30
May
MAHA Commission Report Raises Health Concerns with Pesticides, Draws Industry Criticism—What’s Next?
(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2025) The Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report, Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment, published on May 23, drew criticism from the pesticide industry and agribusiness allies for pointing to independent science that identifies a range of pesticide-induced health hazards.* The Commission, chaired by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is composed of the heads of numerous agencies of the federal government and the White House, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller.
The MAHA Commission was established by Executive Order 14212 on February 13, 2025. Despite extensive citations to the science on pesticide hazards, the report includes a section on “Crop Protection Tools,” in which there is a repetition of chemical industry talking points that pesticide residues in food comply with existing tolerances, thus implying that pesticides in food are safe. (See USDA Pesticide Data Program Continues to Mislead the Public on Pesticide Residue Exposure.) However, overall the report’s introduction sets a tone that seeks to catalogue what is identified as the “stark reality of American children’s declining health, backed by compelling data and long-term trends” and sets as a goal proposed efforts that “begin reversing the childhood chronic disease crisis by confronting its root causes – not just its symptoms.” Whether these are just words in a document or will result in changes in policies and practices that are transformational remains to be seen in the administration’s follow-up efforts.
In a section entitled “Corporate Capture and the Revolving Door,” the report notes the influence of the chemical industry over government policy, stating, “The chemical-manufacturing industry spent roughly $77 million on federal lobbying activities in 2024, while 60% of their lobbyists previously held federal posts.” This is a longstanding criticism, having characterized the first and second Trump administrations. The report is notable for what it has ignored, such as the disproportionate adverse effects that the children of farmworkers, frontline communities, and people of color suffer as a result of pesticide exposure. The report’s emphasis on the need to close research gaps, suggesting complementing animal test data with computational biology and other New Approach Methodologies [NAMs], will require critical analysis and meaningful public vetting.
MAHA Commission and Executive Order
The goals of the MAHA Commission are threefold:
- “… study the scope of the childhood chronic disease crisis and any potential contributing causes, including the American diet, absorption of toxic material, medical treatments, lifestyle, environmental factors, Government policies, food production techniques, electromagnetic radiation, and corporate influence or cronyism;
- advise and assist the President on informing the American people regarding the childhood chronic disease crisis, using transparent and clear facts; and
- provide to the President Government-wide recommendations on policy and strategy related to addressing the identified contributing causes of and ending the childhood chronic disease crisis.”
Pesticides & Chemical Mixtures
The second section of the report, “The Cumulative Load of Chemicals in our Environment”, attempts to bridge together the numerous exposure pathways that children face in terms of the variety of chemicals that may lead to adverse health effects in the short- and long-term. For example, the confluence of chemicals recognized in this section, in the context of the existing regulatory systems across the globe, “may be neglecting potential synergistic effects and cumulative burdens, thereby missing opportunities to translate cumulative risk assessment into the clinical environment in meaningful ways.”
Substances of concern mentioned include:
- heavy metals;
- air pollutants (including greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, among others);
- pesticides;
- endocrine-disrupting chemicals;
- waterborne contaminants (including PFAS);
- industrial residues;
- persistent organic pollutants (POPs); and
- physical agents (including microplastics)
While it is notable that glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and atrazine were specifically cited as examples, these individual pesticides are representative of the systemic regulatory problem pointed out in many parts of the report, given the toxic soup of chemicals permitted for use or regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MAHA Report cites EPA’s America’s Children and the Environment (ACE) database as a means of “track[ing] chronic childhood disease in children (e.g., asthma, ADHD, autism, childhood cancers, and obesity) and summarizes trends over time for specific environmental exposures (e.g., air pollutants, drinking water contaminants, and chemicals in food)[;]” with “[m]any ACE indicators show[ing] improvements overtime.” Despite these improvements over the past 30 years since ACE was established under the Clinton Administration, “childhood health has largely worsened[.]”
As covered in previous Daily News (see here and here), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary report from previous years continues to mislead the public on the safety of food and agricultural practices in the context of demonstrating potential indicators for the ongoing chronic illness crisis in this country. The reports in recent years have consistently concluded that more than 99% of the produce samples tested showed residues below established EPA benchmark levels. As pointed out by Beyond Pesticides, when USDA uses the report to emphasize the safety of pesticide-laden food, the tolerance setting process has been criticized as highly deficient because of a lack of adequate risk assessments for vulnerable subpopulations, including farmworkers, people with compromised health or preexisting health conditions, children, and a failure to fully assess serious health outcomes such as disruption of the endocrine system (which contributes to numerous serious diseases).
For more information, peer-reviewed literature, and analysis on chemical mixtures, see here.
Artificial Intelligence: Accelerating Runaway Chemical Approvals
In some parts, the MAHA Commission report mirrors efforts in Congress to promote the use of unproven technologies such as artificial intelligence, which may lead to the mass greenlighting of an increased number of toxic chemicals, rather than addressing the health and ecological risks of the tens of thousands currently poisoning people and the planet.
The week before the release of the MAHA report, the House Science, Space and Technology Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on the use of artificial intelligence in accelerating the development and “acceleration” of new approvals of agrichemicals into the market. “New AI models also allow us to accelerate discovery of new classes of crop protection products, like biologicals—nature-based solutions that help farmers grow more food by working alongside traditional crop protection products,” says Brian Lutz, vice president of agricultural solutions, Corteva Agriscience LLC (formerly Dow Chemical) in the hearing.
A 2025 report, published by Save Our Seeds Foundation, signals a handful of emerging concerns that may lead to vulnerabilities in a highly criticized regulatory system, including data hallucinations, data distortions, the black box effect, and opening the door for “DIY biologists” to develop genetically engineered biomaterial that outpaces the ability for government agencies and watchdogs to properly assess ecological and public health risks. This is akin to placing the cart before the horse, and assuming that there is a dependable steed to steer the cart in the first place.
“Large seed companies such as Corteva, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta are increasingly using AI tools in their genetic engineering programmes,” according to the authors in this report on agrichemical corporations’ infiltration into the space. They continue: “To complement their in-house AI expertise, these companies are also partnering with specialised firms. For instance, BASF and Corteva have initiated collaborations with Tropic Biosciences, which owns proprietary AI technology. Syngenta has teamed up with Instadeep and Biographica, while Bayer is supporting startups Ukko and Amfora, both of which combine AI and CRISPR technologies to develop new plant varieties.” (See Daily News here for further analysis.)
The application of artificial intelligence was also identified by EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) “to help clear backlogs in TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] new chemical approvals” and proposed that “organizational improvements provide better tools and capabilities to allow OCSPP to use computational and bioinformatic tools—and eventually artificial intelligence—to streamline and improve the review of chemicals and pesticides.”
See InsideEPA for further information on OCSPP developments, as well as commentary by Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA) and Coming Clean Network, assessing why AI is a false solution.
New Approach Methodologies
Similar to the proposed application of AI for the chemical regulatory system, New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are introduced as a next step to “supporting gold-standard scientific research and developing a comprehensive strategy,” rather than a continuation of false solutions that may inevitably disrupt public health if not properly grounded in science.
Rather than updating methodology for rodent developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) to enhance their reliability for scientific analysis, EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is moving toward regular use of NAMs, akin to in vitro assays and in silico models. According to many scientists, this approach will likely result in less protective risk assessments for some pesticides. These methods are favored for their cost-effectiveness, quicker results, and reduced animal use; on the other hand, scientists warn that vivo DNT studies currently have no equivalent substitutes. Public health professionals and regulatory scientists argue that this new methodology may impose drastic consequences. (See relevant Daily News here and here.)
Using NAMs, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently reviewed in vitro DNT tests and highlighted significant gaps in assessing neurodevelopmental processes, such as neuroectoderm formation, peripheral nervous system processes, and astrocyte maturation, among others. Similarly, the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC) concludes that existing NAMs do not adequately assess cognitive and neurobehavioral outcomes, or learning and memory.
For further analysis on New Approach Methodologies, see this in-depth article produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council—EPA Must Rely on Proven Science: Misuse of New Approach Methodologies (NAMS) Will Harm Workers, Communities, and Ecosystems.
Organic on the Sidelines
Given the GOP’s historical allegiance to commodity crops (corn, wheat, and soybeans) and their trade associations, it is notable that the report questions existing incentive structures for crop insurance:
“Historically, federal crop insurance programs have primarily covered traditional field crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans, while providing much less support for specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery plants,” says the report. It continues, “While specialty crop coverage has been expanding, it still only accounted for 17% of the entire federal crop insurance portfolio by liability during crop year 2017, and subsidies for fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and support for organic foods account for a mere 0.1% of the 2018 Farm Bill.”
While organic food is mentioned in the report in the context of national dietary guidelines in France, it remains to be seen whether the Commission will recommend a meaningful expansion of funding and setting of targets to increase domestic production of organic agriculture.
There are numerous associated benefits for children who consume organic food, as outlined in various peer-reviewed studies. Maintaining a consistent organic diet has reduced toxic pesticide residues in the bodies of U.S. children and adults, based on several studies published in 2019 in Environmental Health, and in two 2015 studies published in Environmental Health Perspectives and by the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health. A particularly noteworthy study published in 2014 in Environmental Research found that organophosphate pesticide metabolites in the urine of adults were reduced after just a week-long organic diet. A 2019 study published in Environmental Health, led by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, found that organic food consumption among children is directly associated with higher test scores, after measuring fluid intelligence and working memory. Conversely, lower scores on fluid intelligence tests were associated with, among other factors, children’s ultra-processed fast food intake.
The transition to organic food in school cafeterias is not a new topic or policy concern, but a demonstrated alternative to the unhealthy status quo. In a 2004 article published in Pesticides and You, School Lunches Go Organic: Science supports growing movement, numerous examples across the nation demonstrate a pathway forward for broader adoption of organic mandates.
“Stonyfield Farm has sponsored organic programs at schools in Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Connecticut,” according to the article. Additionally, the authors wrote, “An organic salad bar started at Lincoln Elementary School in Olympia, Washington, has proven so popular and economically feasible, all grade schools in Olympia now have one. California school districts in Berkeley, Santa Monica, and Palo Alto also have organic food programs. In 2004, the Seattle school district adopted H61.01, Breakfast and Lunch Program Procedure, a policy banning junk food and encouraging organic food in school cafeterias.”
See here to learn more about one of the latest efforts in the previous Congress to pass federal legislation to transition the National School Breakfast and Lunch programs to procure organic food for participating schools across the nation.
Call to Action
“Making America Healthy Again” is contingent on supporting local food systems and making more accessible nutritious, toxic-free food, particularly for the working class, farmworkers, their children, and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities—and their children. This report emerges after USDA canceled the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program. (See Daily News here.) Contact your U.S. Representative and Senator here to ensure that funding for these programs is made permanent in the next Farm Bill.
Given this report’s stated mention of chlorpyrifos, as well as the recent developments that this pesticide will be listed as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) by the United Nations (see Daily News here), it would be incumbent for the MAHA Commission to recommend to the Trump Administration that the United States join the international community in ratifying the Stockholm Convention to ensure that POPs do not continue to persist without proper regulation.
Public health advocates also believe that MAHA should emphasize the importance of local authority and the democratic right of communities to take stronger action on chemical exposure and regulations, particularly in an era of federal deregulation and attacks on the court system, including stripping away the ability for pesticide injury victims to leverage “failure-to-warn” claims. See the Failure-to-Warn resource hub and the associated actions to learn more. It remains to be seen whether the Commission will signal its opposition to the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (ALUA), which strips states and localities of their authority to allow more restrictive pesticide standards compared to federal policy and regulations. It has been reported that 365 groups, including some that have attacked the MAHA Commission report, recently sent a letter to Congress urging passage of ALUA.
TAKE ACTION—Despite the evidence showing that the current approach to regulating pesticides and other chemicals fails to protect children’s health, the report fails to take the next step—of promoting organic production and land care. Although the registration of pesticides is under the purview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can promote organic practices and protect children’s health from pesticides through the setting of pesticide tolerances on food, or allowable levels of residues. >> Tell HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to revise the memorandum of agreement with EPA on pesticide residues in food and set protective levels.
*Recent coverage by New York Times, originally reported by NOTUS, has brought into question the reliability of certain scientific studies cited in the MAHA report over allegations of artificial intelligence use and the generation of fake citations. We urge readers to reference Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) for the independent, peer-reviewed scientific research for references on most of the health effects of pesticides cited in the MAHA Commission report.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again (Assessment)
