Copy of Sentinel V22 #37-HHS To Issue Report on Potential Causes of Chronic Disease
- Steve Dittmer
- Jul 22
- 4 min read
Will RFK Jr. Continue His Attacks on Pesticides?
Steve Dittmer | AFF Sentinel
Colorado Springs, CO
Originally sent to subscribers 05/15/25
We’ve said from the beginning that RFK Jr.’s appointment was a two-edged sword. He might be good for the livestock business or he could hurt it. And Brooke Rollins at USDA could be a major counterbalance to any radical moves Kennedy might contemplate.
A landmark report referred to as a review of possible connections between chronic disease, our environment and food will be a major indication of what we might be in for. White House and USDA officials are already wary of the indications that pesticides will be on the block. Kennedy has been on record that he believed pesticides were agents in some of the chronic diseases he is currently putting under the microscope.
The report is scheduled to be released May 22. It is not known what Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins or President Trump think of the report’s draft.
While not many cattlemen will be directly affected if RFK Jr. goes after key pesticides, such moves will not only damage the farmer-feeders who raise row crops to feed cattle; hurt the farmers who do and likely damage yields, lower supplies and cost feeders more money, those moves could set the tone for the cattle business’ future availability of technology like growth promotants and antibiotics.
The tenor of this upcoming report is also so important because of RFK Jr.’s professional past. As a former trial lawyer, especially active in the environmental area, RFK Jr. will naturally have made some incendiary statements. That is what trial lawyers do. They are in business to scare people and juries, to exaggerate or go a bit over the line to land big awards from juries. So it is harder than usual to determine how serious he was in the past about some of his statements.
He has made a ton of money from being part of a law firm that won a major lawsuit against glyphosate (Roundup), a substance that even the EPA has ruled safe but juries have ruled against. Even the notoriously timid EU allows the use of glyphosate.
But the HHS report will not be crafted or released in a vacuum. Media reports indicate both White House and USDA have seen earlier drafts of the report and expressed reservations. Agriculture will not be alone in fighting any war on pesticides if such does occur. Then there is the advantage that the Trump administration has styled itself as the common sense crew. Severely damaging the capability of farmers and ranchers to produce food -- after all, a very important industry -- is not something the Administration would be expected to take lightly. If RFK and Trump and Rollins really look at the science in deciding whether or not there is any danger to human health from using pesticides or any other chemical, that’s all we can ask.
Our problem has been with decisions, rules and regulations that relied strictly on prejudice not science, on hatred of food producers or ignorance of the reason for using chemicals of any kind in food production. That approach is not only wrong against the people that are trying to produce food, it is cheating the people of the world sustenance, food quantity and quality, at the least cost.
We have had some concern also about two of the people recruited by RFK Jr. to HHS. Calley Means is an RFK Jr. advisor and his sister Casey Means, is now a nominee to be surgeon general and they both have not been complimentary of modern food production or America’s dietary pattern. Calley Means has used the same terminology for pesticides that RFK has done, terming them “poisons.”
At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Kennedy said he was not trying to hurt farmers or put them out of business.
But he has, in the past, raised questions as to whether there were connections between pesticides and chronic disease.
On the other hand, a “food influencer” named Vani Hari close to Kennedy and Calley Means, said the upcoming report would show the Trump Administration “declaring war on these industries that are poisoning us,” (“Officials Clash Over Pesticides, Wall Street Journal, 05/15/25). Hari also expressed concern that conflicts of interests would not allow “truth” to be in the report.
We will charitably assume she is referring to the chemical companies that supply agriculture with the tools needed to feed the world. But that sounds like the activist approaches of the past that were intent on taking us back to the days of 40 acres and a mule. The world would starve on that approach. Chemistry has been absolutely key to agricultural productivity in the last 150 years.
Nancy Beck is now EPA deputy assistant administrator and was previously with the American Chemistry Council, a group that has worked to back the safety of glyphosate. That should provide some perspective evaluation on the report.
A word about concentration. The people who would ban everything have for years loaded mice that were designed to sensitively react to almost everything with outrageously high doses of substances and then banned them as “toxic.”
“Relying on the science” is an axiom that has been drastically damaged by the use and reliance on fake science, incomplete science and non-science during the pandemic. Only the reputation of political parties and the media have been damaged more in recent years than the scientific community. Much of that damage has not been the fault of real scientists but of those politicians and media.
So the government better come up with real cause-and-effect scientific fact before they start taking away essential keys to agricultural productivity. We make the distinction between cause-and-effect science and statistical association by epidemiology because the latter is not scientific proof. It is really no more than useful than of pointing to questions that need further exploration. It is epidemiology that has seriously damaged the beef industry for over 70 years, dating back to the Framingham study. We must not let that happen to us again.
If there are real problems in the way we produce food, we need to fix it. But shows us real reasons, not prejudice, theories or court cases from judges or juries who do not really know.
Our address: Agribusiness Freedom Foundation, P.O. Box 88179, Colorado Springs, CO. 80908.
To support the work of AFF, you can contribute with any major credit cards here:
Or,
If you wish to use your Paypal acct. click below: