by Lainey Stenberg
The White House published the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Assessment on May 22. This special report investigating the health of American children raised many concerns from leaders in the agriculture industry.
Beginning in the election season, the MAHA movement shed a negative light on many aspects of the American food and agriculture industry including crop protection tools, food additives, ultra-processed foods, and sugars. While this movement brought attention to important issues including childhood obesity, the growing mental health crisis, and overall poor diets and physical activity, many in agriculture say the report does not reflect a science-based approach to agriculture.
Key members of the MAHA Commission included the U.S. Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other key government officials including advisors, directors, and commissioners.
The United States has a proud legacy in agriculture, which was highlighted in the MAHA report by stating, “Farmers are the backbone of America – and the most innovative and productive in the world.” The report continues by pointing to whole foods produced by farmers and ranchers as a solution to the growing health problems. Many benefits of whole foods such as beef, leafy greens, dairy, salmon nuts and legumes are cited. For decades research showing healthy diets include more whole foods and smaller portions of more calorically dense foods has been widely accepted.
As expected, the MAHA report cast a negative shadow over seed oils and sugar in the Ultra-Processed Foods sections. However, the report fails to introduce moderation and consumer choice as solutions.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are addressed as a cause of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancers, and mental illness. The definition provided for UPFs is “industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt and food substances of no or rare culinary use.” This can include “less healthy” foods such as sodas, ice cream, and chips, or it could define some foods we consider “healthier” such as granola bars, yogurts, cold-cut lunch meats, and infant formulas. Healthy foods produced around the world require thickeners, emulsifiers, binders, or preservatives which can label food as ultra-processed. Some food additives increase shelf life, while others improve taste or texture. Consumer preferences often drive the addition of food additives such as dyes for visual appeal.
Food additives including emulsifiers, binders, sweeteners, colorings and preservatives are listed as being linked to increased mental disorders, ADHD, cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndromes, and carcinogenic effects. While a few examples such as artificial sweeteners and red 40 include research with possible negative associations, this should not be interpreted as all food additives are linked to the previously listed health concerns.
The MAHA report cites a New York Times article referencing American parents turning to European formulas due to concerns over food additives. This may be a trend but is not researched or indicative of the safety and quality of U.S.-produced infant formulas.
Furthermore, the report identifies a “possible association” between food dyes and autism. Upon investigation, the source referenced concluded that food coloring does not cause autism and stated that ADHD and autism are complex conditions to which many nutritional and environmental factors can contribute.
Commonly used pesticides atrazine, clorpyrifos and ghlyphosate are called out. While the report draws connections to exposure of these chemicals and adverse health effects in children, the authors later admit a “limited review.” Another study referenced in the MAHA report claims breastmilk samples in the United States and Canada contain insecticides. The publication is from the 1980s, and more recent literature reviews discredit the sampling methodology used. These startling conclusions lack scientific grounding, which sparks further frustration in the agriculture industry.
Early responses from agriculture industry leaders include shared sentiments of disapproval of the report. The American Seed Trade Association shared the following statement, “The U.S. agricultural community does not deserve the aspersions of the MAHA Commission Report, calling into question, with limited scientific evidence, the history of safe crop protection use in fields, and history of safe use in our food supply.”
Likewise, the National Corn Growers Association released a statement saying, “The Make America Healthy Again Report is filled with fear-based rather than science-based information about pesticides.”
American Farm Bureau President, Zippy Duvall called into question the integrity of the report by saying “The American people were promised transparency yet presented with a report developed in secret.”
The MAHA report concludes with next steps such as the use of AI for early detection of exposure and chronic illness, replication of industry-funded studies through the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alternative testing models, and precision toxicology. The MAHA Commission will produce a strategy to accompany this report by August 2025. Critics within the agriculture sector will continue to express their discontent with the MAHA report and advocate for a science-based approach in the upcoming strategy.
###
Lainey (Wolf) Stenberg is an accomplished grant and project management, compliance, regulatory, government and international affairs professional. Before joining Petra Global Affairs LLC, she managed multi-million dollar federal grant and cooperator programs focused on agriculture, conservation, and international marketing from the proposal to audit and closeout phases at the American Seed Trade Association and Field to Market.
Stenberg holds a M.S. in Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication and a B.S. in Animal Science from Texas A&M University as well as a Certificate in Nonprofit Management from the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. She lives in Montana, where she and her husband run a cow-calf operation on the family ranch. She serves on the Sweet Grass County Farm Bureau board and is a member of the Crazy Peak Cattle Women.
