MAGA agenda imperiled over pesticides and Big Ag

Sign the letter to improve food safety!

Efforts to secure statutory immunity from liability for personal injuries caused by pesticides have converged with massive increases in federal subsidies for chemical-dependent GMO monoculture crops, proposed in the House Reconciliation Bill (AKA the “Big, Beautiful Bill”), to fuel a bitter conservative battle over the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda. Both initiatives pit industrial agriculture against small family farms and global chemical corporations against food safety proponents. These conflicts threaten a big GOP congressional schism that would not be beautiful for the Trump administration.

Big Pharma and Big Farms

State legislation shielding chemical manufacturers from legal liability for cancer and other illnesses allegedly caused by pesticides popular with Big Ag conflicts with the recent MAHA Commission Report, which targeted glyphosate, pesticides, and other chemicals for investigation as risks to children’s health. German manufacturing giant Bayer, battered by brutal jury awards (including whopping punitive damages), has pushed state legislatures to insulate it from suit when it complies with EPA labeling regulations. Health advocates counter that such foreign-corporate protectionism favors industrial profits at the expense of children’s health, mirroring immunity for Big Pharma created by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Meanwhile, the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, would increase subsidies for crops most dependent on these chemicals by $30 billion or more while slashing nearly $300 billion from SNAP benefits for low-income households. The idea of securing pre-emptive legal immunity for chemical manufacturers while exponentially increasing federal subsidies of the crops most dependent on their use is anathema to most MAHA enthusiasts.

Inequitable Benefits

Critics also point to the unexplained disparities in how the funds are allocated. Rice, peanuts, and cotton would receive far higher boosts than corn, soybeans, and wheat. This raises the specter of a geographical disparity in farm benefits, as explained by farmdocdaily:

The proposal would have differential impacts across the United States. ... Farmers with base acres of crops historically grown in southern regions of the US would gain much more from this proposal than would other farmers in the country. The House Agriculture Committee appears to be intent on providing additional benefits by increasing statutory reference prices for southern crops more than for corn, soybeans, and wheat.

Farmdocdaily details the understandably controversial proposal to slash SNAP benefits while propping up the largest, most chemically dependent industrial farms:

The House Bill’s proposed changes would generate significantly higher Federal outlays for commodity title spending, at the same time as the House Agriculture Committee was instructed to come up with $230 billion in savings. All of the savings in the legislation appear to come from cuts to Nutrition programs, particularly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That move pits Democrats against Republicans, and agricultural interests against food assistance interests. Whether that is a sound move politically is questionable and could have significant implications for farm bill negotiations now and in the future.

The Big, Beautiful bureaucracy also pits agricultural interests against one another. Small family farms and regenerative efforts are left out in the cold when it comes to subsidies. Programs supporting organics and conservation are being unfunded or gutted. The splintering of factions united to further the MAGA/MAHA agenda does not bode well for achieving the goals of improved health, transparent science, and policing of regulatory capture.

Trojan Horse Droppings?

Instead, supporters of healthier food and the MAHA Report’s recommendations are aligning against big-business-as-usual MAGA corporatists, sowing what may prove to be deal-killing seeds of dissent. A letter currently circulating for signature unites the twin policies of expanded corporate immunity and increased chem-crop funding:

The push for chemical liability shields is not rooted in scientific credibility — it is a strategic maneuver to evade accountability as the body of evidence grows. Peer-reviewed research has tied glyphosate to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, atrazine to endocrine disruption, and chlorpyrifos to developmental harm. Shielding these corporations from liability would remove one of the last mechanisms the American people have to defend themselves.

Oppose the provision in the Senate Reconciliation bill that would increase commodity subsidies by $30 billion over 10 years for just 6 pesticide-intensive crops, thereby entrenching chemical intensive, soil depleting monoculture crops for a total of $75 billion in taxpayer funds for many years to come. Instead any additional funds for agriculture should be used to assist farmers in their efforts to build soil health and transition away from harmful chemicals.

In response to criticisms of the MAHA Commission Report by nervous chemical manufacturers, EPA head Lee Zeldin assured pesticide producers that regulation of their products “cannot happen through a European mandate system that stifles growth.” The pendulum has indeed swung far in the opposite direction, promising massive taxpayer subsidies for pollutants while denying contaminated U.S. children the legal right to sue if sickened.

Trump’s reconciliation bill has saddled Congress with a Trojan MAHA horse. The political fate of the Big, Beautiful Bill may rest on the shifting sands of a fractured consensus. The bait of MAHA has been switched for Big Ag pork.

(Originally published at American Thinker.)