- A new report from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again commission has sparked concerns among farmers and agricultural groups.
- Critics argue the report relies on “junk science” and could negatively impact safe farming practices.
- While the report identifies areas of concern like ultra-processed foods and environmental toxins, farming groups worry about its potential impact on pesticide regulation.
A Mississippi senator is doubling down on concerns that a new report from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again commission could negatively affect American farmers and how they grow our food.
Now that it’s been released, numerous groups representing producers, ranchers and the agriculture industry have said some suggestions rely on junk science and are pleading with Kennedy and President Donald Trump to make sure current safe food practices aren’t thrown out.
“Both farmers and members of Congress tried to warn the administration that activist groups were trying to hijack the MAHA Commission to advance their longstanding goal of harming U.S. farmers,” said American Soybean Association Director Alan Meadows. “Reading this report, it appears that is exactly what has happened.”
At a May 20 Senate subcommittee hearing, U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Mississippi, questioned the speed and accuracy with which the report was compiled. She asked Kennedy if it would “unfairly” target American farmers and farming practices determined to be safe by other government agencies, including in the U.S. and overseas.
“The drafts that I’ve seen, there’s not a single word in them that should worry the American farmer,” Kennedy said at the hearing.
The “Making Our Children Healthy Again” report was issued May 22 at the White House. President Donald Trump called it “a historic milestone on our mission to make America healthy again.”
“At it’s core this report is a call to action for common sense,” Kennedy said. “We’ve relied too much on conflicted research, ignored common sense, or what some would call ‘mother’s intuition.’”
Now that the 69-page document is out, Hyde-Smith said she and the farming community were right to ask questions.
“I remain concerned about this report may be used to set the stage for a new regimen of standards based on fringe theories that could upend the sound farming practices that have made American farmers the most productive in history,” Hyde-Smith said in a statement.
American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said it’s “deeply troubling for the White House to endorse a report that sows seeds of doubt and fear about our food system and farming practices” while also celebrating the role farmers play in producing those crops and raising animals for consumption.
U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chairman John Boozman, R-Arkansas, and U.S.House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pennsylvania, issued a joint statement saying they “share President Trump’s vision for a healthier nation” but are troubled about how the findings could affect farmers and ranchers.
“Without pesticides, farmers will struggle to control invasive insects and plant diseases, particularly those affecting perishable crops like fruits and vegetables,” Agricultural Retailers Association CEO Daren Coppock said in a statement from the organization. “This would result in reduced food availability, diminished quality, increased consumer costs, and heightened food safety risks.”
What’s in the new MAHA commission report?
In a call with reporters on Thursday, Kennedy said the commission will work to come up with more solid policies to recommend over 80 days.
“This report is really … a diagnosis. The prescription comes in 100 days,” he said.
The initial report targets:
- Ultra-processed foods.
- Food dyes.
- Environmental toxins: The broad category includes PFAS, microplastics, electromagnetic radiation from cellphones, fluoride and two herbicides.
- Lack of physical activity.
- Stress.
- “Overmedication.”
“There is enough in the report to cause plenty of worry about how key crop protection tools will be regulated in the future,” Hyde-Smith said.
Which herbicides are included in the report? How safe are they?
The report notes that some crop protection tools, including insecticides, herbicides and pesticides could have negative outcomes.
It specifically said glyphosate studies “have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances.”
And atrazine studies on animals and wildlife, according to the report, found exposure could cause “endocrine disruption and birth defects.”
“Activist organizations and trial lawyers are already engaged in baseless lawfare on pesticides. By bizarrely, without reason singling out two specific pesticides, the administration has offered activists a gift on a silver platter. Those groups will be poised to use the report to advance litigation aimed at taking away these tools American farmers use safely and effectively to produce our food,” Meadows said.
The ASA pointed to the European Union renewing approval for glyphosate for a decade in 2023. The approval came with adjustments, including new maximum application amounts.
According to Reuters reporting, the World Health Organization classified it as probably carcinogenic in 2015. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and some EU agencies say it’s not.
The report notes that a large-scale study of pesticide residue determined that more than 90% of samples from 2009-2017 complied with federal standards. And more than 99% of food samples tested in 2023 were in the EPA acceptable limit ranges.
Federal reviews for the most common herbicide, according to the report, did not show a “direct link” between following use on the label and negative health outcomes.
According to the report, new assessments on common herbicides will be released in 2026.
“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,” the report reads. “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.”
It goes on to say that private research funded by pesticide manufacturers makes up a large amount of available research. It questions whether industry-funded studies have bias in how the studies are designed and whether positive stories are published more often.
It also pointed to corporate lobbying potentially affecting regulation of harmful chemicals.
“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,” the report reads.
Farming groups call MAHA report ‘anti-science drivel’
The ARA statement said the MAHA commission report used “anti-science drivel” to push recommendations that would cause the U.S. to abandon safe farming practices that are already reviewed and based on accurate data.
“The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947, along with its major update through the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, introduced stringent regulations, particularly emphasizing the safety of infants and children. Under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), every pesticide undergoes extensive testing for human and environmental safety, with public and scientific scrutiny at every stage,” the ARA said. It goes on to say the EPE regularly re-evaluates data and adds new information to product labels.
“Pesticides undergo more than a decade of rigorous testing and review before being approved for use by the U.S. EPA. This science-based process considers potential risk to humans, animals, and the environment, and ensures that pesticides can be safely applied when used as directed,” said Dr. Manojit Basu, vice president of science policy and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, a group representing the pesticide industry.
Farmers say MAHA report calls food safety, EPA processes into doubt
“Pesticides are thoroughly studied and highly regulated for safety,” said Alexandra Dunn, president and CEO of CropLife America, in a statement. “While the Make America Healthy Again Report recognizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s robust and science-based decision-making, it unfairly casts doubt on the integrity of the federal review process.”
Duvall said farmers use “sound science” to implement new technology and processes in the field to improve health outcomes for Americans.
“The report spotlights outlier studies and presents unproven theories that feed a false narrative and only then does it acknowledge a mountain of evidence about the safety of our food system,” he said.
Boozman and Thompson said the Congressional agriculture committees will use “rigorous oversight and responsible policy making” to help ensure the safety of America’s food supply.
“It is imperative that we do not stray from the risk-based and scientific processes set forth by Congress. The Commission’s success will center upon course-correcting to prioritize sound science, peer-reviewed research and the buy-in of the agricultural community,” their statement reads.
Duvall said that farmers are listed as “critical partners” but were kept out of the development of the report, despite asking to be included and said the document uses “emotionally charged rhetoric” to undermine confidence in the food system. He hopes to have productive future conversations with the Trump administration.
Contributing: Adrianna Rodriguez
Bonnie Bolden is the Deep South Connect reporter for Mississippi with Gannett/USA Today. Email her at bbolden@gannett.com.
