Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna criticized Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Monday for his stance against removing a provision that shields pesticide companies, a move supported by advocates of Make America Healthy Again (MAHA).
In a Thursday interview with KOTA-TV, Thune expressed his disagreement with Luna’s amendment aimed at eliminating these liability protections from the House version of the farm bill, formally called the Agriculture, Food and National Security Act of 2026. Luna responded directly to Thune’s comments, stating, “Of course this guy would say that. He’s all that’s wrong in politics.”
The House Agriculture Committee had previously stripped these liability protections from a comprehensive legislative package in March, which was intended to establish federal agricultural and food policies. Thune defended the provisions as carefully negotiated, adding, “It has to be discussed. And there were enough Republicans in the House to work with Democrats to remove it.”
Thune also noted uncertainty about whether the bill would succeed in the Senate, suggesting the removal of the provisions could lead to higher costs and more litigation.
Sources close to Thune clarified that he aims to represent agricultural interests in South Dakota and back policies that he believes will benefit the state.
After the bill made it through the House Agriculture Committee, Luna introduced an amendment to eliminate the pesticide liability provision, which was approved by a vote of 280-142 on April 30 and included in the final bill. Luna has vowed to oppose any legislation that provides protections to companies she believes are responsible for causing cancer in children and adults.
“I have a little boy, and I’ve seen plenty of articles about pesticides in children’s products, even organic ones, and it’s just awful,” Luna commented on her social media. “I will not be bullied into supporting legislation that grants immunity to corporations responsible for giving cancer to our kids.”
Luna warned on May 4 that there’s a real possibility the Senate might reinstate the pesticide liability protections. “To the Senate, please stop. If these protections come back, we have the votes to take them out. A lot of Republicans are already regretting how they voted on the amendment.”
This vote was seen as a win for both Republicans and Democrats supporting MAHA, as the provision purported to give pesticide manufacturers immunity from lawsuits related to health risks.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine joined forces in this bipartisan effort. Massie argued that, with the language intact, farmers would lose the ability to sue for specific cancers linked to pesticides and criticized the administration for siding with foreign companies seeking immunity.
Republican House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson called on his colleagues to reject Luna’s initiative, claiming that the provisions are essential for food affordability. “If this was based on scientific evidence, it would prevent frivolous lawsuits,” Thompson asserted, emphasizing the importance of maintaining agricultural productivity.
A representative for Republican Rep. Tim Burchett noted that he supported the Luna amendment because it allows pesticide manufacturers to pursue lawsuits.
In the end, while Luna sought to remove the pesticide language, 172 representatives voted to keep it, including six Democrats. Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voiced support for President Trump’s executive order aimed at bolstering glyphosate production, describing it as necessary for agricultural stability even if it was “deliberately toxic.”
The Department of Health did not respond to inquiries regarding President Kennedy’s position on the pesticide reform bill.
