Pesticides and Public Health: MAHA’s Opportunity to Lead
In a striking case of governmental misalignment, the EPA recently appointed Kyle Kunkler, a former agriculture lobbyist and outspoken opponent of pesticide regulation, to lead its Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. His appointment as the agency’s top pesticide officer is likely to complicate efforts by the Make America Healthy Again Commission (MAHA), a federal advisory body led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which recently spotlighted pesticides like atrazine and glyphosate as key contributors to chronic illness in children.
MAHA’s report, released just weeks before Kunkler’s appointment, called for stronger federal action to reduce chemical exposures and protect public health. Whether those recommendations will gain traction under new leadership at the EPA remains an open question.
Here, we’ll examine the key risks associated with current pesticide use in the United States and outline the opportunities federal leadership has to chart a new course.
Pesticide Risk: What the Science and Global Practice Say
Each year, over 1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied across the United States. These chemicals are a mainstay of industrial farming, but their reach extends far beyond the fields where they're sprayed. Pesticide residues routinely show up in our food, water, and even in children’s blood.
Atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting chemical banned in the European Union, remains in widespread use in U.S. corn production. Glyphosate, the country’s most commonly applied herbicide, has been labeled “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. U.S. courts have affirmed this concern: Bayer has paid $11 billion in settlements related to glyphosate exposure through its Roundup product.
While the Environmental Protection Agency insists current pesticide residue levels are within “safe” limits, its own review process has faced repeated legal and scientific challenges. In fact, a federal court rejected the EPA’s 2020 interim decision on glyphosate due to an inadequate review of epidemiological studies. These regulatory gaps raise serious questions about how well current safeguards actually protect the public.
Health Risks from Pesticide Exposure
The risks to public health in agricultural regions are particularly stark. In California’s Central Valley, for example, a study found that 1 in 11 children were exposed to detectable levels of pesticides, including those that had been banned. Children are uniquely vulnerable to these exposures: long-term effects include developmental disorders, behavioral issues, reduced cognitive function, and increased rates of pediatric cancers. Even before children are born, pesticide exposure in the womb can lead to preterm birth, low birth weight, and congenital anomalies.
Adults aren’t immune either. Chronic pesticide exposure has been linked to a wide range of health conditions, including asthma, infertility, diabetes, neurological disease, and multiple types of cancer. Ingesting residues on fruits and vegetables remains a primary route of exposure, and many of these residues are found in combination with other chemicals. This chemical cocktail complicates public health assessments and raises concerns about long-term effects that have not been thoroughly studied.
Many pesticides don’t break down easily and instead build up in the body over time: a process known as bioaccumulation. They accumulate in both wild and domesticated species and result in high concentrations of residues in animal products. In some cases, pesticides and pesticide-adjacent chemicals like PBCs that were banned decades ago are so persistent in the environment that they are still found in food products, especially in fish.
Who Bears the Burden of Pesticide Exposure?
Some communities suffer more than others. Along with California’s Central Valley, Southeastern states like Florida and North Carolina also see heavy pesticide use tied to citrus and tobacco farming. In these regions, farmworker communities — often low-income and largely migrant — face chronic exposure with limited workplace protections and little access to healthcare. As one researcher explains, “acute pesticide poisonings in agriculture also remain severely underreported due to language barriers, fear of deportation or job loss, and the economic disadvantage of those most highly exposed.”
Environmental Damage with Long-Term Costs
Beyond human health, pesticide use contributes to serious ecological degradation. These chemicals don’t stay put; they travel through air, water, and soil, contaminating ecosystems essential to agriculture and biodiversity. Numerous studies have linked pesticide use to the decline of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators, while also impairing soil health and reducing the resilience of farmland.
One global study published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that more than half of insecticide samples taken from surface waters exceeded environmental safety thresholds. This level of contamination threatens fish, amphibians, and other freshwater life, undermining ecological systems that support both food production and clean water access.
From Warning to Action: MAHA’s Next Step Must Be Policy
The MAHA report raised the right concerns but included no budget, timeline, or implementation strategy. Kennedy himself stated that “there is no budget... no concrete policy that could be funded.” A report without action invites confusion and skepticism. To build on this momentum, MAHA must translate its concerns into a clear, actionable policy framework.
MAHA is breaking from the cautious approach of past administrations by framing pesticide exposure as a systemic public health issue and openly challenging current agrochemical practices. The next step is turning that rhetoric into reform.
Lobbying Pressure Has Already Begun
More than 250 agricultural trade groups, including the American Farm Bureau and major commodity associations, have demanded involvement in MAHA’s next phase. CropLife and chemical manufacturers like Bayer are actively lobbying to shape outcomes and protect their products.
As reported by Politico, CropLife sent a 12-page letter to MAHA and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., urging a full reversal of the commission’s pesticide stance. The group called the report “alarmist,” proposed 17 policy recommendations defending current practices, and requested a meeting within a week. “The May 22 Initial Assessment … calls into question the safety of the very foods critical for the healthy development of children,” said CropLife CEO Alexandra Dunn.
This kind of corporate pushback is not new. Pesticide manufacturers have a long history of shaping federal policy. In 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reversed a proposed ban on the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos after private meetings with Dow Chemical, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of harm. Investigations have also revealed that industry groups ghostwrote scientific reviews to influence EPA assessments and delay stronger protections.
As CRFB reported in a previous blog, a 2024 investigation revealed a “private social network” called Bonus Eventus working to undermine responsible pesticide policy. Created by v-Fluence, a PR firm founded by former Monsanto executive Jay Byrne, the network profiles and attacks critics of pesticides and GMOs and actively works to block pesticide policy reforms aimed at improving pesticide safety and public health.
Lobbying and PR efforts undoubtedly play a major role in America’s relative lack of bans on the most dangerous pesticides in comparison to other countries. A 2019 study found that 85 pesticides used in U.S. agriculture have been banned elsewhere. According to the study, of the pesticides used in the United States in 2016, 322 million pounds, 26 million pounds, and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, Brazil, and China respectively. “The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years,” the study concludes.
We now have a chance to correct these oversights and catch up to other nations. As legislation and regulatory reviews for chemicals like chlorpyrifos and paraquat continue, MAHA will need to stand firm. Without resistance to industry pressure, this opportunity for real reform could quietly disappear.
A Clear Roadmap for Pesticide Progress
If MAHA wants to lead, it can draw on existing recommendations from scientists, health advocates, and international precedent. CRFB urges the following:
Establish phase-out timelines for the highest-risk pesticides, modeled on the EU’s endocrine disruptor regulations.
Require full disclosure and public labeling of pesticide use on produce.
Reform USDA subsidies to reward farmers who reduce chemical dependence.
Expand EPA monitoring and enforce safety protections for farmworkers and exposed communities.
These steps align with global best practices and reflect growing scientific consensus on reducing exposure and increasing transparency.
Conclusion: A Chance to Set the Tone
MAHA’s report brought essential attention to the consequences of pesticide overuse. But attention alone is not accountability. By naming the threat without backing it with action, MAHA risks echoing past failures. Especially considering the challenges MAHA may now face in collaborating with an industry-led EPA pesticide office, decisive action within HHS is necessary.
This is the moment to lead. MAHA has the political platform and public interest to set a stronger, science-based pesticide policy agenda.
CRFB will continue to monitor this work and support efforts that prioritize the health of consumers and workers, and to uphold transparency over corporate influence.
More like this: