EP. 55 - Standing Up for Pesticides Targeted by the “Make America Healthy Again” Movement

 Print

Without Glyphosate and Atrazine, corn yields would plunge by 70%.

"Make America Healthy Again" might sound like something we can all get on board with.

But the MAHA Commission convened by President Trump and headed by HHHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has set its sights on some odd targets…

…including two mission-critical pesticides for corn farmers, Glyphosate and Atrazine.

Without citing scientific evidence, a report from the MAHA Commission seems to blame these safe and effective tools of agriculture for kids' health problems.

This is in spite of decades of EPA, USDA and FDA precedent that have established safe practices and regulations for their use.

So in this episode, we hear from two key leaders at NCGA-VP of Public Policy Lesly McNitt and Director of Inputs and Innovation Dr. Becky Langer-about what the organization is doing to protect these important crop treatments.

We'll discuss why most folks don't understand the importance and safety of pesticides, what the report means for corn growers, and how farmers can protect their access to these tools.

Direct Share Link: https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/ncga?selected=PDM6700167812

Transcript:

Dusty Weis

Hello and welcome to the Cobcast: Inside the Grind with the National Corn Growers Association. This is where leaders, growers and stakeholders in the corn industry can turn for big picture conversations about the state of the industry and its future.

From the fields of the Corn Belt to the DC Beltway, we're making sure the growers who feed America have a say in the issues that are important to them with key leaders who are shaping the future of agriculture.

So make sure you're following this show on your favorite podcast app, and sign up for the National Corn Growers Association newsletter at ncga.com.

I'm Dusty Weis, and today we are talking about a recent report from the Make America Healthy Again Commission led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The report touches on a lot of topics with potential impacts on children's health, and I think that that's a topic we can all agree ought to be informed by the best that science can offer.

And that's why we're bringing in two NCGA experts today to shed some light on one claim in this report that has some of our farmer members scratching their heads a bit, given what decades of studies have proven-that pesticides, with the benefit of rigorous testing and federal regulations, are safe and effective.

We're joined today by two NCGA leaders who have been at the top of the issue from the beginning.

Lesly McNitt leads NCGA's Washington, D.C. office as vice president of Public Policy. Lesly, welcome to the show.

Lesly McNitt

Thanks, Dusty. Great to see you. I'm looking forward to discussing an issue that's been top of mind for NCGA's grower leaders.

Dusty Weis

By the way, I hope I'm not too late to the party here, but congratulations are in order on your new position as VP of Public Policy at NCGA.

Though you're certainly not a new face, and we're happy to have you back in Corn's corner, so to speak. Can you tell us a little bit more about your background?

Lesly McNitt

Yeah, it's like coming home again. It's been great to be back. I rejoined NCGA at the end of March after a brief hiatus, but prior to this stint, I had served as NCGA's trade and biotech policy director. I've also done some stints on Capitol Hill, on the House Agriculture Committee, at USDA, and then working across other NGOs, associations and foundations.

So I'm very passionate about all things agriculture, and I love working with farmers, and it's been a real pleasure to be back here at NCGA.

Dusty Weis

A long, storied career already, always with your finger on the pulse of issues like this one. Certainly one of the reasons that we're happy to have you here today.

Also joining us to help us get our arms around this report and its potential impact, is NCGA's Director of Inputs and Innovation, Dr. Becky Langer.

Becky Langer

Hi, Dusty. Thank you so much for the opportunity to join Lesly and you today.

Dusty Weis

And you're a relatively new face at National Corn Growers Association. Can you tell us a little bit about your background, please?

Becky Langer

Absolutely. So I have a PhD in Pathobiology and then over 15 years in the pesticide industry, having worked with registrants in different organizations ranging anywhere from bee care to pesticide regulatory mechanisms.

Dusty Weis

Well, thank you both for making time to join us today.

We're here to talk about what has been dubbed the Make America Healthy Again movement, spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, which sounds like the kind of thing that everybody ought to be able to get on board with.

But there's some stuff in there, like this pesticide thing, that some folks might be surprised to hear is being debated.

Lesly, how did you get wind of the MAHA Commission's report, and why is the work of the MAHA Commission and the broader MAHA movement important to corn farmers and the NCGA?

Lesly McNitt

Well, Dusty, the policy team has been tracking the MAHA commission since President Trump established it by executive order in February. But this broader movement has been around really, even prior to the campaign, and sort of picked up speed during the president's campaign.

And we had been following comments from various leaders of the MAHA movement regarding the U.S. food and agriculture system as it relates to the health of Americans.

So we knew farmers were going to need to be consulted and really have a prominent voice during the process of developing the commission's report.

Despite best efforts, we didn't initially have a lot of luck engaging with the report's authors before it came out. But we started to hear, you know, that the report was likely to make troubling claims about agriculture and specifically pesticides in relation to human diseases and health conditions.

And so, NCGA's president and other grower advocates really stepped up engagement, taking to the press, reaching out to members of Congress to make sure that their voices would be heard.

You know, it's important to say here, NCGA supports the goals of MAHA, which is improving the health of Americans and especially children. I mean, farming a family business, after all, right.

But the process of developing recommendations really needs to include farmers, and the substance of these reports needs to be based in sound science. And so those were two kind of non-negotiables to us. Farmers have faced a lot of challenges historically to their freedom to operate and to make decisions about the production tools and methods that are best for their farming operations. So growers kind of come into this sensitive to anything that could further jeopardize their access.

Dusty Weis

Well, and as you noted, farming almost exclusively is always a family business. And I don't know a single farmer who wouldn't feed their own kids with what they grow on their own farm.

So what are we talking about here? Becky, could you give us a quick rundown of the report itself and some of the assertions that are included in it?

Becky Langer

Yes. The report was released in May and it was focused on addressing chronic disease in children. Now, this was considered the initial assessment. We expect the follow up report coming out in August, but that initial assessment across almost 70 pages looked at many different factors, which ranged from diet to physical activity to vaccines.

What are the many things that could be affecting disease in the children?

Now, what caught our attention most was a section about chemicals in the environment, and it raised questions about the safety of pesticides that farmers rely on and have used safely and effectively for many years.

In fact, these pesticides are critical to the work that farmers are doing to feed and fuel America and the rest of the world, frankly.

So if we have misguided claims in this report that lead to, say, policy proposals, the farmers could face significant barriers in growing that safe, healthy and profitable crop in the future.

Dusty Weis

We're talking about two pesticides in particular, as I understand it, that are very important to modern corn growers. Atrazine and glyphosate. And these are critical to the work that farmers do in their fields. Can you explain what the concerns are or where these concerns are coming from, and what we actually know to be true about these pesticides based on settled science?

Becky Langer

You are correct. The report names both glyphosate and atrazine. Now both of these revolutionary herbicides were developed over 50 years ago to control a wide range of problematic weeds for the farmer.

Today, farmers continue to choose those herbicides due to their efficacy, safety profile and cost effectiveness. Now, the report suggests, although not necessarily science-based, that these commonly used pesticides may be posing a risk to human health-specifically, the children that were the focus of this report.

Now, what we do know is that pesticides are some of the most tested and regulated products in the world. In fact, more tests are required for pesticides than pharmaceuticals. If we look at EPA, who's the regulatory body or the gold standard, if you will, particularly for the US, the EPA requires that products do not pose an unreasonable risk to humans or the environment before they'll ever register them for sale.

In the U.S. these registered products are required to be reviewed at least every 15 years, and are subject to continuous review whenever any new scientific data becomes available or there's anything flagged that might be novel risk of this product. So they're risk scrutinized essentially on a continuous basis as data is coming in.

Further, the regulatory authorities at the EPA, working in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA, they set very strict levels regarding pesticide residues in food.

The EPA sets an exposure level that's at least 100 times lower than where we would see no adverse effects in safety studies when using these pesticides.

Now, glyphosate and atrazine are excellent examples of this reevaluation process I just discussed. Glyphosate has been registered in the United States since 1974, and atrazine has been registered as a pesticide since 1958, in the United States. And since that time, the EPA has reviewed and assessed these products' safety and use multiple times.

Now, interestingly, not only are these pesticides safe when used according to label direction, but they also contribute to sustainable practices by reducing fuel, labor, machinery costs. But they also help create healthy soils, which is also a focus of the MAHA commission and interests.

Healthy soils are enabled with these herbicides because they support practices like cover crops and no-tillage, and that helps to preserve the soil moisture. They prevent soil erosion, they increase soil organic matter, and they stimulate biological activity of the soil. So the herbicides actually can be quite beneficial in multiple facets of the farming operation.

Dusty Weis

So, Leslie, that's sort of a look at what we know about these products. And when you got word that there were rumblings among the new administration that might lead to eventual policy, you guys got right to work, and you led the advocacy response to the threats that Becky has mentioned here. What were the most important points that NCGA has to make in response to this report when it came out?

Lesly McNitt

That's right, Dusty, and that advocacy effort continues. You know, the first report that came out from the MAHA Commission in May focused on sort of diagnosis or an overview of claimed root causes that contribute to adverse health outcomes in children.

The next report, which is due out sometime later this month, will focus more on strategy and possible policy or regulatory recommendations.

And so we're very much active in this conversation, and we expect that it will continue even beyond the life of this forthcoming report.

First, we focused on pesticides and we continue to do so. We made it clear that the way that pesticides were discussed in the report is problematic. You know, they're based on fear and conjecture rather than sound science.

The report did not take a comprehensive view of the extensive research and testing that has shown that pesticides can be applied safely for their intended use, and the U.S. framework for regulatory review of these products is a global gold standard. And it's really important that we start with really acknowledging that as the baseline for this conversation.

Now, the regulatory rigor that pesticides undergo doesn't even really touch on what farmers are doing voluntarily every day to make sure that they're using pesticides safely and with precision.

Farmers undergo in-person trainings, licensing and certification programs, working with technology and innovation to make sure that they're calculating the right rate of application and that they're being really precise and targeted so that they avoid overuse of pesticides.

That's not just important for some of the environmental reasons that Becky mentioned earlier and the soil health reasons. You know, it's also important that farmers are saving on overhead costs at a time when we have low and declining corn prices and the cost of inputs has been steadily increasing.

I mean, there's just sort of a common sense financial aspect of this as well, but there's also this inherent tie in connection to natural resources and making sure that those natural resources are available and abundant for the next generation.

And we know that without these important crop protection chemicals like atrazine, like glyphosate, the weeds, the insects, the disease in the field would force farmers to essentially harvest a 70% reduced crop if they didn't have access to these tools.

So there are financial and there are environmental reasons to incentivize producers beyond just what they're required to do by law to kind of do the right thing. And our grower members are really proud of what they do, and they're transparent about how they do it. We want to be productive partners to the administration, and we realize that this is really complicated stuff.

And if you aren't well-versed in farming, it's easy to make your own conclusions based on what you see on social media or elsewhere. So our other key message has really been talk to us. Keep farmers at the table as these decisions are being contemplated.

Dusty Weis

That number that you cited right there, Lesly, that 70% reduction in yield-I feel like that number needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

As you mentioned, we talk a lot about how people don't necessarily understand where their food comes from anymore. And so that leaves room for them to react emotionally to things in absence of the facts that they need to know to make an informed decision, or to lock on to something that they see in a Facebook post.

But if you lined up every product on the store shelves that has corn in it, or was raised with corn feed and then snapped your fingers and seven out of every ten things on the shelf just didn't exist. I think that creates a very immediate impact on people's lives in terms of what's available for them to eat?

How much does it cost for them to buy it? And most importantly, who doesn't get to eat?

I mean, paint me a picture, both of you, please. What does a world look like where there's 70% less corn grown in the U.S.?

Lesly McNitt

Well, we know that global food insecurity is already a major issue that impacts really every country in the world, certainly disproportionately low- and middle-income countries.

But here in the United States, we struggle with food insecurity as well. And American farmers are the best at what they do. We've long had that competitive edge in terms of productivity and quality, and have proven the ability to export our products and really help feed and fuel the world.

So the idea of reducing the crop by 70% in terms of yield and productivity, that would be a major shock to global markets. It would be a shock to the food system.

Think back to just immediately following the pandemic and some of the supply chain shocks that we experienced, and we're still dealing with some of those repercussions playing out in affordability and inflation and food.

Imagine that on steroids. And that's what we would be dealing with if farmers couldn't control pests and disease and weeds.

Dusty Weis

It sounds terrible. It sounds scary. And frankly, another point that Becky made that I want to hammer home a little bit-

This report paints pesticides not just as a threat to children's health, but as a growing threat, as something that is getting worse.

And once again, I feel like the general public misunderstands how pesticides are used. That in fact, improving technologies allow farmers to use less pesticide than ever before, thanks to advancements like GM crops and see-and-spray technology, and advanced scouting, and targeted application.

Are growers getting enough credit-getting any credit-for leveraging these advances in technology?

Becky Langer

I think the farmers get recognition in the fact that the report does recognize that farmers play a role in feeding the nation, so they do give a shout out to the farmers.

But to your point, I think there's an underestimation on how they use the precision technologies to make sure they're targeting, say, an herbicide like glyphosate, right on that weed, or the nozzles are turning on and turning off as they go near a sensitive area.

Maybe that technology is allowing them to apply much smaller quantities than we did in the 70s when those herbicides were first approved.

So, no, I think it stopped short of recognizing all of the advances that have been made by the farmers, by the technology in the field as we have come through the years.

I think the other important thing to recognize is that people have to understand that… and I think you touched on this… the farmers in their families, they live on the land where these pesticides are used.

They want safety as much as the next person, and they eat the same food. They're deeply committed to protecting the safety of their communities and producing safe, healthy and abundant food supply. And I think that's why they become so emotional with reports like this, because someone is questioning their own personal integrity on how they're producing that corn.

Lesly McNitt

And if I could just add something because I'm a city girl who's been working in agriculture for a long time, and so I often think about how can people where I grew up understand what we're talking about when we talk about farmers reducing the amount of pesticides that they're using and how they apply pesticides.

And something that I've learned since I came to NCGA is the amount of like, glyphosate that a farmer is using is the equivalent of a cup of coffee spread out over a football field.

You know, people don't understand that when they see a sprayer on the field that the pesticides in there have been diluted and have been mixed. And so I just never could picture what type of quantity we were talking about. But that analogy really hit home for me.

So in case there are other city girls listening here, I wanted to make sure that you have that good like representation of what kind of volume we're talking about.

Dusty Weis

I think that's absolutely the way that we need to frame this conversation up there. Just because so many people who are cut off from the world of agriculture don't have a frame of reference for this.

And I'll give you another frame of reference. I had a conversation with a grower just this morning talking about his application of the see-and-spray technology on his farm, and he said that it has allowed him to save $25,000 in pesticides per application.

That is a massive amount that he is not putting on his field because of this new and emerging technology, and I just don't think that's understood in people's perception of how food is grown.

Well, to wrap this up today, I've got one last question for the both of you. And that's what's next for Make America Healthy Again… as far as we know?

I know that you all have done a great job in seeing that this is coming and getting out ahead of it, because the report that's out now, it's just a list of things that they're looking at, right?

There's no recommended action yet. So what do we expect to come next? And what are NCGA's contingency plans for the next chapter of this story?

Becky Langer

So we anticipate there's going to be another report coming out later this month, sometime in August was anticipated. And it's going to have policy proposals.

We're told it will focus a lot on how can different departments within the government work with one another. So we've made some recommendations and we hope that they reinforce the robust, globally-respected pesticide review process of the EPA that we discussed earlier.

We also want them to highlight that critical role of precision agriculture in the pesticide application, that small quantities being applied to the land, and how the farmers are reading those labels to 1) protect their pocketbooks, but also the safety of their communities, and then maintaining that transparency and engagement with the farmers on a regular basis.

Lesly McNitt

We've seen that our entreaties to the administration, and engagement with members of Congress has started to really resonate, and we're seeing more openness to consultation with farmers and groups like NCGA.

And so we are going to look for opportunities to be very proactive and also partner and identify common ground with the administration to make sure that farmers' voices are being heard, like Becky said.

Then also that we can be really solutions-oriented, and we're hoping that we'll see that approach resonate in this next set of recommendations. And we expect that we'll continue to work with USDA, EPA, HHS, and the White House as we see the regulatory process play out and some of these recommendations potentially take root in the regulatory realm.

Dusty Weis

So that's what you've got planned, Lesly. What about us folks who aren't in D.C.? How do we get involved? Should we be involved yet? Who needs to hear from us on this?

Lesly McNitt

That's a great point, Dusty. You know, we are really lucky that we have such a strong record of advocacy and such an engaged grassroots membership.

So I think it's really important. You know we'll keep putting out the information and helping our membership, corn farmers across the country digest what's coming from the administration and understand how it potentially impacts them and will provide opportunities.

We want to create a platform. So whether it's sharing videos through NCGA's website and your personal perspective on why and how you use pesticides, or whether it's, you know, sending letters or making phone calls and making your voice heard. Here in Washington, we'll continue to offer opportunities for that information exchange and that grassroots action.

Dusty Weis

I'll add as well. It's the August recess right now, always a great opportunity to cross paths with one of your legislators, either on a farm tour or even just standing in line at the grocery store. But a great time to put a respectful bug in their ear as well.

Certainly, it's something that I know that you both are going to continue to keep your eyes on, and that you're going to be on the front lines of this, helping lead a great organization and great leaders who are tackling this issue.

So I wanted to thank the both of you for joining us. Dr. Becky Langer and Lesly McNitt, thank you both for joining us here on this episode of the CobCast.

Lesly McNitt

Thank you both. Great to be with you.

Dusty Weis

And thank you for listening. We hope you'll join us again next month for another episode of the Cobcast: Inside the Grind with the National Corn Growers Association.

If you are on X, you can follow @NationalCorn for more news and updates from NCGA.

Visit NCGA.com to sign up for the association's email newsletter and make sure that you're following this show in your favorite podcast app.

The CobCast is brought to you by the National Corn Growers Association, and it's produced by Podcamp Media, branded podcast production for businesses. podcampmedia.com

For the National Corn Growers Association, thanks for listening. I'm Dusty Weis.

Back to In The News