Mythbusting MAHA’s claims about food and farming

With the establishment of the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, the MAHA movement is taking aim squarely at industrial agriculture. Its leader, and now Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. champions seemingly noble causes like ending childhood chronic disease and promoting health rather than managing disease. But Kennedy's single-minded focus on certain foods, chemicals, and processes is based on thin scientific evidence and overly simplistic assumptions about the relationship between agricultural systems and food-related health outcomes. There is little reason to believe that his proposals to restrict or regulate these food production practices will measurably improve public health or environmental outcomes in the United States. Worse, should Kennedy succeed in implementing his agenda, he risks making America's food supply less healthy and more expensive—undermining the Commission’s own objectives.

Prior to his confirmation, there were hopes that Kennedy’s vision for American agriculture would be less extreme than many of his past statements have suggested and that Secretary Brooke Rollins would provide a counterweight to Kennedy at USDA. But early returns have not been promising. In his first speech at HHS, Kennedy emphasized nothing will be off limits including “glyphosate, other pesticides, ultra-processed foods, artificial food additives." Meanwhile, Rollins has publicly identified herself as a “MAHA mom.”

President Trump’s executive order creating the MAHA Commission promised to “prioritize gold-standard research on the root causes of why Americans are getting sick.” But when it comes to things like agricultural chemicals and seed oils, Kennedy is intent on ignoring evidence that contradicts his claims. This disconnect between MAHA's stated health goals and its narrow focus on certain food production practices is setting MAHA up to fail, diverting resources away from more serious public health threats and making healthy foods less affordable and accessible to the American public.

Hyperfocus on pesticides

Kennedy has long been a vocal critic of industrialized agriculture, consistently alleging that farmers are poisoning Americans. He frequently links chronic diseases to the "intensity of chemical pesticides" used in farming, emphasizing the need to shift away from pesticide use toward regenerative practices. His criticisms are largely focused on the dangers of pesticides, like glyphosate, asserting that their widespread use in farming causes a litany of cancers and other diseases. However, the U.S. continues to approve the use of glyphosate, finding that it is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and that it poses “no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label.” The European Union also continues to approve glyphosate’s use, citing lack of substantial scientific evidence linking it to harmful effects on human health or the environment.

The impacts of pesticide use on human health are heavily debated topics with mixed scientific evidence. Claims that glyphosate is responsible for increasing rates of celiac disease and gluten intolerance are widely disputed. Research linking glyphosate to other potential health issues like DNA damage, inflammation, liver and kidney damage in animals, increased risks of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) in farmers, is also contested. While a 2019 meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies found a compelling link between glyphosate and increased risk for NHL, a recent systematic review and the most recent Agricultural Health Study which used a cohort approach both came to the opposite conclusion.

It’s crucial to assess risks of pesticide overuse in context, considering factors such as dosage, exposure levels, and toxicity. As an example, some epidemiological studies linking glyphosate to health issues use measures of urinary glyphosate concentrations. But urinary measures reflect recent short-term exposure, not cumulative exposure over time, and the presence of glyphosate alone does not mean the chemical is causing disease or other adverse effects. Clear associations between urinary glyphosate levels and health outcomes can be hard to establish due to significant variability in how glyphosate shows up in urine samples thanks to factors like hydration, diet, how long it's been since your last meal, and kidney function. More broadly, epidemiological studies are limited in their ability to establish causality, especially if a study doesn’t account for other confounding factors, like lifestyle or genetics, that can contribute to the onset of certain health conditions.

Conclusions from studies that rely on in vitro models or that use higher exposure levels than those typically encountered by average consumers should also be taken with a grain of salt. For example, the study that found a link between glyphosate exposure and DNA damage arrived at that conclusion after researchers exposed human blood cells in a laboratory setting to concentrations of glyphosate that are more than 80 times greater than EPA's pesticide residue limits for foods like grains, fruits, and vegetables. The study's findings suggest that significant DNA damage or methylation changes occur only at concentrations far higher than what is expected in real world scenarios. More research is needed to fully understand the long-term effects of low-level exposure that real world consumers are likely to be exposed to or ingest via their diets, especially when it comes to chronic or cumulative effects.

For now, EPA’s conclusion, based on the literature and extensive analysis available today, is that glyphosate does not pose a significant risk to consumers at current exposure levels. EPA’s risk-based approach to setting these levels enables farmers and consumers to reap the benefits. Though pesticide use has increased for some crops over the last two decades, there has not been a corresponding increase in overall toxicity, due in part to the shift toward glyphosate as a replacement for older, more toxic products. Further, the quality of agricultural pesticides has improved over time and precision agriculture technologies—like sensors, variable-rate applicators, and GPS-based yield mapping—enable farmers to reduce pesticide application rates without sacrificing yields. Elevated exposures experienced by farmworkers point to greater need for these technologies to be more widely adopted.

While Kennedy’s stance on glyphosate highlights broader concerns about pesticide use in agriculture, it's important to recognize that the alternatives he proposes are no better. Organic and regenerative farming methods may avoid the use of synthetic pesticides like glyphosate but they are not pesticide-free. Organic systems often employ natural pesticides that can still leave residue and in some instances have even higher dose-response toxicity rates than synthetic options. Moreover, organic foods are not proven to be universally safer, healthier, or more environmentally-friendly. Furthermore, it is clear that without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic foods cost more to produce and often cost at least 20% more in grocery stores than non-organic produce. Shifting more of American agriculture to organic production, would increase prices for fruits, vegetables, meats, and other foods conventional nutritional wisdom, and presumably MAHA, would suggest Americans need to eat more of. Higher prices would disproportionately impact lower-income households with already reduced access to affordable fresh produce options.

Regardless, Kennedy has called for a large-scale transition to “regenerative, no-till, and less chemically intensive agriculture.” It is not at all clear that no-till or other regenerative practices would help make food healthier for end consumers. Practices like no-till farming and cover cropping are championed by some for their potential benefits to soil health, including by reducing erosion and enhancing water retention. However, the direct link between soil health and the nutritional profile, or “healthiness”, of crops remains unclear.

While soil quality may influence the overall viability of crops, variations in environmental factors and agricultural techniques make it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about how these factors impact human health. Evidence linking specific soil health factors with a food crop’s macro and micronutrient content is weak. According to a recent report, comparative studies have failed to find consistent links between soil health, management practices, and nutritional quality of food grown in either conventional or organic production systems. The nutritional quality of food is also heavily influenced by food processing, casting further doubt on Kennedy’s attempts to connect agricultural management strategies directly to human health outcomes. Without evidence of conclusive links between soil health and chronic disease trends, it's hard to see how policy decisions pursuant to farming practices would fall within Kennedy’s purview at the helm at HHS to begin with.

For all of these reasons, it's imperative that Kennedy and leaders of USDA and EPA employ a science and data-driven approach to the MAHA Commission’s work. This should include and take into account the importance of pesticides in keeping yields high and food prices low.

Seed oils and ultra-processed foods

While Kennedy’s criticism of agricultural practices and pesticides highlight his delusion that farming techniques are driving human health outcomes, his concerns also extend to food processing and manufacturing methods. He argues seed oils, including soybean and canola, are among the most harmful ingredients in modern foods. Kennedy claims that seed oils contribute to a wide range of health problems, including obesity and chronic inflammation. In a 2024 interview, he stated that seed oils are "heavily subsidized" and pointed to their ubiquity in processed foods as proof they are driving the obesity epidemic. Kennedy has elevated beef tallow as a preferable alternative.

Kennedy’s views on seed oils reflects a broader critique of food processing, with an emphasis on returning to "natural" food sources over industrially refined products. The extraction process for oils like soybean, canola, and sunflower involves mechanical pressing or the use of chemicals, followed by refining steps like bleaching and deodorizing. Critics like Kennedy argue that these processes strip the oils of their nutrients. Proponents of seed oils maintain that modern refining methods are safe and produce oils no more "unnatural" than other widely used cooking oils, such as olive or coconut oil.

The debate about the “health” of seed oils largely revolves around their omega-6 fatty acid content, with Kennedy and his allies asserting that ingesting these compounds causes chronic inflammation. However, research on the health effects of seed oils paints a different picture. A 2012 review of 15 randomized controlled trials found no evidence supporting the claim that omega-6 fatty acids, found in seed oils, contribute to inflammation. In fact, a 2017 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concluded that increased intake of linoleic acid from seed oils did not significantly affect inflammatory markers. Several studies instead suggest that replacing saturated fats with seed oils can offer health benefits. For instance, a recent cohort study from Harvard University found that replacing butter with plant-based oils was associated with lower mortality rates. Additionally, a meta-analysis showed that substituting animal-sourced saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid was linked to a reduced risk of heart disease and death from heart disease. The American Heart Association has also supported replacing saturated fats, like butter, beef tallow, and lard, with omega-6 fats to lower heart disease rates.

Kennedy and the MAHA movement’s focus on seed oils stems, in part, from a broader pushback against “ultra-processed foods.” There is consensus that heavily processed foods that have more salt, sugar, and calories are worse for the consumer—mainly because they are easily over-eaten and can displace consumption of foods with higher nutrient density. But, the term "ultra-processed" has become so expansive and imprecise it has limited usefulness.

The imprecise nature of the term "ultra-processed" undermines its effectiveness as a marker of food quality or whether it can be easily pinned as the culprit responsible for obesity rates. Not to mention it's already proving too vague a category to regulate. While it is true that many processed foods are linked to worse health outcomes due to their higher calorie content and low nutrient density, other processed foods, such as breakfast cereals and yogurt, don't fit this pattern. A major study from the National Institutes of Health found that people eating an ultra-processed diet consumed more daily calories on average. Researchers speculate this is due to the higher energy density of ultra-processed foods. It may therefore be more effective to focus on addressing specific risk factors like nutrient density, sugar, and salt content, rather than focusing on the extent or type of food processing. MAHA’s emphasis on the dangers of ultra-processed foods does nothing more than provide a vague, and therefore expansively overwhelming, directive to consumers.

If not food production techniques, then what?

If the Trump administration launches its MAHA strategy on the back of Kennedy’s misguided pursuit of getting fast food chains to replace vegetable oil with beef tallow and eliminating trace amounts of pesticides in the food supply, it will amount to little more than window dressing. MAHA’s proposed alternatives to modern food production inputs and techniques not only illustrate a complete unwillingness to grapple with the consequences of setting U.S. agriculture back when it comes to on-farm productivity, food security, and food prices. Their proposed alternatives can’t even be called healthier.

Kennedy’s focus on seed oils in particular is largely a distraction from the added sugars, sodium, refined carbohydrates, and saturated fat already dominating the junk food aisle and fast food menus. Americans eat out more than ever, restaurants are increasing portion sizes and calories per meal, healthier foods cost more, and snack food companies’ large marketing budgets are all more prevalent factors contributing to today’s high obesity rates.

The risk of presenting the elimination of pesticides from our farmland or seed oils from our diets as silver bullets to combat a very real chronic disease epidemic is that it will allow this administration to sidestep solutions to combat the real drivers of poor health outcomes plaguing Americans.

Improving public health will require moving past the seed oil debate. Federal agencies like USDA and FDA will need to spearhead and promote solutions that are far less popular than what’s trending on MAHA TikTok. Making Americans feel better by RFK’ing their fries is always going to be more appealing than recommending less fried foods in one’s diet, reducing intake of sodium and added sugars, encouraging more physical activity, grappling with the Trump administration’s trade fiascos, or figuring out how to enhance agricultural productivity.

The MAHA Commission should carefully weigh whether to indulge Kennedy’s personal persuasions over data-based reasoning as they develop their forthcoming assessment and strategy. Favoring the former will doom any chance the Commission has at meaningfully improving health and nutrition outcomes. Sweeping restrictions to our nation’s agricultural inputs and rolling back advances in food processing risks far more in terms of food security than it stands to gain in public health advances.