I write this as someone who has long worked across ideological divides to bring people together around shared values of health, freedom, and stewardship of the land. I have dedicated my life to helping heal the broken systems that shape our food and our future.

I write this with deep respect for the courage it takes to lead, and with a profound commitment to the principles that unite us: The right to nourish our families, the freedom to protect our health, and the responsibility to care for the land that sustains us all.

This is a call to action for leaders, for the MAHA community, and for every American who believes that a healthy future is worth building, and where necessary, fighting for!

If you were harmed by a product that caused cancer, infertility, or liver disease, would you expect to have the right to seek justice in a court of law? Most Americans would answer yes. No one understands that principle better than America’s farmers, who have long been both stewards of the land and, increasingly, frontline victims of chemical harm.

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 BigAg, BigChem, and BigSeed 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 been 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’s 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 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 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 United States 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 House Bill 211, 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 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, 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, linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and 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 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 European Union, China (domestic use), Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. Often used in weed control rotations. Annual U.S. usage: ~8 million pounds.

• PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances / “forever chemicals”), a class of over 12,000 compounds used in firefighting foams, non-stick coatings, and industrial processes, 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 European Union (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 United States 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 European Union (since 2004) and in Austria, Bahrain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, 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.

For more on the science, watch “Organic Rising.”

This approach also sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans, particularly those who supported the Make America Healthy Again (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.

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 over rule higher production standards for foreign corporations to poison the American people?

The Prop 12 provisions referred to by Chairman Thompson relate to the so-called EATS Act (Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression 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 California’s Proposition 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 Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” H.R. 1, in the form of 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 (TOPP). Those $75 billion are needed to get farmers off the chemical treadmill.

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 Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

The scale of this betrayal is staggering.

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 USDA 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 government subsidy, on 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 which 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.

This would be a perfect time for the government to stop being an ATM from which chemical giants and industrial agricultural interests extract billions of taxpayer dollars, and to reverse the system that poisons people, destroys soil and undermines health. Outsized government funding has created the agrochemical sector and incentivized farmers to adopt life damaging practices which have destroyed soil, created a treadmill for chemical warfare with nature and put chemical-laden products into the food supply.

If there are tens of billions of dollars available to prop up and advance a dangerous suite of practices, there are billions of dollars which could be redirected to transition it.

These current giveaways to big corporations are on top of the existing $181.8 billion in projected subsidies for programs like Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage, and crop insurance over the next decade.

Corn alone has received $47.5 billion in premium subsidies since 1995, soy $28.1 billion, wheat $17.3 billion, and cotton $12.4 billion—crops at the heart of the chemical-intensive, GMO-dominated model.

If we want a clean, healthy food supply, organic agriculture is the only real and viable option. Yet the public is being misled by a deliberate shift in language, using the term regenerative in place of organic as a cover for the chemical industry’s agenda.

Chemical-intensive practices, like chemically burning down cover crops with herbicides, are being falsely framed as soil health measures. This smoke-and-mirrors messaging is deeply damaging, and many within the MAHA and regenerative agriculture movement do not fully grasp the nuance.

Organic standards have been steadily weakened, consistently under previous administrations, and now more frontally under this one. The National Organic Program (NOP), which sets enforceable standards and ensures consumer trust, has faced severe funding freezes, halting key initiatives like the Organic Market Development Grant program and the Transition to Organic Partnership Program.

The administration has also canceled numerous Climate-Smart Commodity Projects, initiatives designed to help farmers transition to regenerative practices that improve soil health, reduce chemical dependency, and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

An executive order even froze over $2 billion in conservation payments owed to more than 30,000 farmers, breaking trust with those who had stepped up in good faith to adopt conservation practices.

These actions are not isolated budget decisions. They represent a systematic dismantling of the very pathways farmers and families need to build a food system that nourishes people and the land. They send a clear message: while the administration claims to support regenerative and organic agriculture, its policies tell the real story—billions for industrial agribusiness, and budget cuts for those working to heal the land.

This is not an accident. This is a deliberate choice. The funneling of billions for industrial chemical agriculture, while meagre organic initiatives are frozen.

If we want a food system that nourishes people and the land, we need to stop pretending we can reform the chemical model. The administration’s policies have made clear that their priority is propping up industrial agribusiness, not supporting a regenerative future. We must wake up to this reality.

A whole new, largely right-leaning and independent constituency was awakened to the mission of MAHA and on the basis of election promises, mobilized to help elect President Trump. Yet, while MAHA messaging grows stronger, those battle-hardened warriors who laid the foundations for structural reforms supporting regenerative organic transitions are, for the most part, not invited to the table.

Last week, the MAHA Commission, chaired by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a report reaffirming its commitment to protecting public health and reducing toxic exposures. However, as Secretary Kennedy works to advance these values, the rest of the administration is pushing a pro-chemical, pro-corporate agenda. The broader administration is codifying policies that stand in direct opposition to the MAHA Commission’s mission, handing over billions of dollars to the chemical ag industry and implementing actions that are destroying the very foundations of organic and regenerative transition.

MAHA leadership and the broader MAHA electorate who delivered votes to the Trump team must step away from the White House glamour and stand in the clarity of why they voted for MAHA in the first place and hold the Administration accountable for its election promises.

The MAHA movement was never about political loyalty. It was built to restore health, protect life, and break free from corporate control. The future of MAHA depends on its ability to stay focused, stay independent, and demand results not rhetoric.

I am no partisan, but this reality raises a crucial question: Why are Republican congressional leaders, who claim to stand for American farmers, families, and sovereignty, so intent on shielding foreign-owned corporations like Germany’s Bayer (Monsanto) and China’s Syngenta from chemical liability, and China’s Smithfield (the largest pork producer in the US) and Brazil’s JBS S.A (the world’s largest meat processor) with new versions of the EATS Act, when their products and practices harm our people, our land, and our future?

This is not just a question of politics. It is a question of principle. When we have an opportunity to help farmers increase their soil health, understand the science of organic, biological agriculture, and wean their land off the expensive chemical drugs that have trapped them in an endless cycle of poison and chemical warfare with nature, why are we not doing the fiscally responsible thing?

Farmers may worry about losing tools in their toolkit, but the administration’s job is to help them retool, supporting a transition to practices that build natural capital, reduce input costs, and make farm businesses more resilient.

Subsidies should no longer prop up Big Chemical and Big GMO seed. They should support a wholesome, resilient transition toward regenerative organic agriculture.

A whole new constituency has awakened to the determined mission of MAHA—mothers, farmers, veterans, healers, and families who understand that we cannot trade health for convenience, or sovereignty for corporate profit.

Yet, while the MAHA movement grows stronger, the administration advances policies that destroy the very foundations of organic and regenerative transition.

It is time for MAHA and its allies to get serious about defeating chemical liability shields and beat back the so-called EATS Act and its successor legislation.

Both the EATS Act and chemical liability shields remove legal accountability from powerful agribusinesses and chemical giants; strip rights from individuals, farmers, and communities, and prevent states from acting to protect health, animals and the environment.

The fight over pesticide liability shields is not a side issue, it is THE food safety and public health issue. Without taking down these shields, any real transition to regenerative, life-affirming agriculture is impossible.

The MAHA movement was born out of the devastation wrought by vaccine liability shields. Pesticide liability shields are of the same paradigm. The political base that already understands this dynamic is primed and ready. This is a moment of opportunity to build a large consensus on health and food safety.

Unfortunately, the current administration is actively working to undermine MAHA’s goals while it makes public statements of support.

Transition funding is being stripped or quietly redirected. NRCS has been hollowed out. The National Organic Program is barely functioning. Policy is increasingly being dictated by industrial agriculture and chemical lobbyists.

This is not theoretical. We need people who understand policy and power to lead a transformation of our politics alongside those who have hands-on experience shifting large-scale operations from chemical to biological agriculture. I have worked directly with large-scale industry on scalable approaches to transitions from chemical to biological agriculture.

We can reduce chemical inputs dramatically, restore ecological resilience, and rebuild soil health using nature-based, life-supporting practices.

There are ways to grow food without destroying health and life. Agribusiness must learn them, and we must structure incentives accordingly—not to reward warfare against nature, but to foster regeneration, stewardship, and ecological sanity.

We are fighting on the side of nature, the essence of life itself. That is where the majority of Americans stand, notwithstanding the policy specifics.

Stop the shield legislation. Restore the right of the people to hold powerful corporations accountable and to set higher standards for the health of families, animals, the land, and our communities.
 

For readers who want to learn more, I have recently posted on Substack an article about the lessons of the Dust Bowl and the urgent need for regenerative organic agriculture (not to be mistaken for the “regenerative agriculture,” a greenwashed-creation of the chemical industry).

I also produced the documentaries GMO OMG, Circle of Poison, and Organic Rising (links below), which explore the impacts of industrial agriculture and the science, philosophy, and practicalities of regenerative organic approaches. They’re all really great movies! :)

GMO OMG