The release of “The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again” on May 22 wasn’t popular with the American Soybean Association (ASA). In a press release issued that same day, “Soybean Farmers Decry Unscientific MAHA Commission Report That Ironically Will Make Americans Less Healthy,” ASA calls the report “brazenly unscientific and damaging to consumer confidence in America’s safe, reliable food system.”
Most of ASA’s concern is directed toward two conclusions of the MAHA Report. One is the report’s inclusion of “crop protection tools” (pesticides) in a long list of environmental chemicals that can negatively affect children’s health. Pesticides are last on the list, behind PFAS, microplastics, fluoride, electromagnetic radiation, phthalates and bisphenols.
ASA also objects to MAHA’s targeting of ultra-processed foods. Under the general heading of “nutrient depletion,” the MAHA report lists ultra-processed grains, ultra-processed sugars and ultra-processed fats. Included in the category of “ultra-processed fats” are “refined seed oils, such as soybean, corn, safflower, sunflower, cottonseed, and canola.”
Given how little emphasis the report puts on soybeans or even on pesticides, ASA’s reaction seems excessively strong. “Both farmers and members of Congress tried to warn the administration that activist groups were trying to hijack the MAHA Commission to advance their longstanding goal of harming U.S. farmers,” ASA claims. “Reading this report, it appears that is exactly what has happened.”
Maybe activist groups did “hijack the MAHA Commission” — but not the anti-pesticide lobby that ASA is worried about. The report uses the term “crop protection tools” to refer to pesticides, it assures readers that MAHA won’t recommend restricting the use of these “tools,” and it does not even recommend that children consume organic foods to decrease their exposure to chemicals, despite strong scientific evidence that organic foods contain lower levels of pesticides.
“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 MAHA Report states. “Precipitous changes in agricultural practices could have an adverse impact on American agriculture and the domestic and global food supply.”
That paragraph could have been written by ASA itself. All things considered, this angry press release seems like a smokescreen concealing the fact that, as far as the soybean industry is concerned, the MAHA Report mostly means business as usual.
The conclusion for eco-ag advocates may actually be the opposite of what ASA would like us to believe — pro-pesticide ideas still seem to be at work in the MAHA Commission. It may not be possible for any federal commission to escape the agrochemical lobby, despite good intentions.
