Tag: pesticides

Kentucky Legislature Forces Through Bill Giving Pesticide Makers Immunity After Governor’s Veto

Kentucky lawmakers have approved a bill that grants pesticide manufacturers immunity, overriding a veto from Gov. Andy Beshear.

The Kentucky Senate, in a 24–12 vote on March 31, overrode Beshear’s veto on Senate Bill 199, following an earlier House of Representatives override. All override votes came from Republicans.

The bill says that pesticides approved by federal officials and displaying approved labeling from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) containing health assessments “shall be deemed a sufficient warning label” under state law.

Plaintiffs across the country have been suing Monsanto, which makes the pesticide glyphosate, for failing to warn of cancer risks. Juries have ruled for the plaintiffs in some of the cases.

With backing from the Trump administration, Bayer—Monsanto’s parent company—has asked the Supreme Court to rule that labeling with federally approved language is sufficient.

The Kentucky Medical Freedom Coalition, some other organizations, and certain state lawmakers opposed Senate Bill 199 because of the protection it would grant.

Keep reading

EPA Failed to Warn Public of Pesticide Cancer Risks Even When Agency Found High Risk

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has routinely failed to put cancer warnings on pesticide products even when its own assessments have found a high risk of those products causing cancer, according to two new analyses released today by the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The Center for Food Safety analyzed the level of risk the EPA permitted for both currently approved and legacy pesticide active ingredients.

The analysis found that pesticides have been allowed on the market with a cancer risk as high as 1 in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a 1 in a million chance of developing cancer.

Over the last 40 years, the EPA has approved 200 active ingredients that are “likely” or “possible” carcinogens.

The Center for Biological Diversity analysis examined pesticide product labels for all currently approved pesticide products. The EPA has instituted cancer warnings on only 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a “likely” human carcinogen.

And the agency has instituted cancer warnings on just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a “possible” human carcinogen.

“It’s bad enough that the EPA approves cancer-causing pesticides,” said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety.

“But if the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Wal-Mart and farm-supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label. Warnings save lives by incentivizing users to wear protective equipment that reduces risk.”

“It’s dumbfounding that the EPA has failed to require any cancer warning on thousands of pesticide products sold to the public that the agency itself has linked to cancer,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health program director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Why should anyone have confidence in the EPA’s ability to keep tabs on the pesticide industry and protect us all from harmful poisons when it won’t even compel companies to put long-term health warnings on pesticides it knows are really dangerous?”

These new analyses come before the April 27 oral arguments in the Supreme Court case Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell.

Monsanto, since acquired by Bayer, is seeking substantial immunity from future lawsuits brought by Americans who used glyphosate-based products like Roundup and contracted rare cancers that numerous studies have linked to the pesticide.

The case hinges on whether the EPA has sole authority to implement pesticide label warnings.

Keep reading

GMO Wheat Sprayed With Chemical 166 Times More Toxic Than Glyphosate

A new report from Friends of the Earth raises alarm over the U.S. government’s recent approval of HB4 genetically engineered or GMO wheat, warning that it could pose serious risks to public health, the environment and U.S. farmers’ livelihoods, while offering no proven benefit.

The approval of HB4 wheat marks a critical turning point: after decades of public opposition and trade concerns that kept GMO wheat off U.S. fields, consumers now face the prospect of herbicide-tolerant wheat entering the food system.

However, it is not currently being grown commercially in the U.S.

Friends of the Earth is calling on companies and consumers to reject HB4 GMO wheat before it enters the market.

Developed by the Argentine biotechnology firm Bioceres Crop Solutions, HB4 wheat is engineered to tolerate the toxic herbicide glufosinate ammonium.

Glufosinate is banned in the European Union because it poses risks to human health. It is also linked to negative impacts on soil and ecosystem health.

“GMO wheat poses high risks with no clear benefits. It threatens farmers, consumers, and ecosystems,” said Dana Perls, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth.

“Companies and consumers should reject genetically engineered wheat and support proven, sustainable solutions. Organic farming and traditional breeding protect climate, biodiversity, and food security — without toxic trade-offs.”

The report unpacks the regulatory gaps, health implications, environmental concerns and trade risks at stake.

Key findings include:

We’ve been here before — and it failed

HB4 wheat is not innovation; it is a repetition of a well-documented failure — the chemical-dependent model introduced with Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops in the 1990s.

GMO crops have driven massive increases in herbicide use, spawned herbicide-resistant superweeds and trapped farmers on a costly pesticide treadmill.

Glufosinate-tolerant corn and soy are already following the same path. HB4 wheat would extend this failed, toxic system to a global staple food — deepening chemical dependence, increasing costs for farmers and compounding environmental damage.

Keep reading

Biotech and Pesticide Corporations Are “Winning” Under Trump’s Second Administration

 On February 18, 2026, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.” The order invokes the Defense Production Act (DPA) and states that the production of glyphosate-based herbicides is essential to US national security.

The EO is the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration that benefit the pesticide industry and the biotech companies producing genetically engineered (GE) food products.

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement—launched in part by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 presidential campaign—has shown divided reactions to Trump’s EO. Some view it as a betrayal of the movement’s goals, while others remain optimistic that the administration may still accomplish health-focused reforms.

The Executive Order notes that phosphorus is an important component for “defense supply chains” and is “crucial to military readiness and national defense.” It states:

“It is a key input in smoke, illumination, and incendiary devices and is a critical component for manufacturing the semiconductors that are central to numerous defense technologies, such as radar, solar cells, sensors, and optoelectronics.”

Beyond military applications, the EO also outlines the current need for phosphorus as a precursor to the production of glyphosate-based herbicides, which “play a critical role in maintaining America’s agricultural advantage” by allegedly allowing farmers to “efficiently and cost-effectively produce food and livestock feed.”

The order describes glyphosate-based herbicides as “the most widely used crop protection tools in United States agriculture” and “a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy.” It claims they allow farmers and ranchers to maintain high yields and low costs while keeping “healthy, affordable food options” accessible to American families.

The order claims that without access to glyphosate-based herbicides the agricultural productivity of the US would be jeopardized, leading to increased pressure on the domestic food system. “Ensuring an adequate supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides is thus crucial to the national security and defense, including food-supply security, which is essential to protecting the health and safety of Americans,” the order says.

Keep reading

Surgeon General Nominee Aligns With Secretary Kennedy on Vaccines and Pesticides

Casey Means, President Trump’s nominee for surgeon general, faced intense questioning before the Senate Health Committee over her views on vaccines, pesticides, business ties, and her alignment with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.

She is largely against pesticides and chemicals in food, so I imagine the left will suddenly be all in on both. They will claim it is Republican misinformation to suggest that chemicals in food can be harmful.

Means, a Stanford-trained physician and health entrepreneur, found bipartisan support for her focus on chronic disease and reducing Americans’ reliance on ultra-processed foods.

Mainstream media claimed that she sidestepped vaccine questions because she said, “vaccines save lives” and are an “important part of the public health strategy,” but stopped short of encouraging mothers to have their children vaccinated against measles and flu. It is dishonest to say she sidestepped the question. She answered that vaccines save lives while arguing for informed consent and questioning whether every vaccine in the current schedule is necessary.

She did not explicitly state that vaccines do not cause autism and questioned whether certain vaccines, such as the hepatitis B shot, should be universally administered at birth. She has been particularly critical of giving the hepatitis B vaccine to all newborns on their first day of life, questioning its necessity in every case.

She advocates “shared clinical decision-making” between families and their doctors rather than automatic adherence to a blanket schedule. While acknowledging the “overwhelming body of evidence” refuting a link between vaccines and autism, she also told senators that “science is never settled” and supported further investigation into environmental factors. Several senators pressed her on whether flu and hepatitis B vaccines reduce hospitalizations and deaths, and she acknowledged population-level benefits.

Refusing to encourage mothers to give their children a flu shot, saying more research is needed to determine whether vaccines are linked to autism, supporting informed consent, and suggesting that certain vaccines should possibly be removed from the standard childhood schedule is not sidestepping. It expresses a different viewpoint, which the left hates.

Dr. Means is a vocal critic of the prevalence of chemicals in the environment, which she links to rising rates of chronic disease. Her primary focus is on what she calls a broken food system and the dangers of ultra-processed foods and chemical additives.

Keep reading

Pesticide Industry Infiltrates MAHA to Derail Reforms

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House as the best chance to deliver his long-promised health revolution.

In the final weeks of the race, the former environmental attorney urged voters to back Trump in order to advance a reform agenda aimed at eliminating harmful substances from America’s agriculture and food supply, particularly the herbicides and insecticides sprayed on most fruits and vegetables.

“Don’t you want healthy children, and don’t you want the chemicals out of our food, and don’t you want the regulatory agencies to be free from corporate corruption?” Kennedy thundered at an October 2024 rally in Glendale, Arizona. Moments later, Trump promised to empower his ally to investigate the “toxins in our environment and pesticides in our food.”

“We’re going to ban the worst agricultural chemicals” and “remove conflicts of interest” from top farm and food safety agencies, Kennedy pledged days later.

Those promises have since fallen by the wayside.

The administration has reapproved the cancer-causing weedkiller dicamba, deleted references to pesticides from its “Make America Healthy Again” action plan, and delayed enforcement of limits on so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water. There has been no meaningful action on controversial pesticides Kennedy previously warned about, including neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup—which he once called “one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic.”

Meanwhile, representatives of pesticide and chemical companies have flooded into key regulatory roles. Former lobbyists Douglas Troutman, Nancy Beck, Lynn Ann Dekleva, Scott Hutchins, Kelsey Barnes and Kyle Kunkler now occupy senior positions overseeing agriculture and environmental policy.

What happened?

Keep reading

Pesticides Derived From World War II Nerve Agents — Still Sprayed on Fruits and Vegetables — Found in Pregnant Women

A study in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health finds peak concentrations of organophosphate pesticide (OP) metabolites in the urine of pregnant mothers 6-12 hours after consuming contaminated fruits and vegetables.

“High detection rates were observed for dimethylthiophosphate (DMTP, 96%), dimethylphosphate (DMP, 94%), diethylphosphate (DEP, 89%), and diethylthiophosphate (DETP, 77%) among 431 urine samples taken from 25 pregnant women, over two 24-hr periods, early in pregnancy,” the researchers reported.

The levels of metabolites within the urine correlate to the consumption of foods treated with organophosphate pesticides, highlighting the importance of adopting an organic diet — particularly for pregnant individuals and their children.

“In 2009-2010, 80 pregnant women were recruited from Ottawa, Canada for the Plastics and Personal-care Product use in Pregnancy (P4) Study,” the authors said.

“A subset (n = 25) collected multiple spot urines (up to 10 each; total n = 431) over two 24-h periods in early pregnancy — one weekday and weekend day — while logging their food consumption beginning 24 h prior to the first urine void and continuing through the following 24-h urine collection period.”

This is the first study looking at the variability of organophosphate metabolites within 24 hours in maternal urine, giving insight into “the primary sources of exposure and the temporal variability in a population of Canadian pregnant participants.”

Keep reading

EXPOSED: House Republicans Quietly Slipped Pesticide “Immunity” Into Spending Bill — Now FORCED to Yank Section 453 After Massive Backlash

House Republicans quietly inserted, and then just as quietly removed, a highly controversial provision from the 2026 Interior and Environment spending bill after a firestorm of public outrage exposed what critics called a blatant attempt to shield powerful chemical corporations from accountability.

Section 453 of H.R. 4754 would have blocked federal funding for the EPA to update pesticide labels, guidance, or policy if those updates differed in any way from prior health assessments, even when new science emerged showing increased risks.

After intense pressure from watchdog groups and conservative commentators, House leadership yanked the provision before the bill heads to the floor this week.

The now-removed language stated:

“SEC. 453. None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling that is inconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion of
(a) a human health assessment performed pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; or
(b) a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide.”

In plain English: freeze pesticide labels in place, regardless of emerging science.

Critics warned this would allow manufacturers to argue in court that it was “impossible” to update warnings — effectively gutting failure-to-warn lawsuits and stripping families of legal recourse when harm occurs.

Children’s Health Defense led the charge, issuing an urgent warning that Section 453 would “wipe out your right to sue pesticide companies.”

Keep reading

MAHA Advocates Urge Trump To Block Immunity For Pesticide And Chemical Manufacturers

As anticipation builds about the upcoming Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission Report’s release, 241 MAHA advocates sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to prevent the House of Representatives from limiting regulation for pesticides and “forever chemicals” in its environmental appropriations bill.

“We ask you to take action to make sure any protections for pesticides are stricken from this Appropriations bill,” the letter says, or risk losing Republican backing.

The letter also expressed opposition to liability shields for pesticide companies.

Every year, more than 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are used on U.S. farmland, including dozens of chemicals banned in other developed nations, the letter states.

“These toxic substances are present in our food, air, soil, and water, and are increasingly in our children’s bodies, negatively impacting normal brain development and hormonal function,” the letter explains.

“Extensive peer-reviewed research has linked glyphosate to infertility, increased reproductive risks, and 6 of the top 10 most common cancers in the [United States]. At the same time, atrazine is a known endocrine disruptor affecting sexual development, and paraquat has been linked to Parkinson’s and neurological and respiratory diseases.”

Signers of the letter highlighted provisions in the Fiscal Year 2026 House Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill—Sections 453 and 507 —which they claim create broad product-liability protections for domestic and foreign pesticide and chemical manufacturers “by refusing to fund the critical, legally required scientific safety assessments needed to update labels across more than 57,000 synthetic chemicals.”

“Numerous pesticides that fall under Section 453 are chemicals that are already banned in multiple other developed nations. Despite a massive outcry from citizens, the House Appropriations committee passed the spending bill last month with Section 453 and Section 507 intact,” the letter states.

MAHA advocates also expressed concern about Section 507 because “it prohibits the EPA from finalizing risk assessments for PFOA and PFOS forever chemicals found in biosolids spread on farmer’s fields and eliminates funding for community health monitoring, new research, and the cleanup of more than 70 million acres of U.S. 2 farmland contaminated with PFAS from the application of biosolids.”

Keep reading

Why the Pesticide Liability Protection Act Threatens Our Food Supply and the Health of a Nation

As stewards of the land and providers of our nation’s food supply, farmers and ranchers carry a profound moral obligation—to produce the safest, healthiest, and most nutritious food on the planet. It is not just our livelihood; it is our responsibility to future generations.

That is why I am writing today with deep concern regarding the Pesticide Liability Protection Act currently under consideration in Congress. If enacted, this legislation could cause irreparable harm—not just to the health of farmers and ranchers who work directly with these chemicals, but to the broader public who unknowingly consume their residues.

The Dangerous Path of Corporate Immunity

This bill threatens to open the floodgates for a new wave of pesticides and herbicides engineered by agrochemical giants—products that may be even more toxic than those currently on the market. By shielding these corporations from legal accountability, it removes their last remaining incentive to ensure their chemicals are safe.

We have seen this story before. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granting pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability for vaccine-related injuries. The consequences were swift and staggering: a surge in new products, rushed to market without proper safeguards, and a dramatic rise in chronic health conditions in children and adults alike. It was a public health turning point, and not for the better.

The parallels to our current situation are striking. Consider the case of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) has faced more than 177,000 lawsuits involving the weedkiller and set aside $16 billion to settle cases. Over $11 billion has been paid out in Roundup lawsuit settlements, with individual jury awards reaching as high as $2.1 billion in recent cases.

These staggering financial settlements reflect the real human cost of inadequate chemical safety oversight. Even more alarming is the widespread exposure we’re seeing in our most vulnerable population: children. About 87 percent of 650 children tested had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, according to CDC analysis. Research shows that children exhibit higher levels of glyphosate in biofluids than adults, and recent studies indicate that higher levels of glyphosate residue in urine in childhood and adolescence were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood.

To repeat that same mistake with our nation’s food supply would be unconscionable.

Why the Pesticide Liability Protection Act Is Unconstitutional

The Pesticide Liability Protection Act fundamentally violates several core Constitutional principles that form the bedrock of American jurisprudence:

Due Process Violations (5th and 14th Amendments): The Act deprives citizens of their fundamental right to seek redress in courts for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products. This violates substantive due process by eliminating a basic property right—the right to compensation for harm—without adequate justification or alternative remedies.

Equal Protection Concerns: The legislation creates an arbitrary distinction between victims of chemical company negligence and all other tort victims. There is no rational basis for why those harmed by pesticides should have fewer legal rights than those harmed by other dangerous products.

Separation of Powers: By preemptively shielding an entire industry from judicial review, Congress unconstitutionally interferes with the judiciary’s role in adjudicating disputes and determining liability. This represents legislative overreach into the judicial branch’s constitutional domain.

Takings Clause Violations: The Act effectively takes private property—the right to legal recourse—without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that access to courts is a fundamental right, and any legislation that bars entire categories of claims must meet strict constitutional scrutiny. The Pesticide Liability Protection Act fails this test.

Keep reading