A bipartisan group of House lawmakers moved Thursday to strip out a controversial pesticide provision from legislation setting U.S. farm and nutrition policy after Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., threatened to “slaughter” the legislation if her measure did not receive a floor vote.
Lawmakers voted 280 to 142 to approve Luna’s amendment, which removed language from the farm bill shielding pesticide manufacturers from legal liability.
The successful vote could be a sign of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement’s growing influence over congressional Republicans, who splintered over the issue. Leading MAHA advocates applied public pressure on Republicans to back the amendment, arguing that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the MAHA movement.
Seventy-three Republicans backed Luna’s measure, while 142 GOP lawmakers rejected it.
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES THREATEN EXTENDED SHUTDOWN OVER ELECTION INTEGRITY MEASURE
The provision that lawmakers struck would block lawsuits against pesticide companies for failing to disclose potential health risks as long as they are in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on labeling. States and localities would be barred from issuing pesticide labeling guidance that diverges from the EPA.
“I have a little boy, and the amount of articles I have seen on pesticides and herbicides popping up in children’s products (to include organic) is very bad,” Luna, a MAHA-aligned Republican, wrote on social media earlier this week. “On behalf of all the moms and dads that aren’t in office, I am not going to be bullied into supporting a bill that is providing protections and immunity to corporations that are responsible for giving children and adults cancer.”
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, policy chair of the House Freedom Caucus, also endorsed Luna’s amendment, arguing it would “protect Americans from dangerous pesticides.”
Republican critics, however, contended that Luna’s amendment would raise costs for consumers if the pesticide provision was stripped from the farm bill.
“If the EPA says the label is good, I don’t see why every state municipality should have to have another label that would simply raise the price for the American consumer,” Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., said in opposition to Luna’s measure.
“We’re not talking about the pesticide in the jug as has been misrepresented to the American citizens and especially the MAHA movement,” Scott continued. “We’re talking about just the label on the jug. There is no liability shield for the pesticide in the jug.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., also sharply criticized Luna’s measure.
“The arguments on the other side are pretty shallow, and they’re emotional,” Thompson said on the House floor. “They’re not science-based.”
Democrats also widely backed the effort to remove the pesticide provision from the bill.
“Put simply, this language puts chemical company profits over the health of Americans,” Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said during debate on the House floor.
The floor battle over the pesticide provision also comes as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week about whether pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, should be given legal preemption from failing to warn consumers that its weedkiller product Roundup could cause cancer.
The Trump administration sparked controversy among MAHA advocates earlier this year when it declared domestic production of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, a national security priority. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an influential MAHA voice, publicly defended the move despite railing against glyphosate for years.
Bayer has repeatedly maintained that its product is safe to use and has not been found to cause cancer.
