In a MAHA win, House passes Farm Bill stripped of language that would have protected pesticide companies
Federal lawmakers on Thursday passed the House version of the Farm Bill, removing controversial language that would have provided some protections for pesticide companies facing lawsuits over alleged health harms.
Members of the US House of Representatives voted 280-142 to pass an amendment to the bill striking sections that would have established “nationwide uniformity for pesticide labeling” effectively preventing states from leveraging labeling requirements aimed at protecting consumers.
The provisions were aimed at blocking “failure to warn” claims against pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, which has been sued by more than 100,000 people around the US alleging the company failed to warn that glyphosate herbicides could cause cancer.
The amendment, introduced by US Rep. Anna Paulina Luna and supported by over 70 House Republicans and all but six Democrats, also eliminates language that would have prevented states and local communities from establishing no-spray zones near schools, as well as a mandate that would have weakened protections from pesticide discharge for waterways.
“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families,” said Luna in an April 30 statement. “This amendment ensures we stand on the side of the American people and the health of our nation, not corporate interests.”
The move was met with enthusiastic support from members of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.
“We won!” said Vani Hari, a health advocate and MAHA leader who has been actively lobbying against the preemption measure in the Farm Bill.
The Farm Bill, which passed the House 224-200 on April 30, will next move to the Senate, where Hari said she does not expect the language seeking preemption to resurface and find support.
“This amendment ensures we stand on the side of the American people and the health of our nation, not corporate interests.” — US Rep. Anna Paulina Luna
Dozens of MAHA activists, as well as scientists, farmers and Congressional representatives, gathered at the steps of the US Supreme Court on Monday as the court heard oral arguments in a case that could make it harder for consumers to sue pesticide manufacturers.
MAHA members protested the Trump administration’s support in the case for the Bayer-owned company Monsanto, maker of the weed killer glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer in multiple scientific studies. Observers at the hearing say the case is too close to call, with a verdict expected over the summer.
Even with the removal of pesticide preemption language, advocates for human health and the environment warn the House Farm Bill includes the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS or Save our Bacon Act), a measure that would prevent state and local governments from “interfering” with interstate commerce by blocking their ability to pass ag policies. These include laws such as California’s Prop 12, which promotes humane treatment of livestock and has received outspoken support from family farmers and meat companies.
The bill also still includes a measure to cut more than $1 billion from a popular conservation program over the next five years.
“This Farm Bill has industry fingerprints all over it,” Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst for the group Food & Water Watch, said in a statement. “It’s time to end the corporate power grab in Washington. This Farm Bill must be dead on arrival in the Senate.”
Last week, over 300 farm groups signed a letter to Congress urging it to reject the House Farm Bill, saying the bill “would only deliver more of the same for the many farmers struggling to make ends meet.”
On April 29, US Rep. GT Thompson, chairman of the House agriculture committee, urged Congress to support the bill in a statement, saying the bill is “filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan” and that it is “time to get this critical legislation done.”
Featured image: Getty Images/Unsplash+
