Industry-friendly Laws Could Mean More Chemicals in Food Production — and Trouble for the MAHA Agenda

As the Make America Healthy Again agenda gains popular support, more states are floating laws, written by the chemical industry, that if passed, will lead to more chemicals in the food supply and liability protection for chemical makers whose products harm human health and the environment.

As the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda continues to gain popular support, proposed changes in agricultural policy may pave the way for more pesticides to enter the U.S. food system.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is advancing a proposal that would block states from requiring warning labels on pesticides, herbicides and other commonly used agricultural products, The Lever reported.

Meanwhile, at the state level, at least 11 and as many as 21 states are proposing industry-drafted bills to grant agrochemical companies immunity from liability for harms from their products if those products are licensed by the EPA, according to Moms Across America.

Both proposals stem, in part, from the ongoing battles over glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the country and the key ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup weedkiller. Extensive scientific research has identified glyphosate as a carcinogen and linked it to many additional health concerns, including autism and decreased birth weight for babies.

Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018, faces thousands of lawsuits by people who claim they developed cancer after being exposed to Roundup. Bayer set aside more than $10 billion to settle roughly 100,000 of the claims, although some of the settlements have become mired in difficulties. In 2021, Bayer said it would set aside another $4.5 billion to cover cancer claims.

Under President Donald Trump’s first administration, the EPA determined that “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” but a federal appeals court rejected that determination in June 2022. In September 2022, the EPA withdrew its decision but still maintains that no cancer risk to humans is present. That decision is still under review.

The proposed rule changes come as former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin takes the helm at EPA. Zeldin, who has a history of voting against environmental protection measures, has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the agribusiness sector. Trump promised that Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.”

The rule changes also coincide with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, who is also leading the administration’s MAHA initiative, has been a staunch critic of pesticides for decades. He was one of the attorneys for Dewayne Johnson, who won the landmark case against Monsanto, arguing that Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the known risk.

Kennedy has often said many of the most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. are “extraordinarily toxic” and contribute significantly to chronic health problems.

Mark A. Kastel, executive director of OrganicEye, a farm policy research group and organic industry watchdog, said there is a direct conflict between Big Ag companies profiting at the expense of people’s health and the stated goals of MAHA.

“This will potentially be one of the first public clashes between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the agribusiness and Big Food lobbyists, who have held longtime power and influence at both the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture],” he said.

Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., MIT scientist and author of “Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate is Destroying Our Health and the Environment,” told The Defender, “It will be beyond disappointing if one of the first actions that gets implemented under Trump’s new ‘Make America Healthy Again’ initiative is to block the states from warning consumers about the dangers of toxic pesticides like glyphosate used extensively on the food crops.”

Taking away individual, local and state rights not within EPA’s jurisdiction

The proposed EPA rule change would classify any warning labels on agricultural chemicals beyond those mandated by the federal government as “misbranding.”

Republican attorneys general from 11 states are leading the initiative, which would override existing laws and threaten to limit public awareness about the health risks of many chemical agricultural products, according to The Lever.

They submitted a letter to the EPA stating that warning labels about glyphosate are central to their concerns.

They underscored how important glyphosate is for farmers in their states, saying it allows them to “effectively manage weeds using fewer chemicals and other inputs. Better weed management also increases crop yields by allowing the growing crops to reach yield potential.”

They also argued that states such as California are trying to brand herbicides like glyphosate with “false or misleading claims” because of its proposition that requires warning labels on chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Kastel said that similar “preemption” initiatives have been pushed at the state level across the country for years by organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation.

He added:

“Despite the rhetoric of some politicians, suggesting that the best governance operates ‘closest to the people,’ lobbyists know darn well that it’s easier, through their efforts, and campaign contributions, to influence politicians and legislation higher up the pecking order.

“Corporate agribusiness interests might not be able to successfully counter popular prohibitions, based on sensitive geology, or other factors, on a local basis. But when you pool their money at the state or federal levels, they can crush the initiatives of local communities that will be directly impacted.”

On Jan. 21, the EPA announced a public comment period for the rule, open until March 24, which is the first step toward implementation. More than 1,000 comments have been submitted, largely from private citizens and consumer and environmental organizations urging the EPA to reject the proposal.

Pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro from GMO Science wrote that she has seen “significant harm in children from pesticides” in her four decades of practicing medicine.

“By restricting states from implementing labeling requirements that go beyond the EPA’s human health risk assessments, this rule would strip states of their ability to safeguard public health based on local environmental conditions and scientific findings,” she wrote.

Perro, Zen Honeycutt and other members of Moms Across America commissioned a study in 2022 that found 93% of school lunches sampled contained glyphosate. They have since advocated for federal action to change school lunches to organic, regenerative food.

Honeycutt told the EPA the rule change would intervene in the ability of local governments to share information they deem important with their constituents.

“This unimaginably harmful decision would expose our children, pets, wildlife, farms and marine life to chemicals where local officials have decided that would not be prudent,” Honeycutt said. “Taking away individual, local and state rights is not within the jurisdiction of the EPA.”

Big Ag wants the same immunity from liability as Big Pharma has for vaccines

Many of the same states whose attorneys general are pushing to change the EPA rule are also proposing new state laws — written and pushed by Big Ag — that would provide companies like Bayer with immunity from liability for harms resulting from exposure to their products if those products are licensed for use by the EPA.

The laws also give chemical makers immunity even if they violate federal labeling laws, according to Moms Across America.

Daniel Hinkle, from the American Association for Justice, explained in an email shared with The Defender that “foreign pesticide companies are seeking complete immunity so they can get away with covering up the risks and dangers of their products. This bill hurts farmers seeking to hold Bayer and ChemChina accountable for the harms they knowingly covered up.”

In 2017, ChemChina acquired Syngenta, maker of the highly poisonous paraquat weedkiller, which is linked to Parkinson’s disease.

Hinkle also said the immunity sought by chemical makers would apply to over 16,000 chemicals the EPA regulates under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and also to any future chemicals covered by the act.

“It covers not only human health claims like those pending against Bayer for causing cancer, or ChemChina for causing Parkinson’s disease but also property damage claims like those against Bayer for covering up the risk of drift from dicamba over-the-top,” he added.

“By making the EPA label ‘sufficient warning’ under state law, all potential claims against any pesticide manufacturer are wiped out, even when they actively conceal the risks to human health and the environment,” Hinkle wrote.

Moms Across America said that the deal Big Ag is seeking is even better than the protections afforded to Big Pharma by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. That law protects vaccine makers from lawsuits for vaccines routinely recommended for pregnant women and children. But it also requires manufacturers to pay into an injury fund used to compensate vaccine-injured people.

Big Ag’s proposed laws don’t even offer to support that minimal — and notoriously difficult to access — compensation.

Moms Across America is calling the proposed legislation the “Make America Sick Again” bills, Honeycutt told The Defender, “because they provide pesticide companies immunity from accountability, allow them to make us sick, and profit from that sickness.”

Honeycutt said one of their farmer advisers, Mark Doudlah, told her organization that as his father died from cancer caused by agrochemicals, he was treated with chemo drugs. “The name that was on the agrochemicals that they used, which gave him cancer, was the same name that was on the box of chemo drugs … Bayer.”

She added:

“Bayer and ChemChina must not be able to manipulate our state elected officials to eliminate our rights to sue them for harm. Medical debt is the number one reason for bankruptcy and homelessness.

“If Bayer’s products cause cancer, the company should be accountable. We suggest that rather than spending millions on lawyers and lobbyists, Bayer spend that money on reformulating its products for safety. Nontoxic weedkillers do exist.”

Regenerative farmer Howard Vlieger said when he testified against the proposed bill at a Senate subcommittee hearing in Des Moines, Iowa, last year, the legislators had a lobbyist from Bayer introduce the bill.

He said the legislation is “unconstitutional as the day is long” because it would take away people’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Bayer’s Modern Ag Alliance is providing tools for states to pass these bills. Moms Across America is tracking the progress of the various bills across the country and providing resources for people organizing to stop them.