Voters are turning out against toxic pesticides. Will the Senate listen?

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

In a rare bipartisan rebuke of one of Washington’s most powerful industries, the House stripped a “legal immunity” provision from the farm bill in April, thwarting pesticide manufacturers’ efforts to shield themselves from lawsuits.

The industry lost decisively. A bipartisan group of 280 lawmakers, including 73 Republicans, voted to remove the provision, exposing a growing political shift around toxic pesticides and corporate accountability.

And now it is the Senate’s turn.

What made the House vote especially striking was the cross-partisan effort behind it. Environmental advocates, farmworker groups, rural communities, concerned parents, and many MAHA-aligned conservatives are increasingly united around a simple idea: Pesticide companies shouldn’t get a free pass when their products cause harm.

The politics around pesticides are changing because the consequences have become impossible to ignore. People are saying “enough” to rising rates of cancer, infertility and learning disabilities; enough to contaminated drinking water; enough to collapsing biodiversity; and enough to a system that leaves farmers economically trapped while chemical companies reap record profits.

That pesticides are a rare and growing point of political convergence was highlighted two days before the vote, at the People vs. Poison rally on the steps of the Supreme Court. The rally drew a fired-up crowd of individuals and organizations across the political spectrum, all demanding legal accountability for pesticide corporations that are “raking in billions” while people suffer. Emerging champions from both sides of the aisle also spoke, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

Still, Democrats are well positioned to seize leadership in this fight. During the farm bill vote, 142 representatives — most of them Republicans — voted with pesticide manufacturers over public health. And the final House Republican bill was packed with other industry-friendly provisions that undermine farmers, public health, animal welfare and environmental protections.

All of this sets up a defining Senate fight over who the farm bill really serves. Will it continue subsidizing a chemical-intensive system that benefits a handful of corporations and keeps farmers dependent on their products, or will it invest in a healthier and more resilient food system for people and the planet?

Organic agriculture should be central to that debate. Organic farming dramatically reduces toxic pesticide use and eliminates synthetic fertilizers while building resilient farms and healthy soils. But the funding it receives is just a drop in the bucket in a multibillion-dollar farm bill.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is increasingly relying on imported organic food to meet growing consumer demand. That means American farmers are missing out on valuable market opportunities that could support rural jobs, farm viability, and long-term investment in sustainable agriculture.

As we grapple with global supply chain instability, soaring fertilizer and pesticide costs, and persistent food inflation, helping farmers reduce dependence on costly chemical inputs is more than a nice idea — it’s a matter of national food security.

To build the healthy food future we need, the Senate farm bill should:

Reject all remaining poison pills from the House farm bill. This includes Section 10, which, even without legal immunity, still contains dangerous pesticide provisions. It also includes Section 12006, which would preempt states and local communities from passing their own animal welfare standards and other protections. By stripping states of this ability, Section 12006 weakens a critical check on industrial agriculture’s impacts on public health, animal welfare, and the environment, all while potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future limits on local and state authority over pesticide regulations.

Include marker bills that support organic transition, research and market development, such as the Domestic Organic Investment Act, the Organic Opportunities Act, and Organic Science and Research Investment Act.

Restore funding, increase access and improve the effectiveness of conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program Improvement Act, so more farmers have the resources they need to transition away from synthetic pesticides and fertilizers as well as from factory farms that rely on pesticide intensive feed.

Farmers across the country are already proving that it’s possible to grow food with fewer toxic chemicals while building healthier soils, cleaner water, and more resilient farms. What’s missing is a bill that stops rewarding the most polluting parts of the system and starts investing in what actually works.

The House vote showed something important: the pesticide industry’s grip on Congress is beginning to crack. The Senate now has an opportunity to accelerate that shift by advancing a farm bill that invests less in chemical-intensive commodity production and more in an organic food system that delivers healthier soils, cleaner water, more resilient farms and affordable, nutritious food.

As they negotiate the farm bill in coming weeks, senators must decide whether they stand with the chemical industry status quo or with the growing bipartisan coalition of Americans demanding change.

Kendra Klein, Ph.D., is deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth U.S.