“Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.”
–Thomas Jefferson
When the “Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment,” commonly known as the “MAHA report” was released by the White House, readers quickly noticed what were later referred to as “formatting errors.” Those errors included footnotes and citations of studies that didn’t exist and were apparently the result of “hallucinations” by report writers relying on AI rather than doing the work to understand existing research.
One major reason for such mistakes is that the MAHA report was developed without the input of farmers and others who work in agriculture. Sidelining those with direct experience and will have to pay the costs of new regulations, should be familiar to Washington state residents where farm policies are often dictated by Seattle activists and bureaucrats in Olympia who claim to be “following the science.”
What is equally troubling about a report that cites sources that do not exist is forming conclusions that are illogical, rely on innuendo, and leap to predetermined conclusions. For example, the discussion of herbicides ignores numerous studies showing the risks are low and safer than alternatives.
The federal government has an enormous influence over farms and needless regulation, as we have seen in Washington state, is particularly damaging to family farms who have little ability to absorb additional costs. It is critical federal agriculture policy be grounded in real-world experience and economics.
Workers in the healthcare and agriculture sectors were largely (or entirely) left out of the development of The MAHA Report. One of the major complaints against the report is the closed-door manner in which it was created. The report was released without any hearings, interviews, or other public forms of data collection.
Much of the report, like the notion of “making America healthy again,” seems like a good idea on the surface but lacks depth of understanding or a plan for how to achieve the stated goals listed. According to the conclusions of the report, the administration wants to “support gold-standard scientific research” and “develop a comprehensive strategy” for “AI-powered surveillance,” “large-scale lifestyle interventions,” “alternative testing models,” and more.
Additionally, the report, coupled with commentary from both the administration and Secretary Kennedy, suggest a larger agenda to undermine current agricultural practices. “Reports in 2023 indicate that the largest pesticide manufacturers spent billions on research initiatives. Limited comparisons between industry-funded research versus non-industry studies have raised concerns over potential biases in industry-funded research,” according to the report, insinuating the purchase of favorable results to research. Further, the study implies the Environmental Protection Agency may have been too lenient in its reviews of commonly used herbicides like glyphosate, but “an updated U.S. government health assessment of common herbicides is expected in 2026.” There is an abundance of research noting the safety of glyphosate.
Herbicides are not the only area of agricultural revision highlighted in the report. Regenerative agriculture is also highlighted as a key component of ridding the U.S. of the harms of modern food production. However, there is a lack of understanding the economies of scale, cropping patterns, and the need for all forms of agriculture to help feed an ever-growing global population is also apparent. During confirmation hearings, Kennedy emphasized a preference for organic agriculture and a desire to focus on export to European Union markets which he claimed were closed to U.S. food imports; a claim that is false. In 2024, U.S. agricultural exports to the E.U. reached a record $12.8 billion.
When federal reports are used to drive policy, it is critical they are based in facts, research, and, most importantly, information without bias. When the people most familiar with the subjects at hand – farmers, ranchers, doctors, nurses – are barred from participating in the discussion, there is little room left for honest conversation. The space becomes filled with what people think they know about a given topic. Far better to go directly to the source of information – farmers, ranchers, doctors, nurses – and ask for their thoughts, gather their experiences, and synthesize that data into a series of recommendations that incorporate their expertise, rather than let it wither and die. Unfortunately, The MAHA Report, and its mystery authors, were not interested in real data collection or creating recommendations based on information from real people.
