At a time when everyone is discussing the shocking statements, initiatives, and steps of the new administration and Trump personally, one of the key initiatives, MAHA (Make America Healthy Again), has been undeservedly overlooked. Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, food and agricultural policy have become key elements of his agenda. Almost anyone who has visited the United States and Europe has noticed the difference in taste of similar products: even similar dairy products sold under the brand of the same multinational company will taste different. The reason for this is the different requirements for the ingredients used, chemicals, dyes, pesticides, hormones, etc. This, in particular, was one of the reasons why the European Union does not buy American products; and now Trump declares his readiness to change this: by imposing tariffs, force the European Union to buy American food, which is supposed to be made more environmentally friendly.
Kennedy is a proponent of healthy food
Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is appointed head of the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Food and Drug Administration. This appointment gives Kennedy a huge influence on agriculture.
Over the past decades, most supporters of green development and leading environmental scientists have largely supported the Democrats; most environmental initiatives and support measures were introduced by the Democratic cabinet. However, now many people who advocate regenerative agriculture and environmental conservation, including clean water, air and soil, have moved to the far-right camp and voted for Trump. The current state of the environment, food quality, and water purity is of concern to Americans: for example, in the annual Gallup poll tracking Americans’ views on the environment, drinking water pollution consistently ranks first among environmental issues. Other major problems include pollution of rivers and lakes, soil and water with toxic waste.
Kennedy has repeatedly stated his intention to reduce the use of pesticides and make agriculture more sustainable, urging Americans not to “pollute their bodies the same way we pollute the soil.” Indeed, the widespread use of pesticides in the United States is associated with diseases of the nervous system and an increase in cancer cases, which leads to numerous lawsuits. Despite the health risks, many farmers are committed to existing practices of using glyphosate-based pesticides because they are simple, cheap, and effective.
Kennedy is a proponent of environmental practices. However, this approach, despite its obvious usefulness, does not yet disclose measures to protect farmers if they switch from industrial to regenerative agriculture, which requires significantly more resources, time, and labor. Such a transition to ecological products is estimated to take at least three years, as it takes time to restore organic nutrients in depleted soil.
In addition, a decrease in the productivity of agricultural land during the transition to organic farming may lead to the need to cultivate additional plots of land, and this, in turn, leads to increased emissions, a carbon footprint associated with fuel consumption, and the need for more machinery.
Food availability and immigration
Estimates indicate that global agricultural productivity needs to double to sustainably meet global food demand by 2050.
The decline in agricultural productivity due to the transition to more environmentally friendly farming methods, in particular, threatens the role of the United States as the world’s leading exporter. The United States may cede its market share to competitors such as Brazil, China and Russia. Accordingly, proponents of traditional methods are calling for farmers to redouble their efforts to grow and export more produce, while minimizing the need to expand their acreage.
Obviously, labor shortages and high tariffs will lead to a reduction in farmers’ incomes and higher prices. On the other hand, the transition to organic farming, as a rule, leads to a decrease in yields by 20-35%, respectively, to the need to increase the acreage; and most importantly– significantly higher labor costs. And then one of Trump’s initiatives to green agriculture collides with another – to reduce the number of migrants.
The cost of labor is already a major problem for American farmers. According to the US Department of Labor, the cost of labor in agriculture has grown continuously over the past years, from $13-16 per hour in 2020 to $16-19 per hour in 2024 in the largest agricultural states. In California, for example, the growth was 34%! The American Farmers Federation estimates that the U.S. agriculture industry requires between 1.5 million and 2 million employees each year, and farmers are having tremendous difficulty filling these vacancies.
Currently, about 70% of agricultural workers are immigrants, 41% (according to other estimates, up to 50%) of whom are undocumented, that is, they are illegal immigrants. Under these conditions, Trump’s promised high tariffs and mass deportation of immigrants could lead to high food inflation.
Dependence on illegal workers in many countries has become the secret of Polichinelle, ensuring a balance between the need for labor and compliance with immigration laws, which are often disproportionately strict. Sudden government crackdowns on migrants can shift this balance, leaving these industries short-staffed and unprepared for critical tasks such as planting, harvesting, and processing. Obviously, in these conditions, there is no need to talk about greening.…
Maybe you won’t need to
Maybe there is no reason to worry so much about the shortage of labor in the United States – export markets may shrink as a result of the trade war. Trump’s proposed tariffs could undermine demand for American agricultural products abroad. At the very beginning of his previous term, Trump launched a trade war with China, imposing duties primarily on technological goods, steel and aluminum. China retaliated with duties on American soybeans, among other goods, resulting in a sharp decline in exports – by almost 75%. American soybean farmers faced falling incomes, rising production costs, debt, and business bankruptcy, while China began buying soybeans from Brazil. It is likely that in the case of aggressive tariffs from the United States, the response from trading partners may affect the American agricultural sector. On the one hand, this may lead to the release of land for organic farming, but on the other hand, it is not clear how farmers will be able to survive in such conditions without additional government support. It’s hard to imagine how so many different trends can be consolidated into a single strategy to “make America healthy again.”
