Potential Agricultural Implications of the Make America Healthy Again Report

Developers, producers, processors, input suppliers, lenders, food-chain investors, growers, and other agricultural stakeholders should begin planning for potential shifts that could emerge from the report’s findings and the Administration’s public statements.

Key Takeaways for Agricultural Stakeholders

The MAHA report is largely narrative, but the following five themes are likely to guide subsequent legislative or regulatory proposals.

1. Elevated Scrutiny of Crop-Protection Chemicals

The report devotes substantial space to children’s vulnerability to cumulative chemical exposure, repeatedly citing pesticides, microplastics, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates, and bisphenols. For example, the report highlights select academic studies alleging links between exposure to certain compounds and developmental or endocrine effects (importantly, none of the cited studies substantiates a causal connection). At the same time, the report acknowledges that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a robust risk-based approach that considers hazard and exposure for assessing the risks of pesticides and other chemicals to human health and the environment, in contrast to European Union-style hazard bans. Moreover, the report points out that over 99% of US Department of Agriculture-tested domestic food samples are within EPA safety limits for pesticide residues and warns against “precipitous” changes that could harm farm viability, as well as the domestic and global food supply. Despite the rigorous testing, extensive scientific data, and independent EPA risk assessments supporting the safety of registered pesticides in accordance with statutory approval, including those added by the Food Quality Protection Act, the report suggests possible budget reallocations to support further evaluation of pesticides in common use.

Producers and other stakeholders may anticipate (1) new federally funded research on pesticides in common use, newer alternatives, or both, and (2) possible label amendments or use-restrictions on high-volume active ingredients. How the Administration will square these priorities with the statutorily mandated registration review process and other ongoing cuts to scientific research and federal personnel remains to be seen.

2. Preference for Whole-Food Supply Chains and Reduced Ultra-Processed Inputs

The report asserts that 70% of children’s calories derive from ultra-processed foods (UPF) and singles out refined grains, added sugars, and industrial seed oils (soybean, corn, canola, sunflower, etc.) as key potential contributors to chronic disease. It criticizes federal procurement and nutrition programs for favoring “Big Food” formulations at the expense of nutrient-dense products from small and mid-size farms.

Agricultural stakeholders may expect policy proposals aimed at steering Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), school-meal, and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) purchases toward minimally processed fruit, vegetable, dairy, and livestock products. Any such shift could expand demand for specialty crops and grass-based livestock while dampening volume growth for corn- and soy-derived ingredients.

3. Re-Examination of Crop Insurance and Farm Bill Priorities

The report notes that traditional field crops receive the bulk of federal crop insurance support, implying that insurance incentives may have distorted the food supply toward commodity grains linked to UPF manufacturing.

Although immediate statutory change is unlikely, farm bill drafters may be pressed to earmark greater risk-management dollars for horticultural and organic producers or to create carve-outs for “whole-food” supply chains.

4. Potential Research Requirements for GRAS Ingredients and Animal-Health Products

The assessment calls for “independent” evaluation of the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) system that applies to substances intended for use in human or animal food, with particular emphasis on the statutory self-affirmation process. The report also makes repeated reference to a perceived imbalance between industry-funded and non-industry studies.

Food and feed additives and processing aids may therefore face additional data-submission obligations if used in foods marketed to children or pregnant women.

5. Data, Traceability, and Environmental, Social, and Governance Adjacent Reporting May Move From Voluntary to Mandatory

The report calls for artificial intelligence-enabled “real-world safety monitoring,” suggesting federal agencies may require granular on-farm data to model diet-chemical interactions.

Producers who invest early in digital recordkeeping and verification systems may be better positioned for compliance and potential market premiums.

Bottom Line

Importantly, the MAHA assessment does not impose immediate regulatory obligations. It establishes only a policy narrative that purports to link childhood health outcomes with the structure of the US food-production system. Agriculture is positioned simultaneously as part of the problem and the solution. In response to concerns after the report’s release, Calley Means — one of Kennedy’s top advisors and a coordinator behind the report — has emphasized that agricultural leaders will be heavily involved in next steps for MAHA policy development. Agriculture stakeholders should participate in the policy-making dialogue to be best positioned to mitigate risk and capture emergent demand. Stakeholders should also identify areas in the report where the cited scientific research appears incomplete or out of sync with current scientific consensus and be prepared for challenges to proposed actions that rest on unreliable science by marshaling the full body of available evidence. We will continue to track developments and see if the Commission translates its assessment into concrete policy proposals.