Concerns Raised Over House Spending Bill’s Pesticide Liability Protections
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Director of the Department of Health and Human Services Advocate (HHS), has expressed serious concerns about a new House spending bill that features provisions designed to shield pesticide manufacturers from liability.
In a tweet from his nonprofit, Maha Action, Kennedy remarked, “Big AG lobbyists are quietly working to hold pesticide company laws. If it passes, Big Ag will poison with zero accountability and freely.”
The worries voiced by various advocacy groups center on Section 453 in the 2026 House Approximately Expenditure Committee Internal and Environmental Budget Law. This section states that, “No funds made available through this Act or other conduct will be used to issue or adopt guidance or policies, take regulatory actions, or approve labeling or modifications.”
Advocates argue that this measure could prevent Americans suffering from pesticide-related illnesses from suing manufacturers. Kelly Ryerson, a founder associated with American regeneration and glyphosate issues, explained, “What they included is very tricky language, ensuring that many in Congress might not realize it’s effectively a shield against responsibility.”
Ryerson indicated that several state-level bills have already provided similar liability protections for manufacturers, citing examples like Georgia.
“You can see this troubling trend extending to state legislatures where they’re passing liability shields,” she noted, adding that in states like Georgia and North Dakota, individuals who get sick may find themselves unable to pursue legal action in state courts.
Tony Lyons, co-founder of Maha PAC and a close ally of Kennedy Jr., emphasized that combating Section 453 is paramount. “There’s nothing more vital to Maha than ensuring pesticide companies don’t receive liability protections,” he asserted.
Dr. Robert Malone, recently appointed to the CDC Advisory Committee on Vaccination Practices, likened the potential liability protection to a controversial 1986 vaccine immunity bill, suggesting it ignites anger similar to past legislative decisions.
The language in Section 453 mandates lengthy risk assessments by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to any updates to pesticide warning labels—a process that could extend up to 15 years, according to agriculture consultant Sam Knowlton.
As advocates within Maha sounded the alarm, issues regarding anonymous voting in the Approval Committee disrupted their efforts, leaving some uncertain about who voted in favor of Section 453.
Popular X-account End Tribalism criticized the lack of transparency: “When amendments to remove it were introduced, the chairman didn’t count the votes. He simply listened to ‘ayes’ and ‘noes.'”
Another user voiced frustration, saying, “There were no recorded votes, and I don’t know the actual count. This is not how our government should operate.” Concerns were raised that lawmakers avoided a transparent process due to anticipated opposition.
The bill now appears poised to advance through the House Rules Committee before a full vote, prompting Ryerson to call on the public to urge Congress to reject Section 453. “We’ve got this window of opportunity to make our voices heard,” she encouraged, highlighting the risk posed to families who could become ill without the ability to hold businesses accountable.
