BLOOMINGTON, Ill. - Reaction from the farm world was swift and often severe regarding a White House report issued by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission that seeks broad changes in how food is produced in the United States. The MAHA regulations, spearheaded by Department of Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy, denigrates the safety of key pesticides used by corn growers and other agricultural producers.

“It is deeply troubling for the White House to endorse a report that sows seeds of doubt and fear about our food system and farming practices, then attempts to celebrate farmers and the critical role they play in producing the safest food supply in the world,” stated Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), who also questioned the “science” behind the report’s recommendations in a May 29 statement.

“Farmers are identified as ‘critical partners,’ yet were excluded from development of the report, despite many requests for a seat at the table. The report also expresses a desire to ensure farmers continue to thrive, but undermining confidence in our food system directly contradicts that noble goal. 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,” said Duvall.

Also on May 29, Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) Director of Conservation and Nutrient Stewardship Megan Dwyer discussed Kennedy’s MAHA recommendations during an interview with Farm World.

“This report is supposed to be providing guidance and in the next several weeks we are expecting to see more action coming out of this report,” said Dwyer, who last year was named to a special agricultural advisory panel to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and recently testified before the Senate Ag Committee. “The report broke things down into four categories around impacts to human health, specifically to children’s health: poor diet, environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity and overmedication.

“We were very interested, of course, in what they had to say about environmental chemicals. From our perspective there were a couple of things that really stood out, and we are seeing others emerge every day.”

Like Duvall and the AFBF, Dwyer and the ICGA, which issued a separate statement decrying the contents of the MAHA report, take issue with the Trump administration and RFK for claiming the report’s recommendations are based on proven science.

“RFK touted this as being really solid science, the gold standard of science, with 500 studies going into the report. As we’re finding out what’s in the report, it’s been disheartening because we in agriculture really want to rely on and believe in sound science. Some of the citations in this document don’t exist, are inaccurate or taken out of context from what the study was all about.

“The overarching concern is that the report is going to lead to more undue, unnecessary concern and fear about our food source and how our farmers are growing food. This is probably our number-one issue with what we’ve been reading,” she said.

Also like Duvall, Dwyer found it to be ironic how the report extolled farmers as “the backbone of America” and “the most innovative and productive in the world” while also suggesting the disassembly of a key aspect of their food production system.

“The report calls into question some of our crop protection products and practices, but there are few positives that we can’t completely negate, either,” she continued. “They talk about looking at what has been tested for residue levels on food, and do note that testing shows that our products are safe when used in accordance with (product) label directions. Overall, though, this report really missed the mark on using high-quality science and showing the entire picture of how agricultural producers are being innovative and using technology to be precise and efficient.”

On May 28, the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) issued a new report, “MAHA Efforts on Pesticides Could Cost Farmers,” which spoke to the economic impact of widely used crop protection technologies like atrazine and glyphosate. Farmers would face at least a 60 percent increase in cost if they were to switch from glyphosate and atrazine to alternative herbicides, according to the report. Another analysis looking at the potential short-term economic impact of losing glyphosate in North Carolina estimated a 73 percent increase in costs for corn.

“Without access to effective and affordable herbicides, farmers could turn to other options to control weeds, though all present difficult trade-offs,” states the report, which was authored by Krista Swanson, NCGA chief economist and an Illinois farmer. “Given current labor wage rates and challenges in finding farm labor, manual control is likely too costly and inaccessible to be realistic on most corn acres.”

Swanson noted that despite claims that growers could pivot to tillage as an alternative to crop protection, such a move would lead to greater soil erosion and compaction, contrary to sustainable farm practices favoring less tillage. Additionally, it could take up to three or four tillage passes per acre to effectively control weeds, costing about $15 to $30 per acre, per pass, and require increased use of fuel, according to the report, which can be accessed at https://ncga.com/stay-informed/media/in-the-news/article/2025/05/new-report-maha-efforts-on-pesticides-could-cost-farmers.