The recent release of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s report has ignited concern across the agricultural community about the future of pesticide use and crop protection tools in the United States. Despite the commitment of U.S. regulatory agencies to science-based decision-making, the report questions the safety and necessity of these essential tools, raising fears of potential restrictions that could threaten American food security, farm livelihoods, and economic stability.

CropLife America (CLA), the leading national trade association representing the pesticide industry, has stated that it unequivocally supports the responsible use of pesticides as vital to sustainable and affordable food production.

Alexandra Dunn, president and CEO of CLA, emphasized that pesticides are thoroughly studied and regulated with a robust, science-based framework that prioritizes safety for humans, animals, and the environment. She criticized the MAHA report for creating unwarranted fear, stating, “While the MAHA Report recognizes the U.S. EPA’s science-based decision-making, it unfairly casts doubt on the integrity of the federal review process. This report will stir unjustified fear and confusion among American consumers who live in the country with the safest and most abundant food supply.”

Similarly, Dr. Manojit Basu, CLA’s vice president of science policy, highlighted that pesticides undergo over a decade of rigorous testing before approval, considering potential risks comprehensively. Experts and countless organizations, including members of Congress and over 300 agricultural groups, have long advocated for maintaining the credibility of science-based evaluations that ensure the safety and effectiveness of these tools.

The concerns raised by critics are not merely theoretical. Historically, restrictions or bans have led to catastrophic declines in crop yields, massive food imports, and increased costs. Without critical crop protection tools such as glyphosate, U.S. farmers warn of significant consequences: declining yields, soaring input costs (potentially rising by 150%), and food inflation that could more than double. These tools are indispensable for weed management, pest control, and enabling sustainable farming practices like no-till agriculture, which benefits both environmental health and farm productivity.

Farmers and industry leaders nationwide are voicing their support for science-based policies. Chris Tanner, president of the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, underscored that crop protection tools are vital for preventing yield losses and facilitating conservation practices. “These tools allow us to implement no-till farming and maintain consistent production despite weather challenges, while keeping food prices affordable for consumers,” he said. The Ohio AgriBusiness Association’s president, Melinda Witten, pointed out that restricted access would have ripple effects across the entire food supply chain, threatening everything from seed to shelf.

Echoing this, leaders from regions such as Georgia, Washington, and Oregon emphasized that pesticides like glyphosate and other EPA-registered products have undergone the most rigorous safety assessments in the world, affirming their safety when used appropriately.

“Decades of research and regulatory scrutiny have consistently affirmed the safety of glyphosate,” stated Will Bentley, president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council. The emphasis on science is critical, as these tools enable farmers to grow healthier, more abundant food with fewer resources, supporting both economic and environmental sustainability.

The opposition to the MAHA report warns that restricting access to these scientifically validated tools would have dire consequences. Daren Coppock, CEO of the Agriculture Retailers Association, explained that losing these tools would result in decreased food availability, higher consumer costs, and increased safety risks, especially for perishable crops like fruits and vegetables. Washington wheat farmers rely heavily on glyphosate to manage weeds and pests, and its absence would compromise sustainable practices like no-till farming, crucial for environmental conservation.

In the words of Todd Martin, CEO of the Independent Professional Seed Association, “Sound science and good tools have put American agriculture at the front of the world’s producers for decades. We must continue to protect these tools with science, not rhetoric.” The consensus among agricultural advocates is clear: policies should be grounded in credible science, and the misuse of misinformation and discredited studies threatens the progress and stability of U.S. agriculture.

The industry and farmers have called for constructive engagement and transparency. They urged the MAHA Commission, administration officials, and policymakers to recognize the wealth of scientific evidence supporting the safety and necessity of crop protection tools. As Alexandra Dunn stresses, “There is time for the MAHA Commission to meet with the agricultural community, understand the safety behind pesticides, and ensure that America’s food system remains resilient, affordable, and safe for generations to come.”

Together, these voices advocate for science-led policymaking to preserve America’s leadership in sustainable, innovative agriculture, ensuring that food security, farm livelihoods, and environmental stewardship are protected through the responsible use of proven crop protection tools.

Related articles:

IFPA responds to MAHA report; Urges focus on fruit and vegetable access to improve health