Summary of MAHA Report – Section II
The Cumulative Load of Chemicals in Our Environment
The following text is comprised from the report itself using those bold font points of significance and their explanatory and supportive points. For those who’ve not gone through the usual exhaustive government report, this summary should make it easier to read and understand. (It should be mentioned that charts and graphics referred to in this summary should be referenced by going to https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf for download and viewing.)
Other sections of this summary will be posted later.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Chemical Exposure
The second section of this report begins with a chart titled, “Understanding the Chemical.” It is organized in a color graphic. The following is its structure:
Understanding the Chemical
· Chemistry
· Environmental Fate
· Environmental Release
Understanding Exposure
· Occupational
· General Population
· Consumers
· Environmental Organisms
Understanding Hazard
o Human Health
o Environmental Organisms
Determining Risks
A paragraph follows which provides a brief history of past federal administrations’ efforts to deal with the issue of childhood safety. A key sentence within says, “Environmental health and safety risks were defined as risks to health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child is likely to come in contact with or ingest, such as the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, the soil we live on, and the products we use or are exposed to.”
It goes on to point out, “Since 2000, the EPA has been tracking indicators of children’s environmental well-being through America’s Children and the Environment (ACE).235 ACE tracks chronic childhood disease in children (e.g., asthma, ADHD, autism, childhood cancers, and obesity) and summarizes trends over time for specific environmental exposures (e.g., air pollutants, drinking water contaminants, and chemicals in food).
However, in 2025—28 years after EO 13045 was signed—childhood health has largely worsened, and there is a growing concern about the link between environmental health risks, particularly cumulative risks, and chronic disease. Furthermore, in the past nearly 30 years, the chemicals children are exposed to have grown - and no country fully understands how the cumulative impact of this growth impacts health.”
Exposure Pathways
A color graph titled, “Chemical Classes and Common Exposure Pathways” provides eight classes which surround a silhouette of male/female figures. Those eight classes are:
1. Heavy Metals
a. Lead & Mercury
b. Legacy paint, pipes, dust
2. Air Pollutants
a. Particulate matter, CO, & other hazardous molecules
b. Smog & wildfires
3. Pesticides
a. Atrazine, Chlorpyrifos, Glyphosate
b. Exposure: Food, water, dust, lawn treatment, household sprays
4. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
a. Phthalates, BPA, PBDEs
b. Exposure: Plastics, personal care products, packaging, dust
5. Waterborne Contaminants
a. PFAS, Nitrates, Flouride
b. Exposure: water, agricultural runoff
6. Industrial Residues
a. Formaldehyde, Cleaning products, Cosmetics
b. Exposure: Home surfaces, Building materials, cosmetics, cleaners
7. Persistent Organic Pollutants
a. PCBs, Dioxins, PBDEs
b. Dust, food
8. Physical Agents
a. EMR, Microplastics
b. Exposure: Wi-Fi, mobile phones, 5G, food, water, air
Chemicals, although important in helping our economic and modern living, are evaluated individually, which neglect their cumulative burdens and risk assessments into the clinical environment in meaningful ways, yet that cumulative effect of multiple chemical exposures on children is not fully understood.
No country in the world has fully accounted for the fact that children are often exposed to complex mixtures of chemicals. The U.S. government is committed to fostering radical transparency and gold-standard science to better understand the potential cumulative impacts of environmental exposures. It is critical the U.S. evaluate the current environmental regulatory structure and determine ways to continue to promote economic growth through innovation, while also evolving our frameworks for promoting children’s health.
Why Children Are Uniquely Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals
Children are not “little adults” when it comes to environmental chemicals.243 Exposure to these substances can begin at conception and continue throughout childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood, accumulating over time. Here are some key factors that heighten their risk:
· Sensitive Developmental Windows
· Developing Immune Systems
· Detoxification Challenges
· Accelerated Brain Development
· Endocrine Disruption
· Adolescent Brain Remodeling
More detailed information about each of the above categories are provided in the full report.
A colored graphic titled, “Child Development Stages and Associated Health Risks Posted by Common Toxicants” provides the four following categories with more details within each:
1. Pre-conception (Parental Exposures)
2. In Utero (Parental Exposures)
3. Infancy and Early Childhood
4. Adolescence (Puberty)
This graphic is followed by six different ways infants and toddlers are exposed to different toxic hazards, and states:
The Executive Order establishing the MAHA Commission directed this assessment to evaluate the threat that “certain chemicals, and certain other exposures pose to children with respect to chronic inflammation or other established mechanisms of disease, using rigorous and transparent data.”
Children are exposed to numerous chemicals, such as heavy metals, PFAS, pesticides, and, phthalates, via their diet, textiles, indoor air pollutants, and consumer products. Children’s unique behaviors and developmental physiology make them particularly vulnerable to potential adverse health effects from these cumulative exposures, many of which have no historical precedent in our environment or biology.
A limited review of the epidemiological and clinical studies of several – seven - environmental exposures reveals that certain studies, though findings vary, show these exposures, including when combined, may affect children’s health. Those seven are then listed as:
1. PFAS: a large group of more than 12,000 distinct synthetic chemicals widely used for water-, oil-, and stain-resistance in products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, textiles, cosmetics, and firefighting foam.
2. Microplastics: plastic fragments less than 5 millimeters in size used frequently in products such as clothing, medicine, and shower gels.
3. Fluoride: an inorganic salt first added to water in 1945 to combat cavities.282 By 2022, over 60% of Americans—more than 70% of those on Community Water Systems—were consuming fluoridated water.
4. Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR): an exposure due to the proliferation of cell phones286, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and wearables)287 Some studies have linked EMR exposure to reduced sperm counts and motility but not quality.
5. Phthalates: used primarily to make plastics more flexible, durable, and long-lasting, are found in vinyl flooring, food packaging, dust, personal care products, medical devices, and synthetic fabrics.
6. Bisphenols: a group of industrial chemicals primarily used to manufacture polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins are found in consumer goods such as food and beverage containers.
7. Crop Protection Tools: including pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. Some studies have raised concerns about possible links between some of these products and adverse health outcomes, especially in children, but human studies are limited. For example, a selection of research studies on an herbicide (glyphosate) have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances.
The following paragraph then points out the critical connection of farming practices, children’s health, and the economy:
Importantly, the Executive Order establishing the MAHA Commission directed the involved agencies to work with farmers to ensure that United States food is the healthiest, most abundant, and most affordable in the world. American farmers are critical partners in the success of the Make America Healthy Again agenda. All the involved agencies are therefore committed to ensuring not just the survival, but the prosperity, of American Farmers. American farmers rely on these products, and actions that further regulate or restrict crop protection tools beyond risk-based and scientific processes set forth by Congress must involve thoughtful consideration of what is necessary for adequate protection, alternatives, and cost of production. Precipitous changes in agricultural practices could have an adverse impact on American agriculture and the domestic and global food supply. The federal government will continue to regularly review the safety of these important crop protection tools.
Corporate Influence
Scientific Research
A significant portion of environmental toxicology and epidemiology studies are conducted by private corporations.309 Reports in 2023 indicate that the largest pesticide manufacturers spent billions on research initiatives. Limited comparisons between industry-funded research versus non-industry studies have raised concerns over potential biases in industry-funded research.
These disparities are potentially due to bias in study design and reporting, along with publication bias favoring positive findings in academic research. Such biases amplify potential discrepancies in the literature and limit the scientific publication of unfavorable results:
· An analysis of a common pesticide found that 50% of non-industry research found it harmful, compared to 18% of industry-funded studies, which also reported fewer significant adverse results (9% vs. 33%).
· An analysis of 115 studies before 2005 revealed that 100% of chemical industry-funded studies declared BPA safe, while over 90% of non-industry research identified harm at low doses.
· Recently analyzed confidential documents from industry leaders revealed that the PFAS
industry focused on suppressing unfavorable research and distorting public discourse,
effectively delaying public awareness of its dangers.
· Secondary analysis of approximately 2,500 “high production volume” chemicals suggests that further toxicological studies may be necessary to ensure adequate understanding of their potential health effects.
Additionally, some industry leaders have engaged in promoting ghostwriting and sponsored reviews to influence the scientific literature. Notably, this ghostwriting strategy mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry to distort scientific consensus.
Laws and Regulations
Corporate influence stretches beyond extensive involvement in scientific research to include active governmental lobbying:
· In 2024, the chemical-manufacturing lobby spent roughly $77 million on federal influence activities—placing the industry among Washington’s top spenders.
· In 2023, 60% of chemical-sector lobbyists previously held federal posts.
As a result of this influence, the regulatory environment surrounding the chemical industry may reflect a consideration of its interests. For example, more than ten thousand chemicals listed on EPA’s inventory are designated as confidential and generic chemical names are used to identify them.
(End of Section II – Section III coming soon.)