Copy of Will MAHA Moms and American Farmers Find Common Ground?

In February, President Trump established the MAHA commission with the purpose of investigating chronic illness and fighting childhood disease. Though the commission's goals are rooted in health, American agriculture representatives have been quick to go on the offensive fearing investigative work could target specific weed and pest control tools critical to large scale food production in the country.

Not wanting to be robbed of traditional methods, the farm community, joined by members of Congress and major food and ag companies, have petitioned hard to establish universal investigative parameters that don’t favor one industry over another. Meanwhile, the MAHA movement supporters press on in their endeavor to transform food systems in America by scrutinizing farming practices and the general public’s access to fresh food items.

August marks a deadline for the MAHA commission as they issue a report based on scientific data and multi-industry recommendations. It appears that the current administration will not restrict the use of pesticides. Does this mean the GOP has abandoned its MAHA allies, or is this a sign that farmers have more in common with MAHA moms than we think?

The answer might come down to economics and semantics.

Where do MAHA and Farming Initiatives Intersect?

Both camps can agree that access to fresh fruits and vegetables will play a role in increased health for Americans. Restrictions to programs like SNAP or the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program which distributes locally grown fruits and vegetables to schools will only decrease people’s, particularly children’s, regular access to healthy, nutrient dense food options. 

Modifying and expanding these programs to include more fresh produce hinges on keeping farms operational and supporting the development of regionally strong food systems. These are goals shared by the farming community, the regenerative movement, and MAHA.  Adding restrictions to farming methods and tools could consolidate food production in the U.S. and make it increasingly difficult for small farms that already have multiple financial challenges including high input costs, labor expenses, and risk insurances to remain operational.

Cathy Burns, the Chief Executive Officer of the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Association believes the horticulture sector is already in a risky position due to so many small farms buckling under the financial strain of current dynamics. Further restrictions, particularly on pesticides, would prompt many existing small farms to throw in the towel. That’s something health initiatives can’t afford to see happen and it's also a risk to America’s food security. Especially since my research early this year suggests that many producer farmers use herbicides in other parts of their farmers that are not specifically for growing produce, which reduces residues and still helps manage weed wells.

Expanded markets are a win for farmers, especially when the road from farm to market is shorter. Building SNAP programs and school food plans based on nutrition versus manufactured food items means more farms are allied with food distribution centers in their area. It's a win for childhood disease prevention goals and for rural farm families looking to tap into local markets.

Where Do MAHA and America’s Farmers Disagree?

As suggested above, differences come down to defining terms and economic success parameters. America’s farmers tend to define a healthy food system differently than MAHA mothers do. And nutritional health initiatives sometimes create economic ripple effects that undercut the health of American farm incomes. 

Farmers bristle at the idea of government policy restricting the way they grow their food. With fewer options for controlling pests and weeds they jeopardize the health of their crops. If their yields decrease, so do their incomes. If less expensive management tools are prohibited than farm expenses increase and create the type of scenario where food companies swoop in to absorb small operations. It's a dynamic that MAHA doesn’t want to contribute to.

By the numbers, here are some 30,000 species of weeds that food crops have to compete with and 13,000 species of worms and insects that threaten food production.  Already, studies estimate between 26% and 40% of crops are lost every year to weeds, worms and insects. Eliminating just synthetics pesticides and herbicides could double this loss percentage according to a pesticide fact sheet.  Losses are not just experienced in the field. Pesticides also act as protection while food is transported from farm to market where molds and insects threaten to turn perfectly good produce into waste.

Reports suggest that if farmers are forced to switch from synthetic pest controls to approved natural options, they could experience a cost increase of as much as 60% for crop protection. For fruit and vegetable producers already expecting tight profit margins thanks to high energy costs, labor expenses, and rising prices on seeds and fertilizers there is no money to be earned in this scenario, only losses to accrue. And that jeopardizes the American farmers' definition of a healthy food system which includes reliable access to food, affordable options and food that doesn’t have to be cooked. 

Fewer small farms and large farms producing less food than usual has the potential to put a kink in well-established supply chains. Getting fresh produce into schools and in grocery stores as SANP approved items could only be achieved by increasing our produce imports from other countries. Could we control the pesticides used around the globe?

Finding Common Ground

For now, both camps appear content to agree that getting apples into school cafeterias takes priority over arguing about what might have been sprayed on the apple trees. And both seem to believe that any funding to support low-income families in purchasing fresh vegetables rather than chips and soda is a step in the right direction. MAHA maintains they are not here to make food inaccessible, specially produce items. And farmers are willing to shift methods. However, farmers know from experience that drastic changes in agricultural practices often have long term effects on the economic health of food producing regions.

At the end of the day, American farmers are crucial to the success of MAHA goals. Rather than rush into sweeping changes in food production, fostering healthy relationships between MAHA health activists and rural farmers could be the most productive step toward continuing to build profitable and nutritional food systems in the U.S.