school lunch programs existing at all, given the crucial role they play in mitigating food insecurity. Using terms like "crap" to describe the food served is elitist, judgmental, steeped in anti-fatness, and only serves to stigmatize the families who rely on these programs. Liberals can do better.
Yes French toasts bites for breakfast and lunch every single day. Obviously not for lunch.
Sorry the word "crap" triggered you. It's really only fat phobic if you've been conditioned to believe that the only reason to pursue foods that contain nutrition or are pleasurable to eat is thinness. Sorry if that's you.
Labeling a food as “crap” is fatphobic and elitist because we live in a society that ascribes moral value to body size and eating habits, while also putting significant barriers in place to access health for anyone who isn’t already thin and/or privileged in other ways.
When you use that language, you aren’t just “triggering me” because I am just extra sensitive or was conditioned in a way that you somehow managed to escape. You’re showing everyone around you that your beliefs about good and bad foods matter more to you than your concern for the well-being of others. When fat people hear processed foods demonized as crap, we know you’re saying you don’t want our bodies. When low-income folks hear it, they know you’re saying you feel superior because you eat according to a set of standards that are out of reach for them and many other folks for many other reasons (disability, time constraints, eating disorders - the list goes on).
I understand this may not be your intention, but intent is not impact. I’m letting you know that the impact of this language choice does not make anyone healthier and it doesn’t do a damn thing to make school lunch programs better. Demonizing food is not health-promoting. Full stop.
I read your work as well Virginia! Genuine, genuine question: I am a larger-bodied person who is passionate about food justice from seed to farmer to table. I believe that there are actually foods that are significantly better or worse for you than others on a neurological- and longevity-based scale, and that there is more to certain priorities when eating than weight and high-cost standards. How do you suggest we talk about those foods when someone is asking that doesn't perpetuate those forms of harm?
Thank you for the thoughtful, well-cited essay. I can’t find it right now, but I read something recently about how citing scientific studies actually makes antivaxxers even more antivax. No wonder they want to cut funding to scientific research. It does seem to be that one reason MAGA has been so successful is that their platform actually works together pretty well. If you don’t want vaccine mandates, you’re also ok with smaller government. If vaccines are a requirement for public school, then of course you would support private school vouchers. You can justify cutting school lunch programs because moms should be making their children’s lunches anyway—which satisfies the misogyny of Christian nationalists who believe that women should, if not be tradwives, at least take on a disproportionate amount of the childcare load. You can justify cutting scientific research because mainstream science supports woke propaganda like how vaccines are safe and climate change is real. According to my friend who married into a libertarian family that went MAGA, MAHA believes that pharmaceutical companies make vaccines which gives people chronic diseases so that they can make money long-term. It’s difficult to prove a negative.
Regarding the idea about systemic change and the privilege of MAHA wellness, that’s kind of the point. I believe that MAGA is, at its core, racist, classist, and sexist. They don’t want welfare because Black people might benefit, but also they believe that people should bootstrap their own health instead of relying on government handouts. No matter how privileged or lucky they are, they will say that they are not privileged. Like, you can own multiple properties, but not really be that rich. And like you wrote, if you need to bootstrap your own children’s welfare by cooking homemade meals from scratch, by homeschooling, by “doing your own research” on commonly accepted facts—then women don’t have time to look around and wonder about the cage that they’re in.
yes yes yes yes - it's brilliant and effective because each piece of ideology feeds and makes possible the next!
I have ovarian cancer and the BRCA gene. I’ve eaten healthy my whole life and exercises etc not MAHA but still 😀 it didn’t keep me from getting cancer I’m outraged to think people actually believe that eating right will keep them healthy
This sent me on a deep dive down The Christian Nutritionist's feed and ohhh nooooo.... 🫠 That's like next-level Christian right-wing ideology right there.
Also I fed my 9-year-old (and myself!) breakfast from McDonald's this morning after he had an early eye doctor appointment, so pretty sure I'm automatically disqualified from ever joining MAHA. (That's okay. Those hashbrowns SLAP.)
(they REALLY do)
The petty person in me is glad that her feed looks bad because of the shift from squares to rectangles (though I generally hate that change) but other than that, it's a big feed of YIKES.
This is such a satisfying read, and a joy to see Jessica Slice in the mix! Thanks, Sara, for sharing your very good brain with all of us.
I love this essay. The scope, the compassion, the clarity. The accuracy.
MAHA opting out of public health by destroying public health… it’s so insane. And I was in the proto MAHA orbit when my kid was young. 2011 era. It’s one fear, distrust after another, and then you’re in it. It was crazy. To my great luck, and for a few different reasons, it didn’t go too deep, but wow, the spiral was waiting and hungry.
That line from Slice, paraphrasing here: I thought I could be perfect and goodness came from the right choices and hard work. Holy hell. White culture in a sentence.
I KNOW - I can't wait to share our interview - she's just beyond brilliant - and her book is truly mind-breaking in the best possible way.
Amen! Connecting so many dots here!
“how do nice moms with chicken coops turn into unreasonable zealots who prioritize the regulation of red food dye over saving the US from fascism? And the answer to this question has everything to do with the cultural construction of the ideal mother and the cultural construction of wellness and health.”
This and the conclusion 🙌
I really love this piece.
I wrote about something similar this week - the idea that moms are blamed for the health choices they make for their kids (especially when it leads to illness or death, like the girl in Texas who died of measles), not the man who is pushing dangerous ideas about health or the government that is currently backing him.
This piece hits at a slightly different angle -- that MAHA moms are truly missing the point and have lost the plot when it comes to health.
We end with a similar idea, which is that public health is a group project. MAHA moms are trying to make the personal public, which actually hurts everyone. And the government is washing its hands of the responsibility by letting moms take the blame, thanks to the benefits of "personal choices" around vaccines and how to make America healthy, one privileged white child at a time.
Any casualties are unfortunate, but to be expected.
Actually, my Doritos bag says they're "plant-based"? Which is just code for healthy?
omg good point - my Nutella is also "gluten free" so I think it's the same thing.
make sure you only buy the bread marked plant-based, otherwise you might get meat-based or toenail-based bread
Fun fact--when I was a kid this was not the case, and the reason I know that is that Doritos weren't kosher, so they probably somehow had a meat-adjacent product in them? Ditto Oreos, which had gelatin when I was growing up and now they are vegan.
Thanks for this essay! I’ve probably said it before, but the MAHA moms who confuse me the most are the farm and homestead wives. Those women who have husbands who farm conventionally or who have livestock and have seen first hand how cruel and uncaring life can be. Then they actively turn around and support policies that would either cripple their farms or sicken their children more than whatever dye is the devil this week. Those women along with the ones in your essay have absolutely lost the plot despite it being right in front of their eyes.
I've always wanted to interview a working farmer about this whooooole thing - Ballerina Farm et cal.
I would probably have some recommendations lol
I absolutely loved this and wish it would’ve been published before we recorded our MAHA episode, because you cited several sources I hadn’t seen in my research (like We Live for the We & that Guardian article) — the reflections of the mom living with a physical disability struck me as especially representative of how I felt reading about all the wackadoo preoccupations of the MAHA moms: that this shit was so small-potatoes compared to the actual health barriers we face in this country, and how *getting* to care about something like food dye is so symptomatic of immense privilege
one million thousand billion jillion percent!!!! (also i can't wait to listen to your ep!)
"Even if that free lunch program includes “ultra-processed” French Toast bites once in a while?"
This article was good and reasonable so it was weird to me that you felt the need to add rhetoric like this. It's not once in a while--it's every single morning, and every single lunch and every after school snack. You've already articulated that crap is better than starving, so why be dishonest that crap is the norm?
I doubt there is any school in the country serving French Toast Bites and only French Toast Bites for breakfast and lunch every single day. So I think you mean that every school relies on a variety of ultra-processed foods to make their lunch programs (which are dreadfully underfunded and under-resourced) affordable, accessible and in compliance with federal nutrition standards every single day. Which yes! Of course they do! Ultra-processed foods are affordable, reliable, and most offer some degree of nutrition. It's actual wizardry that our school lunch programs pull off what they do, and millions of kids rely on those meals as a primary source of sustenance.
Is there room for improvement? Sure. But given what we're up against in with our MAGA/MAHA-driven government, I'm far more concerned that we keep school lunch programs existing at all, given the crucial role they play in mitigating food insecurity. Using terms like "crap" to describe the food served is elitist, judgmental, steeped in anti-fatness, and only serves to stigmatize the families who rely on these programs. Liberals can do better.
Yes French toasts bites for breakfast and lunch every single day. Obviously not for lunch.
Sorry the word "crap" triggered you. It's really only fat phobic if you've been conditioned to believe that the only reason to pursue foods that contain nutrition or are pleasurable to eat is thinness. Sorry if that's you.
Labeling a food as “crap” is fatphobic and elitist because we live in a society that ascribes moral value to body size and eating habits, while also putting significant barriers in place to access health for anyone who isn’t already thin and/or privileged in other ways.
When you use that language, you aren’t just “triggering me” because I am just extra sensitive or was conditioned in a way that you somehow managed to escape. You’re showing everyone around you that your beliefs about good and bad foods matter more to you than your concern for the well-being of others. When fat people hear processed foods demonized as crap, we know you’re saying you don’t want our bodies. When low-income folks hear it, they know you’re saying you feel superior because you eat according to a set of standards that are out of reach for them and many other folks for many other reasons (disability, time constraints, eating disorders - the list goes on).
I understand this may not be your intention, but intent is not impact. I’m letting you know that the impact of this language choice does not make anyone healthier and it doesn’t do a damn thing to make school lunch programs better. Demonizing food is not health-promoting. Full stop.
I read your work as well Virginia! Genuine, genuine question: I am a larger-bodied person who is passionate about food justice from seed to farmer to table. I believe that there are actually foods that are significantly better or worse for you than others on a neurological- and longevity-based scale, and that there is more to certain priorities when eating than weight and high-cost standards. How do you suggest we talk about those foods when someone is asking that doesn't perpetuate those forms of harm?
Brilliant essay, and YES for a shoutout to the Kosher Meat Riots of 1902!