Lawmakers repeat solar-on-farms myths about potato safety

Republican lawmakers in Michigan and Pennsylvania have amplified a false claim that potato farms cannot safely grow crops on land that once hosted solar installations—and that Frito-Lay/PepsiCo won’t accept those potatoes. PepsiCo denies any blanket policy, ex

For thousands of potato growers in the Upper Midwest—and for the rural families who count on seasonal contracts to keep the lights on—solar isn’t just an energy idea. It’s a question of whether the ground that feeds them can still be trusted.

The concern that’s been spreading isn’t framed as uncertainty. It’s been presented as a hard line: once solar is installed on farmland, potatoes grown there can’t be grown for human consumption.

In January, Michigan Republican state Rep. Cam Cavitt posted a 51-second clip on Facebook labeled “Solar Farm SECRET.” In it. Cavitt claimed farmers in his district couldn’t grow potatoes on land where solar developments were sited. In the same clip, fellow Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Prestin told Cavitt that “Frito [Frito-Lay] did the same with the potato growers up by us. ” and said that any field with solar panels installed “will never be allowed to grow potatoes for human consumption due to the leaching.”.

That video spread fast. More than 1 million people viewed it.

Soon, the claim crossed state lines. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Cris Dush shared the clip and said he wanted “cash bond guaranteeing restoration” of the soil after a solar development was removed. He wrote. “When Frito Lay refuses to accept potatoes from farms that had solar arrays we should all sit up and take notice!” Dush also argued that solar-related warnings could pressure farmers out of diversifying revenue. saying. “Raising these claims about solar could prevent farmers from diversifying their income stream and adding a really stable source of income.”.

PepsiCo, which owns Frito-Lay, rejected the premise outright. The company told Canary Media that it “has not issued blanket guidance to growers that fields with solar installations will not be accepted.”

The misinformation hinges on a second part of the story: that solar installations leave behind dangerous material that contaminates potato crops grown underground—an assertion that experts consulted for this story said they could not substantiate.

There’s no published evidence, according to experts consulted for this story, that solar farms have a negative impact on potato farming. In fact, agrivoltaics research has shown potatoes—and other crops—can benefit from growing alongside shade-making solar panels.

Still, the false claim about solar is gaining traction. As renewable energy developers look to build more solar installations to meet U.S. climate goals and fast-rising electricity demand, farmland has become a key battleground. Opponents often exaggerate what solar does to land that could otherwise grow crops. and some of that resistance has been fueled by claims that solar will destroy prime farmland.

The scale of the land question matters. American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving agricultural land, found that by 2040, 7 million acres of agricultural land could be used for solar installations. That figure is less than 1 percent of the farmland across the Lower 48 states.

But even if the math is small, the risk is personal for farmers who lease out land. Farmers can earn tens of thousands of dollars by leasing land to solar developers—a financial lifeline in a precarious agricultural market. Potato farmers. in particular. could be boxed in by “this sort of speculated risk. ” said Scott Laeser. senior working lands adviser for the Rural Climate Partnership. a nonprofit connecting rural and renewable development.

Laeser tied the rumor directly to income stability. “Raising these claims about solar could prevent farmers from diversifying their income stream and adding a really stable source of income to their operation. which I suspect most farmers would be pretty happy to add in the volatile moment that we’re in. ” he said.

The speculation about potatoes and solar began more than a year earlier with a statement from the agricultural trade group Potato Growers of Michigan. While the organization recognized the role of renewable energy in Michigan’s future. it didn’t want solar on farmland and cited concerns about food safety.

In that statement. the trade group warned that when solar panels and systems are eventually removed. “small fragments of plastic and metal may remain in the soil.” It argued that for crops like potatoes. which grow underground. this poses a “unique and serious risk. ” saying tuber vegetables can “readily engulf foreign objects. ” creating contamination hazards that impact growers. processors. and consumers.

Experts consulted for this story said there is no evidence that this happens.

Steven Loheide, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, researches the interaction of solar projects and farmland. He is located in one of the three biggest potato-growing states and said he had not heard of the concern from Michigan potato growers.

Alan Knapp. a plant ecologist at Colorado State University. said he did not know of any scientific study finding that solar panels installed aboveground could impact potato crops grown belowground. Knapp said there is a list of worries about what happens underneath solar panels—such as toxins leaching into the soil or metal and silica shards impacting crops—and that “most are unfounded.”.

“I’ve never heard of any sort of toxicity issues or any concerns about the quality of the crop being consumed by humans being impacted by the installation of solar panels above,” Knapp said.

Even so, the rumor kept moving.

In August 2025. a public comment from a farmer opposing a project in Kentucky called Wood Duck Solar quoted the Potato Growers of Michigan statement. The farmer wrote that potential contamination from the 100-megawatt solar field threatened food safety. The Wood Duck Solar project was ultimately approved.

In March 2026, Dennis Iott, chair of the Potato Growers of Michigan, and Kelly Turner, executive director of the Michigan Potato Growers Commission—another trade group—repeated the claims at a Michigan House Agriculture Committee hearing.

Turner said. “You cannot blame them for signing the solar contracts. ” referring to farmers signing solar contracts. “The problem is. though. that it takes that land out of production. and now it starts to hurt economies of scale because there’s no more land near the grower to be able to create enough land to have those rotations.”.

Turner added that solar groups were buying up the land. “Solar threatens potato growers because the vegetables require a lot of land that farmers often lease in rotational years, but solar groups are buying up that land,” she said.

Iott then spoke after Turner at the hearing. and admitted the evidence gap in a way that undercut the certainty lawmakers would later echo. “The food safety issue hasn’t been seen yet, because we haven’t taken those solar fields out. But it will be a problem for anything that grows in the soil,” Iott said.

Iott and Turner did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Eventually, what started as broad speculation about solar’s impact on potatoes morphed into something more specific: claims that Frito-Lay would not accept potatoes from farms with prior solar installations.

Neither Cam Cavitt nor Dave Prestin responded to multiple requests for comment.

Lynsey Mukomel, communications director for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, said she and her colleagues were not aware of any statements made by Frito-Lay or any other company asking Michigan farmers not to grow potatoes on land with solar installations.

PepsiCo, for its part, said it issued no such directives. The company said its farthest guidance goes only to provide growers with its carefully worded perspective on endorsing solar outside of “prime agricultural lands,” and only when growers ask directly.

“While the firm says it values solar energy as part of its corporate decarbonization goals. it endorses solar and other renewable installations outside of prime agricultural lands ‘in order to avoid potential impacts to crop yields. quality and the creation of other unintended consequences. ’” a spokesperson for PepsiCo said in an email.

PepsiCo’s position still leaves room for debate about siting decisions and agricultural outcomes—but not for the sweeping claim lawmakers amplified that it categorically rejects potatoes from land that hosted solar.

Meanwhile, other research points in the opposite direction. A four-year study in Italy published earlier this year found that agrivoltaic systems—which combine farming with photovoltaic electricity generation—could potentially support potato crops.

Loheide, who was not part of the Italian study, said solar panels can help retain groundwater as rain runs off sloped panels, then provides shade that blocks sunlight and helps retain moisture. He also said he has studied solar’s impact on native pollinator habitats.

“There’s a huge opportunity to get both agricultural benefits and energy production off a single plot of land,” Loheide said.

The rumor has spread with a familiar logic: once misinformation lands on a real concern—land use, soil safety, the economics of farming—it can grow legs.

Concerns about other renewable energy sources have seen similar patterns, including claims about offshore wind hurting whales that lacked evidence and became a major vector of attack on the beleaguered energy source.

Speculation about potatoes and solar may never reach that exact level. Still, it’s shown staying power.

Late last month, a post on X from a prominent anti-solar account repeated the falsehood that customers won’t buy potatoes grown on land that once hosted solar. The post racked up nearly 10,000 shares and 20,000 likes.

For lawmakers in Michigan and Pennsylvania, the next step isn’t just whether they continue repeating the claim—it’s whether they confront the gap between certainty and evidence before it hardens into policy, or into risk farmers can’t afford.

solar misinformation potato farming Frito-Lay PepsiCo Michigan politics Pennsylvania politics agrivoltaics climate policy farmland