MAHA Report Mischaracterized Research by Dr. Mariana Figueiro, Dr. Mark Rea, and Others
A few weeks ago, your humble editor read in The Wall Street Journal that RFK Jr. uses an app called Yuka, which scans food package barcodes and assigns a rating based on nutritional quality, additives, and organic status. I downloaded the app, and it has definitely changed how I shop for groceries.
On Thursday at lunch, I inhaled a dessert called That’s It (which scored 69/100 — rated “good”). Normally, I would have reached for the Blue Bell ice cream, but its 4/100 “bad” rating convinced me to opt for something healthier.
While I enjoyed the desert, I had the TV on, watching the White House daily press briefing. During the discussion, a reporter questioned the administration’s press secretary about errors in the Hallmark MAHA Commission report. The reporter explained that several cited studies appeared not to exist. “We know that in part because we reached out to some of the listed authors who said they didn’t write the studies cited. So I want to ask, does the White House have confidence that the information coming from HHS can be trusted?”
The press secretary blamed “formatting” issues and said that the report would be updated. When pressed about whether AI played a role in assembling the report, she responded, “I can’t speak to that.”
Tracking Down the Citation Error
That exchange piqued my curiosity. Late Thursday, I discovered that research by Dr. Mariana Figueiro and Dr. Mark Rea had been misreferenced. I scheduled a meeting with Mark for Friday to get clarity. To prepare, I read the entire 72-page MAHA report but found no mention of their work. Although the report referenced related studies, it didn’t cite theirs directly. Frustrated, I downloaded the PDF and searched for their names—still nothing.
A friend suggested checking the Wayback Machine. I did, and that’s where I finally found the original reference:
The issue lies in the phrase “and children.” Their research focused on college students, not children. Additionally, the original study appeared in Neuroendocrinology Letters, not Pediatrics. Of course the most important issue is that the summary of the study’s findings offered in the MAHA report is not consistent with conclusions of the study.
When I had the call with Mark, he explained that they have done much research over the years with children and the effects of light, and it was a shame that no one from the administration contacted the LHRC to discuss the correct research.
A Humble Reminder
At the end of the day, researchers research for a living — it’s their job to get it right, and when their work gets cited, it should be cited accurately. That said, as someone who writes plenty of articles, I fully admit I’ve made my share of mistakes (plenty of them, in fact). The difference is, nobody’s using my writing to influence national policy — at least not yet!
Go Deeper: Experts Find ‘Definitive’ Proof AI Used in MAHA Report