MAHA Report gives scathing assessment of farm pesticides

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday released the first report from his Make America Healthy Again Commission, delivering on his promise to take a hard line against crop protection products. The agriculture industry responded by saying that the consequences of limiting access to scientifically supported ag products would be “severe” for farmers.

Kennedy’s 68-page document, subtitled Making Our Children Healthy Again, points to environmental chemicals — including pesticides widely used on farms and in residential settings — as potential contributors to chronic disease in children. While the commission insists the report is about promoting public health, critics say it reads more like a politically motivated indictment of modern agriculture.

The report, which coincides with the launch of the MAHA Institute, combines mainstream nutrition and health recommendations with controversial claims that target tools such as glyphosate and atrazine. These herbicides are staples in corn and soybean production and have undergone decades of safety testing and Environmental Protection Agency regulatory review.

Despite its urgent tone and sweeping conclusions, The MAHA Report relies heavily on many outdated or tangential studies to support its claims — particularly those related to agriculture and pesticides. For example, on page 38, it cites a 1982 study on insecticide residues in breast milk, despite the fact that most of the chemicals referenced have been banned or strictly regulated in the more than four decades.

More broadly, the report repeatedly suggests that trace exposures to agricultural chemicals are a driving factor behind rising childhood chronic disease rates, yet it leans on correlative data and decades-old findings while largely ignoring the extensive, ongoing evaluations conducted by the EPA and other public health authorities. For example, nearly all scientific bodies and associated research have affirmed the safety of glyphosate.

Without access to EPA-approved pesticides, it is believed that significant crop losses would threaten the livelihood of family farms and lead to higher grocery prices and fewer healthy food options for families — the very opposite of what the MAHA Commission seeks to achieve.

In response, the National Corn Growers Association issued a sharp rebuke of Kennedy and the report: “The Make America Healthy Again Report is filled with fear-based rather than science-based misinformation about pesticides. … Decades of extensive research and testing show that pesticides, including atrazine and glyphosate, can be applied safely for their intended uses.”

Though the MAHA Commission claims its aim is to prioritize prevention and wellness, it frequently casts doubt on long-established science and existing federal oversight. A key tension lies in the report’s apparent dismissal of evaluations by expert regulatory bodies such as the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture — a move that farm groups say could undermine confidence in the nation’s food supply and threaten rural livelihoods. (Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins was one of the 14 commission members.)

The commission warns of a “cumulative load” of synthetic chemicals in children’s bodies, citing concerns about everything from microplastics to pesticide residues. Yet several of the studies referenced are decades old or come from sources with known litigation ties — including Kennedy’s own past legal work against glyphosate manufacturers, which led to billion-dollar settlements despite inconsistent scientific backing.

“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 states.

Administration insiders have acknowledged concerns over how the report was assembled in just over 90 days, with some officials privately warning that it may alienate farmers — a crucial voting bloc for former President Trump. Rollins has downplayed the anti-agriculture framing and emphasized upcoming updates to the Dietary Guidelines as a more constructive outlet for health policy.

“This is not, in any way, an attack on the American farmers or industry,” National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya, a member of the commission, told Axios today. “What this is is a commitment to get excellent answers, excellent science, so that we can enable people to do the right thing.”

Yet a slew of statements from agriculture groups counters Bhattacharya naivete on the matter. 

“Crop protection tools that have been registered through EPA, have gone through the most rigorous, scientifically based, and health-protective process in the world,” said Roger Isom, president and CEO of the California Cotton Ginners & Growers Association. “They have been analyzed to ensure there are no impacts to humans, workers, plants, animals, air quality, and groundwater. Application rates have been limited and buffer zones implemented to ensure the safest application possible, and where safety concerns could not be met, those chemicals are not registered for use in the United States. American agriculture already has far less tools than the rest of the world, and we can not afford to lose any more and still produce the world’s best food and fiber.”

“We cannot Make America Healthy Again by putting Montana farmers out of business,” the Montana Agricultural Business Association added. “The MAHA Commission Report casts doubt on critical crop protection tools that our producers have relied upon for decades, and that have consistently been proven safe. America cannot fall victim to the kinds of junk science that have disrupted agriculture and food security in other countries.”

“If the MAHA Commission’s report drives future policy decisions that do end up restricting farmers’ access to these critical tools, the consequences for American agriculture would be severe,” the Modern Ag Alliance said.

The report makes sweeping claims and appears to lack nuance, which feeds into the arguments that the document is more about political posturing than sound science. It links ultra-processed food and chemical exposure to obesity, behavioral disorders, autoimmune disease, and even cancer — while questioning the integrity of scientific research backed by food and chemical companies.

Not all responses to the report were critical. Farm Action, an anti-GMO group known for advocating that federal farm programs should be geared toward specialty crops, praised the commission.

“This report represents our hopes being met when we endorsed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services Secretary, because we felt he could have great influence on reforming our food and agriculture system to the benefit of farmers and everyone else,” wrote Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action. “From taking a critical look at the dangerous impacts of food system consolidation to examining the ways farmers are being squeezed, the report rightly points out how federal and state policy has often been guided more by corporate profit than the public interest. It also highlights the way that government programs like crop insurance and subsidies prioritize commodity crops and neglect producers of nutritious foods.”

The report also continues Kennedy’s pattern of vaccine skepticism, casting doubt on the current childhood vaccine schedule and calling for more rigorous trials, despite widespread evidence of their safety.

It presents research into chemical exposure and chronic disease as more than a public health concern — it casts it as a strategic advantage for the United States. Kennedy argues that understanding the potential links between chemical exposure and chronic illness “cannot happen through a European regulatory system that stifles growth,” but must instead be driven by federally led science and “through unleashing private sector innovation.”

Kennedy, a longtime critic of GMOs and pesticides, defended the report by saying, “We want excellent answers, excellent science,” yet farm leaders say the document lacks precisely that. Instead, they warn that it could sow mistrust in proven agricultural tools and threaten crop productivity at a time when American farmers are already facing economic uncertainty and global competition.

The MAHA Commission now has roughly 80 days to produce a follow-up strategy — a move that farm and food organizations will be watching closely.

“We call on the administration to respect the existing body of science on pesticides,” NCGA said, “and to include America’s farmers in discussion as this process evolves.”