The much-anticipated Make American Healthy Again report assessing key drivers of childhood disease across the U.S. was released Thursday, and it places at least some of the blame on farmers’ use of labeled, approved crop protection products.

The Department of Health and Human Services touted the 68-page report generated by a presidential commission as “exposing a range of contributing factors” in childhood chronic disease, including poor diet, accumulation of “environmental toxins, inadequate physical activity, chronic stress and over-medicalization.” 

The report specifically called out the presence of glyphosate, chlorpyrifos and atrazine in food, water and dust, along with household products, for contributing to childhood health issues.  MAHA says the assessment, “arms stakeholders and partners and partners with clear evidence that will support the development of effective policy interventions where they can deliver the greatest impact.

“We will end the childhood chronic disease crisis by attacking its root causes head-on — not just managing its symptoms,” said U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a statement Thursday as the report was released. “We will follow the truth wherever it leads, uphold rigorous science, and drive bold policies that put the health, development, and future of every child first.”

The MAHA commission has 82 days to produce the Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy based on the findings. 

‘Heart of the Solution’

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, who has vowed in her first few months in office to be a voice for farmers, said Thursday that more must be done to improve the health outcomes of children and families, “and President Trump knows agriculture is at the heart of the solution.” She indicated she would continue to work with Kennedy and MAHA Commission members on improving the nation’s health.

“America’s farmers and ranchers dedicate their lives to the noble cause of feeding their country and the world, and in doing so have created the safest and most abundant and affordable food supply in the world,” Rollins said. “We are working to make sure our kids and families are consuming the healthiest food we produce.”

In public testimony recently, Kennedy said MAHA wants to work with farmers, and the effort to improve health outcomes won’t work without their cooperation. But the inference of pesticides being responsible for at least some health problems in children is hard to ignore in the report. 

One section of MAHA’s report addressed farmers specifically, referring to “crop protection tools” such as pesticides, herbicides and insecticides. More than 8 billion pounds of pesticides are used each year in food systems around the world, with the U.S accounting for roughly 11%, or more than 1 billion pounds.

The report says 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.” A “selection” of research studies on glyphosate have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances, according to the report.

Common exposures to these chemicals include farming, and pesticide residues. But MAHA’s report also notes a large-scale FDA study of pesticide residues from 2009 to 2017 found greater than 90% of samples were compliant with federal standards. 

More recent data from the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program found that 99% of food samples tested in 2023 were compliant with EPA’s safety limit. MAHA says federal government reviews of epidemiologic data for the most common herbicide did not establish a direct link between use according to label directions and adverse health outcomes, and an updated U.S. government health assessment on common herbicides is expected in 2026.

MAHA’s own report appears to acknowledge what impact the sudden curtailment of crop protection products would have on agriculture. 

“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 says. 

“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.”

Host of Challenges

The Modern Ag Alliance was critical of the report Thursday, saying there is “clear science” behind the safety and benefits, and that the report leans on “previously discredited studies and reports. 

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, Executive Director of MAA, says the report raises the possibility that the federal government could take a position to restrict farmers' access to essential inputs, which would, “undermine existing science-based frameworks, and ultimately jeopardize the affordability and security of America's food supply.”

MAA asserts that if glyphosate was lost, crop yields would decline, input costs would surge by 150%, and food inflation would more than double.

"Farmers are already facing a host of challenges—uncertainty about their access to critical crop protection products shouldn't be added to the list,” she says. “Crop protection tools are not only safe, they are essential to food security, affordability and the survival of family farms all across this country.”

“We’ve already seen the disastrous effects of policies like those that have been contemplated by certain leaders of the MAHA Commission,” said Burns-Thompson. “When Sri Lanka prohibited the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in 2021, crop yields fell by over 50%, forcing the government to import massive amounts of food just to meet basic needs. We should be focused on moving American agriculture — and the country — forward."

Making America Hungry Again? 

For no-tillers, glyphosate is a widely used tool for controlling weeds and also burning down cover crops efficiently and effectively so they work within farm systems. Many no-tillers and farmers in general are concerned how a ban or reduction in access to crop protection tools could hurt conservation efforts. 

“For wheat farmers like myself crop protection tools are not optional. They are essential,” says Chris Tanner, president of the Kansas Assn. of Wheat Growers. “They enable us to implement conservation-friendly practices, including no-till farming, which would be impossible without them.

“Through their responsible use, we maintain consistent production despite challenging weather conditions, while keeping food prices affordable for American consumers and supporting the economic viability of farms like mine and the rural communities that depend on agriculture.”

“Without access to these products, the combination of insects, pests, weeds, and diseases would decimate not only canola production, but all other commodity and specialty crops,” says Braidy Haden, President of the Pacific Northwest Canola Assn. 

Ahead of the report’s release, two veteran no-tillers expressed skepticism about the report’s anticipated conclusions and potential policy changes that would be unfriendly to agriculture and conservation as well.

5 Decades of Use

Blake Hurst, whose family has no-tiled corn and soybeans in northwestern Missouri for decades, says farmers lose about 40% their crop due to weeds and diseases and that figure would double without the help of crop protection chemicals.

“Glyphosate has been around for almost 50 years and there’s a reason why we still use it,” Hurst said in a podcast hosted by MAA Wednesday. “As a corn and soybean farm, I use it to control weeds, keep my yields up and my costs down. Without it, I'd be stuck using alternatives that don't work as well and might not be as safe.”

Scott Henry, a fourth-generation corn and soybean farmer from central Iowa, runs Longview Farms alongside his parents and brother, and they’re also concerned about potentially losing crop protection products. They’re already fighting low commodity prices, high input costs and interest rates and trade uncertainty, and could lose their ability to efficiently burn down winter annual and spring-season weeds

“Glyphosate makes it possible to cut out three or four tillage passes and save a tremendous amount of diesel, a tremendous amount of carbon emitted in the atmosphere and, most importantly, millions and millions of tons of soil. So it's a big deal. It truly is a big deal,” Henry says. 

Click here for more Industry News.