WASHINGTON, D.C. — A leaked draft of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s second report has drawn sharp criticism from the Center for Food Safety (CFS), which accused the body of bowing to industry pressure and failing to act on pesticide regulation despite previously acknowledging its dangers.
The MAHA Commission was established to investigate causes of chronic disease in children, with a mandate that included reducing exposure to pesticides and ultra-processed foods. In its first report, released in May, the Commission highlighted the potential health risks of widely used pesticides such as glyphosate and atrazine. But according to the CFS, the latest draft has abandoned any meaningful follow-up.
Instead, the August draft makes only passing mention of pesticides, directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to “ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA’s robust pesticide review procedures.” Critics argue this language avoids the urgent reforms the Commission had previously promised.
Concerns Over EPA’s Credibility
The CFS pointed to recent developments at the EPA as evidence that such reassurances fall short. Since the spring, the agency has advanced proposals to approve several new pesticides and is moving to reauthorize dicamba, a controversial herbicide already twice ruled unlawful by U.S. courts.
Adding to the controversy, more than 1,000 scientists were dismissed from the EPA’s Office of Research and Development earlier this year. Meanwhile, the agency’s own inspector general has warned of ongoing politicization of science within its ranks, echoing criticisms that first arose during the Trump administration.
For advocates, these developments undermine public confidence in the very review procedures the Commission now seeks to endorse.
CFS: Commission “Turned Its Back”
Sylvia Wu, co-executive director of the Center for Food Safety, issued a strong rebuke of the draft report.
“The MAHA Commission has turned its back on Americans desperate for action to combat the overuse of pesticides. Despite the Commission’s previous recognition of the overuse of pesticides in America’s industrial food system and the potential harm these toxins are causing children, public health, and the environment, they have now capitulated to the pressure of agriculture lobbyists and the pesticide industry,” Wu said.
She added that her organization would continue to press for reforms through the courts.
“The health of our children and our farmworkers cannot wait around for the Commission to find its way. The Center for Food Safety will continue to undertake legal actions to push the EPA to actually do its job of protecting human health and the environment from the harms of pesticides,” Wu said.
Legal Victories and Ongoing Battles
The CFS, which describes itself as the United States’ leading public interest law firm focused on agriculture and food safety, has built a track record of high-profile litigation aimed at curbing pesticide use.
In 2022, the group won a major victory when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the EPA’s determination that glyphosate—an herbicide central to industrial farming—was safe for humans. The ruling left the agency without a legal basis to support glyphosate’s continued approval.
CFS also played a central role in a federal court decision to revoke dicamba’s approval, after the herbicide caused widespread crop and ecological damage. The organization is now challenging the chemical’s latest proposed re-registration.
Another landmark case came in 2024, when CFS secured a settlement obliging the EPA to test all pesticides for endocrine-disrupting effects, which can impair fertility, weaken immune systems, and increase cancer risks.
The group has also mounted legal challenges to neonicotinoids, linked to plummeting bee populations, and atrazine, a herbicide associated with hormonal disruption, birth defects, and cancers.
Broader Implications
The clash between CFS and the MAHA Commission highlights a deepening divide over pesticide regulation in the United States. On one side are public health advocates pushing for more aggressive restrictions; on the other, agricultural industry groups warning that tighter rules could undermine farm productivity and food security.
For Canada, where debates over pesticide use and regulation are also ongoing, the dispute may serve as a warning of how political and economic pressures can stall or weaken public health policy. With many Canadian crops dependent on pollination and facing similar risks from pesticide exposure, regulatory decisions south of the border could have ripple effects for both markets and ecosystems.
As the MAHA Commission prepares its final recommendations, the outcome may determine whether the momentum built around addressing chronic disease risks in children leads to concrete action—or fades under industry influence.
