The chemical takeover: How Big Ag is pushing to flood food with more toxins – and silence warnings

• The “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda is being countered by industry-friendly laws that could increase chemical use in the U.S. food supply and shield agrochemical companies from accountability, undermining public health and environmental protections.
• Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup, is linked to cancer and other health issues. Despite lawsuits and evidence of harm, the EPA defends its safety and is advancing a proposal to block states from requiring warning labels on glyphosate and other chemicals.
• Agrochemical companies are lobbying for legal immunity in at least 11 states, protecting them from liability for harms caused by EPA-approved products, including over 16,000 chemicals regulated under FIFRA.
• Health advocates and organizations like Moms Across America are mobilizing to oppose these measures, urging public action against the EPA’s proposed rule change and state-level immunity bills.
• The fight over chemical use in agriculture is a pivotal moment for public health, with chronic diseases rising and untested chemicals already in the food supply. Advocates stress the need for grassroots action to prioritize safety over corporate interests.

As the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda gains momentum, a troubling counterforce is emerging: a wave of industry-friendly laws that could flood the U.S. food supply with even more chemicals while shielding agrochemical giants from accountability. These proposals, drafted by the chemical industry itself, threaten to undermine public health and environmental protections, leaving Americans more vulnerable than ever to the toxic consequences of unchecked chemical use.

With chronic illness rates soaring and millions already burdened by medical debt, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Yet, as states and federal agencies push forward with these dangerous measures, advocates warn that the fight for health freedom is entering a critical phase.

The glyphosate battle: A case study in corporate power

At the heart of this controversy is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup weedkiller and the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. Glyphosate has been linked to cancer, autism and other serious health issues, sparking thousands of lawsuits against Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018). Despite mounting evidence of harm, the EPA has repeatedly defended glyphosate’s safety, even as courts have challenged its conclusions.

“It will be beyond disappointing if one of the first actions that gets implemented under Trump’s new ‘Make America Healthy Again’ initiative is to block the states from warning consumers about the dangers of toxic pesticides like glyphosate used extensively on the food crops,” said Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., MIT scientist and author of Toxic Legacy.

Now, the EPA is advancing a proposal that would prevent states from requiring warning labels on glyphosate and other agricultural chemicals, classifying such labels as “misbranding.” This move, spearheaded by Republican attorneys general from 11 states, would strip states of their ability to inform the public about the risks of these substances.

Mark A. Kastel, executive director of OrganicEye, warns that this is part of a broader strategy by corporate interests to consolidate power. “Corporate agribusiness interests might not be able to successfully counter popular prohibitions on a local basis,” he said. “But when you pool their money at the state or federal levels, they can crush the initiatives of local communities that will be directly impacted.”

Big Ag’s immunity play: A recipe for disaster

In addition to silencing warnings, agrochemical companies are pushing for sweeping legal immunity. At least 11 states are considering industry-drafted bills that would shield companies like Bayer and ChemChina from liability for harms caused by their products, as long as those products are licensed by the EPA.

This immunity would apply not only to glyphosate but also to over 16,000 chemicals regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). “Foreign pesticide companies are seeking complete immunity so they can get away with covering up the risks and dangers of their products,” said Daniel Hinkle of the American Association for Justice.

Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America, calls these proposals the “Make America $ick Again” bills. “They provide pesticide companies immunity from accountability, allow them to make us sick, and profit from that sickness,” she said.

Honeycutt points to the tragic irony of this profit-driven cycle: “The name that was on the agrochemicals that gave [a farmer’s father] cancer was the same name that was on the box of chemo drugs … Bayer.”

The fight for health freedom

As these proposals gain traction, health advocates are urging Americans to push back. The EPA’s proposed rule change is currently open for public comment until March 24, and thousands have already voiced their opposition.

Pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro, who has witnessed the harm caused by pesticides in her four decades of practice, warns that the rule would strip states of their ability to safeguard public health. “By restricting states from implementing labeling requirements that go beyond the EPA’s human health risk assessments, this rule would strip states of their ability to safeguard public health based on local environmental conditions and scientific findings,” she wrote.

Meanwhile, Moms Across America and other groups are mobilizing to stop state-level immunity bills. “We don’t need more two- or three-year-long animal studies to prove that [these chemicals] are harmful,” Honeycutt said. “It does not make any sense to allow harmful chemicals—i.e., poison—in our food supply. That has to stop.”

A turning point for America’s health

The battle over chemical use in agriculture is more than a policy debate—it’s a fight for the future of public health. With chronic diseases on the rise and Americans already exposed to thousands of untested chemicals, the push to add more toxins to the food supply is a dangerous step backward.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a longtime critic of pesticides, has said, many of the most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. are “extraordinarily toxic” and contribute significantly to chronic health problems.

The question now is whether the MAHA agenda can withstand the pressure from powerful corporate interests. For advocates like Honeycutt, the answer lies in grassroots action. “Corporate interests must not precede the safety of American farmers, citizens and our children,” she said.

The time to act is now. As the chemical industry tightens its grip on policy, the health of millions hangs in the balance.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

LeverNews.com

MomsAcrossAmerica.com