MAHA Movement Faces Uphill Battle as Trump Administration Wages War on Organic Agriculture

The chemical industry’s playbook: Liability shields, legal immunity, and the erosion of rights

The policy pattern is clear: First, preemption of local authority over pesticide restrictions. Second, the pursuit of liability protections for manufacturers of toxic substances. Third, the normalization of harm with no recourse. This is not theoretical. It is a real-time shift in the balance of power between public interest and private industry.

A coordinated effort is unfolding in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill to grant legal immunity (liability shields) to agrochemical manufacturers. This means Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Seed can hurt you, even kill you, and not just get away with it, but profit from it!

At this very moment, across America, a new wave of legislation seeks to provide legal immunity to chemical companies — removing the right to recourse for harm their products have caused. This “shield” is not just for a niche set of chemicals, but for all pesticides and chemicals regulated under federal law.

The chemical industry has created an unlivable future. Their legacy is one of ecocide and the destruction of public health.

Chemical companies are seeking liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. These are not innocent corporations. They have paid billions of dollars in damages for contaminating water, poisoning land and causing cancers, birth defects and lifelong disease.

Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid over $10 billion to settle lawsuits linking Roundup (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Syngenta, a Chinese state-owned company through ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims and is working to settle more cases.

Paraquat has been banned in the European Union (EU) since 2007, in China for domestic use and in other countries due to its extreme toxicity.

DuPont, 3M and Chemours (a DuPont spin-off) have collectively paid billions for contaminating water supplies with per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), the so-called “forever chemicals,” which the EU is now moving to comprehensively ban.

Corteva (formerly Dow AgroSciences) has stopped producing chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to neurodevelopmental harm in children and banned in the EU and many other countries.

Atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide, remains in use in the U.S. despite being banned in the EU since 2004 and in over 35 other countries due to groundwater contamination risks.

Koch Industries, through its subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, has been implicated in PFAS contamination and paid penalties for related violations.

At the same time, the industrial meatpackers such as Smithfield, owned by China’s WH Group, and JBS, a Brazilian conglomerate, are driving demand for pesticide-intensive feed crops while benefiting from billions in U.S. taxpayer subsidies.

Georgia recently passed Senate Bill 144, which limits liability for PFAS contamination, linked to cancer, reproductive harm and immune system dysfunction. At least five additional states have introduced similar bills.

At the federal level, the 2024 draft of the U.S. House Republican Farm Bill included language that would preempt state pesticide laws and restrict legal pathways for victims of agrichemical exposure to seek damages. The provision has not advanced, but it signals a strategic and escalating trend.

Just last week, Republican Agriculture Committee Chair, Rep. Glenn Thompson (Pa.), was quoted stating that provisions in the new stand-alone Farm Bill would protect pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits if products meet federal labeling requirements, and would prevent states from setting animal production standards that other states must follow, such as California’s Proposition 12 requirements.

These efforts come despite growing scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate, atrazine, dicamba and chlorpyrifos, to a host of health and environmental impacts.

Independent research has shown that low-level, chronic exposure to some of these chemicals may contribute to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, endocrine disruption, developmental neurotoxicity and certain cancers.

Agrochemical companies argue that these liability shields are necessary to ensure continued access to “essential crop protection tools” and to prevent “frivolous litigation.”

But legal accountability is not a threat to agriculture. It is a cornerstone of a functioning market and a free society. When companies cannot be held liable for harm, there is no incentive to innovate toward safer alternatives and the costs of that harm are externalized to the public.

While the international community moves to ban or has banned many of these chemicals, the U.S. liability shield being pushed by the chemical industry and their allies in Congress is designed to protect a wide range of hazardous chemicals and the corporations that make them, likely driving further use.

Specifically, it aims to cover:

• Glyphosate (Roundup), the world’s most widely used herbicide, is linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is manufactured by Bayer/Monsanto. Banned or restricted in Austria (attempted), Germany (phase-out replaced by restrictions), Luxembourg, France (partial bans), Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Widely used with genetically modified organism (GMO) crops engineered for glyphosate resistance, including soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. Annual U.S. usage: 280-290 million pounds.
• Paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, sold by Syngenta (a Chinese state-owned company). Banned in over 70 countries, including the EU, China (domestic use), Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and the U.K. Often used in weed control rotations. Annual U.S. usage: 8 million pounds.
• PFAS, a class of over 12,000 compounds used in firefighting foams, non-stick coatings and industrial processes, are linked to cancer, thyroid disease, immune system suppression and birth defects. Subject to a proposed EU-wide ban; already banned or restricted in France (consumer products by 2026, textiles by 2030), Denmark (food packaging) and New Zealand (cosmetics by 2026). Used in agricultural seed coatings, irrigation systems, chemical containers and food packaging, contaminating soil, water, food and consumers.
• Neonicotinoids, insecticides that kill pollinators and are associated with neurological harm in humans. Banned or restricted in the EU (outdoor use of three neonicotinoids since 2018), France (all outdoor use) and Slovenia. Used as seed coatings on both GMO and non-GMO crops, especially corn and soybeans. Annual U.S. usage: 4 million pounds.
• Dicamba, a herbicide known for widespread crop damage and environmental contamination. Banned in the U.S. for over-the-top applications on soybeans and cotton (2024 federal court decision); classified as “very dangerous” in Brazil but still permitted. Used with GMO dicamba-resistant crops such as Xtend soybeans and cotton. Annual U.S. usage: 9 million pounds.
• Atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide linked to birth defects, reproductive harm and amphibian population collapse. Banned in the EU (since 2004) and in Austria, Bahrain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden; also banned in Hawaii and U.S. territories. Heavily used in conventional corn, which is tolerant through selective breeding. Annual U.S. usage: 70 million pounds.

This approach also sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans, particularly those who supported the MAHA mandate, remember the liability shield granted to vaccine manufacturers and the consequences of a closed compensation system, leaving injured individuals without meaningful recourse and protecting corporations from accountability.

Liability shields, once confined to a few controversial areas like vaccine injury claims, are now being extended to the producers of herbicides, pesticides and industrial contaminants. These chemicals have been linked in peer-reviewed studies to cancer, endocrine disruption, infertility and developmental harm.

These largely foreign-owned corporations are actively working to undermine state-level food safety standards, including California’s Prop 12, through federal preemption efforts like the EATS Act (Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act).

These companies know exactly what they have done and what they are doing. They are seeking legal immunity because they fear the consequences of accountability. They are distorting American democracy to serve corporate profits, not the public good.

If a business is too dangerous to operate without legal immunity, it should not be allowed to operate at all and it certainly should not be subsidized.

So why is Washington providing liability shields and working to overrule higher production standards for foreign corporations to poison the American people?

The EATS Act and the budget battle: Stripping states’ rights and starving organic agriculture

The Prop 12 provisions referred to by Chairman Thompson relate to the so-called EATS Act, now reintroduced as the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S.1326). It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Despite its new name, the bill’s core objective remains unchanged: To override state and local laws that set higher standards for food, farming and animal welfare, nullifying regulations like Prop 12, which sets basic humane standards for confined farm animals.

This bill is the biggest fight of our generation for farmed animal welfare. Further, this “food security and farm protection” bill would strip states of the right to protect their farmers and all citizens, as well as environments, from harmful agricultural practices, cementing federal control in favor of the largest chemical and agribusiness interests.

Amidst all this, Washington is rapidly advancing President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” also known as H.R. 1, in the form of a budget reconciliation package.

This budget reconciliation package increases already bloated subsidies to high chemical-intensive and GMO crops by 64% or $75 billion over 10 years.

In the meantime, the administration has frozen funding and is delaying payments essential to the National Organic Program and the Transition to Organic Partnership Program. Those $75 billion are needed to get farmers off the chemical treadmill.

Chart source (and spelling): FarmdocDaily.

The House Agriculture Committee’s draft farm bill proposes cutting $290 billion from SNAP over the next decade, with $60 billion of those funds diverted to increase subsidies for farm programs that benefit the industrial commodity system: Corn, soy, cotton and the chemical giants and GMO companies that profit from it.

At the same time, the administration has cut $754 million from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the very program that provides essential technical assistance and cost-sharing to farmers working to improve on-farm resilience, increase soil health, reduce erosion and protect water quality.

NRCS is the front line for farmers seeking to reduce chemical inputs and build long-term resilience, yet its funding has been slashed.

This is a policy direction that prioritizes corporate profit over public health, while stripping low-income families of the means to access the very food they need to survive.

This is the antithesis of the MAHA movement.

The scale of this betrayal is staggering.

The real cost of corporate control: Subsidies, greenwashing and a war on life

The National Organic Program, which safeguards organic standards and ensures consumer trust, operates on a modest $23.2 million annual budget.

In stark contrast, chemical-intensive industrial agriculture is a monster created by the government.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently funneled over $10 billion in direct payments to commodity agriculture through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program alone, supporting industrial monocultures like genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton that depend on heavy pesticide and fertilizer use.

These funds overwhelmingly benefit the chemical giants and GMO seed companies driving the industrial agricultural system, and further line the coffers of political supporters.

No wonder there is a battle. This has nothing to do with feeding America healthy food, and everything to do with profit at all cost!

The business model relies on government subsidies and crop insurance payments. Its approach weakens the resilience of the farm system, and gives handouts which ensure that the American people are forced to eat the products that have become the basis of obesity and disease.

Now add liability shields into the mix, and we are truly on the path to environmental and human health collapse.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/maha-movement-uphill-battle-trump-administration-wages-war-organic-agriculture/