Concerns Over House Spending Bill and Pesticide Liability

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services Advocate, has raised alarms about a new House spending bill. He claims it contains clauses that would protect pesticide manufacturers from being held liable for their products.

Kennedy tweeted on Thursday, warning about “Big Ag” lobbyists who are working quietly to shield pesticide companies. “If it passes, Big Ag will operate without accountability,” he stated via his nonprofit, Maha Action.

Nonprofit organizations are particularly worried about Section 453 from the proposed 2026 Internal and Environmental Budget Law. This section essentially prohibits the use of funds for issuing guidance or taking regulatory actions regarding pesticides.

Advocates argue that this section could hinder American citizens suffering from pesticide-related illnesses from suing manufacturers. Kelly Ryerson, founder of a group focused on glyphosate issues, remarked that the language used is deliberately deceptive and aims to obscure the extent of liability protection being granted to these companies.

Ryerson highlighted how various state laws, like those in Georgia, have already provided immunity to manufacturers, a trend that is concerning.

“It’s not total immunity, but it offers significant protection for pesticide firms,” Ryerson noted, pointing out that the consequences are tangible for individuals who fall ill.

Tony Lyons, co-founder of Maha PAC and a supporter of Kennedy Jr., emphasized that overturning Section 453 is a priority for their organization. He insists that preventing pesticide liability protections for large corporations is crucial.

Dr. Robert Malone, who recently joined the CDC Advisory Committee on Vaccination Practices, compared this proposed liability protection to the controversial 1986 vaccine immunity law, suggesting that it goes beyond a mere regulatory issue.

In Section 453, there’s a requirement for extensive risk assessments by the Environmental Protection Agency before any updates to pesticide warning labels can be made, a process that could extend up to 15 years.

As various groups within Maha voice their frustrations, concerns are also being voiced about the lack of transparency in the committees involved. Some have noted that anonymous votes for amendments to eliminate Section 453 were not counted properly.

This situation has sparked outrage among advocates who feel that governmental procedures should be more transparent. Some have pointed out that key votes on this issue were not officially recorded, making it difficult to discern who supported or opposed it.

The next step for the budget bill involves review by the House Rules Committee before it reaches a full vote in the House. Advocates like Ryerson are urging citizens to pressure their representatives into voting against any version that includes Section 453, highlighting the risks it poses to families and accountability.

“We have an opportunity to push back and get Congress on our side,” she said. “This section risks the health of families and undermines their ability to hold businesses responsible.”