Some have criticized the new report from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission for being light on specific policy recommendations. That may be the point.

On Sept. 9, amid a frenzied news cycle, the Make America Healthy Again Commission dropped its much-anticipated health recommendations. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media got busy criticizing the new MAHA report, saying that it “lacked teeth” and disappointed even the most tepid supporters.

Yes, very specific policies may have been absent, but I would argue that that might be the point. Ultimately, the health of this country depends not on more regulation and policy but on individual choices made with the most truthful, transparent, and data-driven information the government can offer.

While the MAHA community is unified in its mission to drastically lower the rates of chronic disease in the country, individuals sometimes disagree on the best ways to get there, as they should. We need good-faith, robust debates about potential solutions across government agencies, something the MAHA Commission is designed to provide.

But first, we must figure out the culprit, the reasons for Americans’ poor health.

>>> I’m a Conservative. Here’s Why I Support Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Most will agree that the current Food and Drug Administration food guidelines are based on nothing but junk science that was ultimately subsidized by companies that stood to profit from it the most. As Dr. Marty Makary said in the MAHA Commission’s press conference, the food pyramid “may be one of the greatest sources of misinformation in modern American history.”

This is something the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration are already addressing. As early as this month, we can expect to see new food guidelines that will affect everything from school lunches to prison meals.

But what are the other drivers of obesity, autism, or abysmal mental health outcomes?

Is it the overloaded childhood vaccination schedule, which recommends almost 30 shots before a child turns 2? Is it the Standard American Diet, or SAD, filled with highly processed foods and petroleum-laden food dyes? Or is it exposure to agricultural chemicals?

My gut instinct is that all of these play a part in poor health outcomes, but I am reluctant to draw any direct conclusions or recommend policy changes until we have what Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly called for: gold-standard science and unbiased research free from corporate influence. Without it, policy changes will be willy-nilly, lacking broad-based consensus. This is why the second report was heavy on research and evaluation suggestions from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The administration has already made great strides in reversing bad policies such as the “Generally Recognized as Safe,” or “GRAS,” loophole, which allowed food producers to claim that their chemical additives were safe. That in and of itself is a huge win. After all, it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reverse regulation once it has been introduced.

The administration has also encouraged the removal of chemical food dyes, not by enacting any law but by garnering broad-based support through educating and appealing to the good sense of consumers and manufacturers alike. Most Americans understood that there was no need for these ingredients in food, and many food companies saw the writing on the wall and willingly complied with changes.

>>> Medicare Advantage: 14 Steps to a Better Program

This is the way forward. End the corporate capture of our agencies and demand transparency, truth, and trust. Update nutritional education and messaging to shift demand. Free entrepreneurs from unnecessary regulation and make it attractive to enter the marketplace. Once demand shifts, the supply side will be forced to accommodate.

Marion Nestle, popular food policy critic, decried government agencies’ capitulation to big industry.

“Regulate?” she wrote. “Not a chance.”

She claimed that anything other than government solutions are “waffle words: explore, coordinate, partner, prioritize, develop, or work toward.”

I would argue that those words are not waffling. Instead, they’re the way our political system is meant to work. We should be consistently working toward a better way, but that better way must be driven by the American people, not by bureaucrats and congressmen who have consistently betrayed their trust.

As much as I want to Make America Healthy Again—and believe me, I want it very much—I am not willing to enact a nanny state to achieve it.

Long-lasting, positive reform will never happen by force. It will happen through well-thought-out, proper incentives. And it will happen in a free market in which consumers are as informed as possible and in which those wishing to innovate to meet consumer demand can thrive. It will happen when people decide that they want to be healthy and when they, not the government, demand it.