Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins praised the child-health focus of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s first assessment, while several agricultural organizations criticized its treatment of pesticides, evidence, or farmer participation. Their responses were not unanimous: some welcomed attention to nutrition and children’s health while disputing parts of the report.
What did the MAHA assessment say?
The President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission published Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment on May 22, 2025. The document presents itself as a call to action on possible dietary, behavioral, medical, and environmental contributors to childhood chronic disease. It identifies four potential drivers: poor diet and ultra-processed foods; combined environmental chemical exposures; insufficient physical activity and chronic stress; and what it calls overmedicalization. These are the Commission’s framing and claims, not findings independently established by the reactions described here. Read the Commission assessment.
The assessment says nearly 70% of children’s calories come from ultra-processed foods. That figure is an assertion made by the Commission in its 2025 report, rather than an independently verified estimate in the sources cited here. See the assessment’s figure.
What did Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins say?
Rollins praised the Commission and cast agriculture as part of the response to children’s health concerns. She said: “We must do more to improve the health outcomes of our kids and families, and President Trump knows agriculture is at the heart of the solution. America’s farmers and ranchers dedicate their lives to the noble cause of feeding their country and the world, and in doing so have created the safest and most abundant and affordable food supply in the world. We are working to make sure our kids and families are consuming the healthiest food we produce.” Her statement expressed support for the report’s health focus and for farmers’ role; it does not resolve the disputes other groups raised about the assessment’s evidence or pesticide discussion. Agriculture.com’s May 29, 2025 coverage.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Why did farm groups call the report troubling?
Criticism focused on different issues, including how the assessment discussed crop-protection tools, whether its evidence supported its claims, and whether farmers had been adequately involved. Those objections did not necessarily amount to opposition to improving children’s health.
American Farm Bureau Federation: trust and farmer participation
American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall objected to what he saw as a conflict between praising farmers and casting doubt on farming practices. He said: “It is deeply troubling for the White House to endorse a report that sows seeds of doubt and fear about our food system and farming practices, then attempt to celebrate farmers and the critical role they play in producing the safest food supply in the world.” The statement emphasized trust in the food system and farmer participation. Read the Farm Bureau statement.
National Corn Growers Association: pesticide claims
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) objected to the report’s pesticide discussion, calling it “filled with fear-based rather than science-based information about pesticides.” That is NCGA’s characterization of the assessment, not an independent conclusion about the science. Read NCGA’s statement.
National Farmers Union and produce groups: qualified support
The National Farmers Union welcomed attention to children’s health while calling for sound science, transparency, farmer involvement, and care in avoiding one-size-fits-all restrictions. The International Fresh Produce Association likewise welcomed attention to nutrition and specialty crops, while questioning some assertions and urging closer collaboration with farmers and producers. Both responses illustrate how an organization could support the report’s broad health objective while challenging aspects of its claims or process. National Farmers Union statement; International Fresh Produce Association response.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallRank #3
- Supports NSE standards
- Students will gain extra practice with the skills they are learning in their physical, earth, space, and life science curriculums
- Grades 5-8
- Includes 96 pages
House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig: evidence and interpretation
Rep. Angie Craig praised attention to health as worthwhile but criticized the report’s evidence and interpretation. She called it “an over ambitious document that fails to meet those standards,” and said it “cites fake studies, misrepresents nutritional and agricultural science, and mistakes correlation for causation.” Those are Craig’s assessments of the document, not a separate adjudication of the disputed studies. Read Craig’s statement.
National Association of Wheat Growers: EPA’s role and nonbinding recommendations
The National Association of Wheat Growers emphasized the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory role and said the report’s recommendations were not legally binding, while warning that the report could affect trust in the food system. This is the organization’s reported position, not legal advice or an independent legal analysis. Agriculture.com’s account of the reactions.
What did the MAHA report say about pesticides?
The assessment discusses possible environmental contributors to childhood chronic disease, and industry reactions singled out its treatment of pesticides and crop-protection tools. The organizations quoted above disputed aspects of the report’s framing or evidence; the cited sources do not settle the underlying scientific disagreement. The report’s claims, organizations’ responses, and independently established conclusions should therefore be kept distinct.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why were the reactions different?
The divide makes more sense when separated into three questions: whether groups welcomed attention to children’s health, whether they accepted the assessment’s evidence and pesticide discussion, and whether they believed farmers had been adequately included.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesQuick Recap
Best Value
- Great extension activities for science and biology
- Correlated to standards
- Comprehensive biology vocabulary study
- Fascinating true-to-life illustrations
| Organization or official | Response to the health focus | Main concern or emphasis |
|---|---|---|
| Brooke Rollins, Agriculture Secretary | Praised the Commission’s focus | Presented agriculture and farmers as part of the solution. Agriculture.com |
| American Farm Bureau Federation | Objected to the report’s implications for farming | Trust, farmer participation, and what it saw as doubt cast on the food system. AFBF statement |
| National Corn Growers Association | Not the central point of its cited response | Criticized the pesticide discussion and its scientific framing. NCGA statement |
| National Farmers Union | Welcomed attention to children’s health | Sound science, transparency, farmer involvement, and avoiding one-size-fits-all restrictions. NFU statement |
| International Fresh Produce Association | Welcomed attention to nutrition and specialty crops | Questioned some assertions and sought closer collaboration with producers. IFPA response |
| Rep. Angie Craig | Called attention to health worthwhile | Criticized evidence and interpretation. Craig statement |
| National Association of Wheat Growers | Reaction focused on recommendations and trust | Emphasized EPA’s role and said recommendations were not binding. Agriculture.com |
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
