House strips MAHA-hated pesticide provisions from farm bill

On Thursday, the House of Representatives removed contentious clauses designed to shield pesticide producers from the farm bill. This action followed a “Make America Healthy Again” movement that threatened to derail the entire legislative package.

An amendment, championed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), to eliminate this language succeeded with a 280-142 vote. This occurred amidst significant bipartisan resistance from legislators and MAHA supporters, who argued the provisions effectively served as a “liability shield” for Bayer against claims that its Roundup herbicide, containing glyphosate, causes cancer. Earlier on Thursday morning, the comprehensive farm bill itself passed the House 224-200.

According to Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a key Democratic figure advocating for the removal of the pesticide clauses, these provisions constituted a “handout to big agriculture, to big chemical.”

Speaking on the House floor, Pingree stated, “It undermines states’ authority to oversee pesticide application or labeling, and it offers a liability shield to pesticide manufacturers.” She concluded, “In essence, this wording prioritizes the financial gains of chemical corporations above the well-being of the American populace.”

Numerous lawsuits spanning several years have alleged that glyphosate is a carcinogen. Both Bayer and Monsanto, the original producer of Roundup before Bayer’s acquisition, have frequently faced liability for not adequately warning about cancer risks. While the Environmental Protection Agency does not categorize glyphosate as a carcinogen nor mandate labels indicating cancer risk, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared the chemical “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015.

The contested wording in the legislation would have prevented states and judicial bodies from imposing penalties on, or finding “any entity liable for non-compliance with mandates that would necessitate labeling or packaging distinct from or supplementary to that endorsed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

In a statement provided to CNBC, Bayer declared the elimination of these provisions to be “a lost chance for Congress.”

The statement further asserted, “Through this vote, Congress has abandoned American farmers in an increasingly cutthroat global market by permitting gross inaccuracies to erode backing for this vital clause.” It continued, “Removing this wording might lead to a confusing array of regulations, fostering uncertainty when precise guidelines are paramount.”

G.T. Thompson, Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, resisted the amendment, telling reporters Wednesday evening that removing the clause would constitute “a significant detriment to the American farmer.” Thompson consistently refuted claims that the language served as a liability shield, contending instead that it would merely deter “unwarranted lawsuits” and that legal action against “culpable parties” would remain possible.

Despite this, Thompson lauded the farm bill’s approval, declaring in an X post that it represents “a triumph for our agriculturalists, livestock producers, foresters, rural areas, and all citizens nationwide.”

Glyphosate remains the most widely applied herbicide across the U.S. A division has emerged between the White House and the MAHA coalition, which had supported President Donald Trump after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew from the 2024 election, following Trump’s endorsement of glyphosate production in February.

Just this week, the White House presented arguments favoring Bayer before the Supreme Court in a case that has the potential to significantly complicate efforts to sue the firm concerning cancer allegations.

The farm bill will now proceed to the Senate.