A Grand Bargain: Can Food and Fuel Find Common Ground?

The MAHA Commission has cracked a few eggs.

Its recent report calls for sweeping changes in the U.S. diet, including a reduced role for widely used seed oils in the food system. Industry reaction has been swift and sharp — with oilseed processors, farmers, and nutrition scientists warning of market disruption, higher costs, and questionable science. Whether the proposal stands or falls will be decided in the political arena, but for now it’s clear: if MAHA’s vision advances, it will upend established supply chains.

Meanwhile, another egg has been cracked — this time in the energy sector. Renewable fuel producers, especially in the fast-growing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) market, see potential for expansion but face a persistent challenge: there isn’t enough affordable plant oil to support the volumes they could produce. Feedstock constraints remain a bottleneck for growth.

Two disruptions. Two broken eggs. And if history has taught us anything — from Farm Bill coalitions to rural–urban policy alignments — it’s that sometimes, when different challenges land on the same table, you can make a better omelette.

The question is whether this moment could be one of those times.

Egg One: MAHA and the Food Oil Debate

The MAHA Commission’s stated mission is sweeping: to drastically reduce chronic disease and eliminate childhood illness. Among its many proposals, it has taken aim at dietary fats and oils — in particular, seed oils such as canola, corn, soybean, and sunflower.

Industry groups, including the American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS), the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA), and the American Soybean Association (ASA), have responded forcefully. They cite decades of peer-reviewed research confirming that these oils reduce cardiovascular risk, do not increase inflammation, and provide essential healthy fats.

The ASA points to a March 2025 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing a 16% reductionin cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other ailments over 30 years among frequent consumers of plant-based oils compared to those using saturated-fat-rich alternatives. The FDA has even approved a qualified health claim for soybean oil and heart disease risk reduction.

From the industry’s standpoint, removing seed oils from the food supply risks confusing consumers, eroding trust, and raising costs — breaking an egg without a clear recipe for what comes next.

Egg Two: Feedstock Bottlenecks in Renewable Fuels

While the food debate plays out, renewable fuel producers have their own constraint: there is not enough competitively priced vegetable oil to meet potential production targets.

In SAF and renewable diesel markets, every gallon of feedstock matters. More supply could lower input costs, speed facility expansions, and accelerate the transition to low-carbon fuels. Conversely, without new sources, fuel producers face tight margins and slower scaling — a situation as limiting as a kitchen with one egg when the recipe calls for three.

What Happens if the Eggs End Up in the Same Bowl?

The potential impact of removing seed oils from the food supply was modeled this year by the World Agricultural Economic & Environmental Services (WAEES) for the United Soybean Board and ASA.

Two scenarios were examined:

Scenario 1: Flat U.S. fat and oil consumption

• Loss of 58 lbs per capita of seed oil from the food supply

• Replacement largely by imported palm oil — requiring 3.3 million new acres globally

• 28.7% increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for fats and oils, adding $7.7 billion annually to consumer costs

Scenario 2: Price-constrained substitution

• Only partial replacement of lost seed oil volumes

• Net drop of 21 lbs per capita in fats and oils consumed

• 35.1% increase in the CPI for fats and oils due to scarcity

In both cases:

• Soybean prices fall by over 3% annually

• Farmer returns drop by about 7%

• Crop cash receipts decline by $3 billion per year

• Soybean acreage shrinks by 2.8 million acres annually

And a key wrinkle: oilseed crushing yields both oil and meal. Even if oil demand for food declines, meal demand for animal feed remains high. Reduced crushing margins could push meal prices upward, raising feed costs and tightening meat supplies by more than 12 lbs per person annually.

In other words: a food market disruption could quickly spill into feed markets, protein prices, and export competitiveness — unless new demand for oil picks up the slack.

The Omelette: A Grand Bargain for Food and Fuel

Here’s where the opportunity lies. If food demand for seed oils drops, the supply available for fuel production rises. Under strong renewable fuel mandates, this could feed a surge in SAF and renewable diesel capacity.

For farmers, it could preserve market value for oilseeds even as food uses decline. For fuel producers, it could unlock scale at lower cost. For policymakers, it could advance both public health and climate goals without requiring a purely zero-sum tradeoff.

This would require intentional coordination — the kind historically seen when rural and urban interests have joined forces on Farm Bills. The difference here is that the coalition would be built on shared solutions to separate problems: one in the food aisle, one in the fuel tank.

Broken Eggs, Better Omelette

The MAHA Commission’s next report, due within 80 days, will likely clarify its policy direction. If it advances toward reduced seed oil use in food, the disruption will be significant — but so will the opening for a rebalanced system.

Two cracked eggs don’t automatically make breakfast. But in the right bowl, with the right recipe, they can become something better. A Grand Bargain that turns food policy change and fuel feedstock scarcity into a single, sustainable strategy might be one omelette worth making.