By Todd Neeley, DTN Environmental Editor, and Chris Clayton, DTN Ag Policy Editor

OMAHA (DTN) -- A pending release of a report from the Make America Healthy Again Commission that is rumored to call for an end to the use of pesticides, including glyphosate-based Roundup, has the agriculture world reeling with concern.

Agriculture groups and some members of Congress are raising concerns about what the commission's report, which is set for release on May 22, will mean for pesticides and other ag inputs. But Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before a Senate committee on Tuesday that farmers should not be concerned.

Kennedy was on Capitol Hill testifying about the HHS budget before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told Kennedy she was "deeply concerned" that the MAHA commission's report "may unfairly target American agriculture, modern farming practice and crop protection tools that roughly 2% of our population relies on to feed the remaining 98%."

On glyphosate, for instance, Hyde-Smith told Kennedy that the herbicide "is one of the most thoroughly studied products of its kind." She pointed to 1,500 studies and decades of research. Hyde-Smith suggested there is no way a report drafted in 90 days could refute thousands of studies validating the safety of glyphosate.

Kennedy rejected what Hyde-Smith had read about the MAHA report. "Your information about this report is just simply wrong," he said.

While saying earlier in the hearing that, "We are the sickest country in the world," Kennedy added that farmers are critical to helping make Americans healthier going forward.

"The MAHA movement collapses if we can't partner with the American farmer in producing a safe, abundant food supply," he said.

Kennedy also noted that 1 million farmers rely on glyphosate, including nearly all corn production and that, "We are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model."

HEALTH OUTCOMES

Asked about his concerns over health outcomes, Kennedy said there are unanswered questions about farming practices when it comes to the effect on food products, saying the microbiome in the soil is being damaged, which should be researched, "and how chemicals we are using in agriculture are sickening farmers in many cases and potentially are destroying the microbiome and creating a situation where soil is running off, and most agronomists believe we only have 60 harvests left."

Hyde-Smith questioned what she said are "hidden agendas" in the report that would suggest crop protection tools are unsafe despite undergoing EPA's pesticide approval process "which is widely considered to have the most rigorous standards in the world," she said.

Human health comes first and is a priority, Hyde-Smith said, but she added, "A vital component of human health relies on access to a safe, affordable and abundant food supply. If Americans lose confidence in the safety and integrity of our food supply due to unfounded claims that mislead consumer, public health will be at risk."

When you consider glyphosate is one of the most widely used tools to combat weeds on American farms, the potential call for banning the chemical could strike directly at the livelihood of the large Trump-voting block that is U.S. farmers.

According to USDA, herbicide-tolerant soybean acreage in the U.S. reached its highest adoption at 96% in 2024. About 90% of corn acres were planted using herbicide-tolerant varieties last year, while about 93% of cotton acres in 2024 were tolerant to glyphosate and other herbicides.

AG GROUPS SPEAK OUT

Also, ahead of the release of the report, earlier this week, the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers and the International Fresh Produce Association put out a joint statement outlining the concerns about the report.

The groups and the farmers they represent said they "are imploring the administration to consider the consequences" of the report before it is finalized.

"American agriculture's strong relationship with President (Donald) Trump is based on his longstanding commitment to farmers, growers and ranchers," the groups said.

"Despite the effort of many of our organizations to work with the MAHA Commission to provide factual information about American food production, we have heard disturbing accounts that the commission report may suggest U.S. farmers are harming Americans through their production practices and 'creating foods that is destroying our microbiome and bodies -- leading directly to our chronic disease crisis.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Nutrition matters, health matters and the confidence of consumers in the food supply matters tremendously. Such a conclusion would run counter to the scientific evidence and decades of findings from the Environmental Protection Agency."

BASELESS ATTACKS

The groups said if the commission chooses to "baselessly attack and, worse yet, make claims that are simply untrue against the hardworking men and women who feed our nation, it will make further cooperation on this initiative very difficult and potentially put American food production at risk."

The groups urged the president to "ensure that the MAHA commission report is based on sound science and evidence-based claims rather than opinions and preferences of social influencers and single-issue activists with little to no experience in actual farming or food production."

The groups that represent hundreds of thousands of farmers across the country said their "livelihoods are at stake if the report turns to conjecture and opinion to form its content."

Whether the MAHA report will be the basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to place more restrictions on the use of herbicides and insecticides currently is unknown.

When asked by DTN about its role in the MAHA movement, an EPA spokesperson responded: "The Trump administration is working to solve big problems and having robust conversations across government about how to drive economic growth while protecting human health and the environment as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission."

EPA's pesticide registration review process is legally required every 15 years to ensure that each pesticide can carry out its intended function without creating unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment.

EPA evaluates information from many sources, including pesticide companies, other governments, academia and published scientific literature.

EPA scientists and analysts perform a review of data to determine whether to register, or license, a pesticide product or pesticide use and whether specific restrictions are needed.

To ensure data quality and consistency, EPA has standard guidelines for how testing is to be conducted for most studies required to support pesticide registrations. These test guidelines are largely harmonized with those established internationally. Data submitted by pesticide registrants to support pesticide registration must also adhere to EPA's Good Laboratory Practice Standards compliance monitoring program.

GRASSLEY CONCERNS

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said during his weekly call with agriculture journalists on Tuesday that he was concerned the creation of the MAHA report has not been aboveboard.

"When I met with Sen. Kennedy before his confirmation, I asked him about agriculture," Grassley said. "Really, he assured me he was supportive of farmers using tools like pesticides and GMO's during his hearing before the Senate Finance Committee. He said he agreed that EPA and USDA should be the regulators for agriculture. Secretary Kennedy also committed to what he called radical transparency at HHS under his watch. But I've heard from a lot of stakeholders that the creation of this MAHA report has lacked transparency."

Grassley said he questioned whether Kennedy and staff working on the MAHA report met with food and agriculture stakeholders or only environmental groups.

"If so, which ones?" Grassley said.

"Secondly, have (USDA) Secretary (Brooke) Rollins, (EPA) Administrator (Lee) Zeldin and others on the MAHA commission been consulted in developing this report? And lastly, has the MAHA commission been following a risk-based science-based approach like hundreds of stakeholders and many members of Congress, myself included, have called for? In other words, we want to make sure sound science is the basis of these conclusions. I support the administration's desire to make America healthier, and for that reason, I hope we get some clear answers to my questions and that these people that are in the cabinet keep their promises they made pre-confirmation."

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

Chris Clayton can be reached at chris.clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.