MAHA Economics

Redefining Health is Dividing Agriculture

RFK Jr. is making waves in agriculture with his thoughts on how farming methods contribute to American health. While he’s charging forward on initiatives some Americans have wanted for years, he’s also taking a wrecking ball to traditional farming concepts that are foundational to our food system in the U.S.; particularly how we define healthy and safe food. 

Much like the regenerative movement is trying to redefine successful farming by how well we maintain soil health, ecosystems, and water levels while producing crops, Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) appears to be prioritizing chemical use and food manufacturing practices more than how much food we produce and how efficiently (affordably) we can get it on the table. 

Historically, a secure food supply is made up of several components. Is production quantity sufficient and is there enough to feed people? Can people afford it and are there options for even the lowest income households? Does it contribute to a caloric or nutritional profile? How well can food be transported from farm or factory to table and still maintain its benefits? MAHA initiatives challenge our definitions of quantity, accessibility and safety.  Redefining terms can also make the numbers tell a different story.

If MAHA targets herbicides then long standing food production practices will change and farm spending will be impacted. Can farmers afford to make America healthy again? Can Americans afford to purchase MAHA’s brand of healthy? Perspectives on these questions are dividing ag communities.

The Cost of Removing Herbicides and Pesticides

Part of producing abundant crops and consistently growing affordable food is controlling pests. Left unchecked pest problems like insects that eat plants or spread plant diseases and invasive weeds that starve out healthy crops can add up to significant yield losses. A National Corn Growers study claims a 70% yield reduction would be the new baseline if we took no pest control actions. That’s not a baseline that meets sufficient quantity or accessibility standards for any food source. 

Instead, if popular pest control methods like glyphosate and atrazine are targeted by MAHA initiatives farmers will have to invest in new approaches. Glyphosate is favored because it “keeps yields up and costs down,” according to a Missouri corn farmer. Alternative pest control methods could mean as much as a 60% cost increase for farmers switching to more expensive options or even doubling up on tools to make sure yields stay high. They are also more caustic chemicals.

The organic sector maintains these are just startup costs. Investing now in trap crops, adding beneficial insects, pheromone traps or flame and heat weed killing strategies will save money in the future. While some transition costs will be temporary the extra labor and fuel required to tillage the field before and during the season is significant. Regenerative theory sees similar long-term benefits for nutritional density from healthier soil but in many cases regenerative agriculture relies on glyphosate and other herbicides to quickly switch from cover to cash crops. Losing access to glyphosate and atrazine will encourage farmers to adopt different chemistries, increase tillage, and potentially accept lower yields. 

Consumers will face extra costs associated with higher cost of production and lower supply. Even Americans who have long fought for a closer examination of chemical use in food production have balked at inflated grocery store prices. Will they be happy to spend extra money if the prices reflect health instead of trade relationships?

Labor Logistics of MAHA

Manually addressing weeds and pests that quickly drop yields in the form of increased labor is another option, and one that presents its own challenges for farmers. For starters, there is a shortage of people willing to do the monotonous job of pulling weeds and spot checking for predatory insects or even driving tractors and sprayers in the fields. But beyond that, the infrastructure to support more rural farm laborers isn’t there. People move for jobs, but they also move for good schools, decent housing, and amenities. It is not just individual farms being willing to pay more employees, it's about building rural communities up in a way that is attractional to more Americans who want to play a part in our food system.  

To many, the idea is attractive, but the labor to make it happen, not so much.  Adding employees could be a financial risk for farms across the country. Facing potential yield losses coupled with increasing spending to offer competitive wages could create a feasibly impossible situation for the average farm income.  Without laborers, what options are farmers left with?