Opinion: We need a practical approach to balancing health goals and farm stability

I grew up on a ranch and for 26 years I’ve worked in agriculture and food policy from Hill staff desks to leading national grower organizations. Never in my career have I seen such high political interest in such diverse topics like Make America Healthy Again, a Supreme Court case and farm bill fights on pesticide labeling, and the complexities surrounding E15.

Yet, at their core, these complex debates are about the same challenge: how to protect farmers and consumers, maintain fair competition and provide clear, workable rules.

MAHA’s emphasis on healthier eating, including efforts to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, responds to a public health need: America must do more to address poor diets and rising obesity. But reforms must be grounded in evidence and developed with input from producers, processors and stakeholders who understand practical realities on the farm and in the food chain. If groups drive policy without science-based analysis, the unintended consequences for agricultural production, supply chains and rural livelihoods could be severe. Policymakers should craft legislation informed by subject matter experts. They should avoid labeling practices like grinding grain as “ultra processing” and instead pursue balanced, feasible measures that improve nutrition without destabilizing the food system.

It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of  Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here   

Likewise, the Supreme Court’s pesticide labeling arguments could reshape the interplay between private tort suits and federal regulatory regimes. If the Court limits liability for labels that conform to EPA determinations, Congress and agencies should use that decision to strengthen administrative remedies and monitoring. Producers and the public deserve science-based certainty and avenues for redress when harm occurs. Strengthening market surveillance, funding robust epidemiological and exposure assessments, and improving the speed and transparency of EPA labeling reviews would reduce litigation drivers while protecting public health.

A strong farm bill and safety net are central to making reforms work in practice. The safety net, crop insurance and disaster assistance give farmers predictability to make multiyear investments in conservation, technology and workforce stability. Credit and targeted rural development programs keep processing capacity and logistics close to production, a bulwark against consolidation and supply chain shocks. Public investment in research, extension and market development spurs innovation from gene technology and improved rootstocks to lower emission practices and helps U.S. producers compete abroad. Trade promotion and market opening provisions translate domestic resilience into export opportunities, supporting rural employment and price stability. Without these pillars, regulatory changes or competition remedies risk shifting costs onto the farm gate and eroding domestic capacity.

Over my career as a subcommittee staff director, trade and policy adviser, and CEO, I’ve seen statutory intent fail when agencies lack clear guidance. Whether dealing with pesticide tolerances, E15 access or MAHA-related reforms, agencies should commit to phased implementation, stakeholder engagement and measurable metrics. Pilots and waivers can test reforms before broad rollouts, minimizing unintended disruptions.

Congress should take a practical step-by-step approach: strengthen the safety net, invest in credit, research, and rural development, and make targeted MAHA and EPA reforms. Done with care, this can improve nutrition, give farmers predictability and protect consumers without disrupting the food system.

Chandler Goule is the former CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers and previously worked for the National Farmers Union and as staff director for a subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee.