A bipartisan group of House members took action on Thursday to eliminate a contentious pesticide provision from a bill focused on U.S. agriculture and nutrition policy. This came after Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) warned she would “kill” her own legislation if it didn’t get a vote in the chamber.
In a notable decision, lawmakers voted 280-142 in favor of the Luna amendment, which strips away language that would protect pesticide manufacturers from legal liability.
This outcome might reflect the increasing sway of the Movement to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) within the Republican Party, which has been split on the matter. Prominent MAHA supporters pressured Republicans to back the amendment, suggesting that failure to do so would betray the movement’s principles.
While 73 Republicans sided with Luna’s amendment, 142 opposed it.
Included in the bill was language that prevented lawsuits against pesticide companies that failed to inform the public about possible health dangers, as long as they adhered to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeling regulations. It would also disallow state and local governments from creating pesticide labeling rules that diverge from EPA standards.
In a heartfelt social media post, Luna expressed her concerns as a parent: “I have a little boy, and it’s disheartening to read so many reports about pesticides in children’s products, even those marketed as organic. I refuse to support legislation that shields corporations implicated in causing cancer among children and adults.”
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who leads the House Freedom Caucus’s policy discussions, expressed his support for the Luna amendment, emphasizing the need to “protect Americans from dangerous pesticides.”
Conversely, some Republican critics argued that removing the pesticide provisions would lead to higher expenses for consumers. Representative Austin Scott from Georgia, who did not support the amendment, questioned the necessity of additional labeling. “If the EPA approves the label, I don’t see why municipalities need another one that only drives up prices for consumers,” he said. He added that the situation was being misrepresented, mainly by the MAHA movement, clarifying that the concern was purely about label regulations, not the safety of pesticides themselves.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) also criticized the Luna amendment, calling the opposing arguments “shallow and emotional” and lacking scientific basis. Conversely, Democrats largely supported the removal of the pesticide provisions. Rep. Cherry Pingree (D-Maine) voiced that such language prioritized corporate interests over public health.
Amid this, a separate legal debate is happening regarding whether the Supreme Court should allow pesticide manufacturers like Bayer—who acquired Monsanto—to avoid liability for supposedly failing to warn consumers about cancer risks associated with their herbicide, Roundup.
Earlier this year, MAHA supporters were taken aback when the Trump administration labeled domestic production of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a national security priority. Despite previously criticizing glyphosate, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a well-known figure in the MAHA movement, defended the decision publicly.
Bayer has persistently claimed that its products are safe and have yet to be conclusively linked to cancer risks.
