GOP fracture as pro-business Republicans clash with MAHA activists over pesticudes

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) at the 2025 Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida on July 12, 2025 (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Much of the criticism of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is focusing on his anti-vaccine views, which, according to medical experts, will result in a lot of illnesses that could have been prevented.

Vaccines, however, aren't the only part of RFK Jr.'s Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) that are fueling debates.

The Hill's Rachel Frazin, in an article published on January 13, reports that MAHA's "crusade against pesticides" is "creating divisions in the Republican Party, as some members back the industry while others stand with MAHA activists."

"As the MAHA movement, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., gains power and influence within the GOP, efforts to limit liability for the pesticide industry are also growing on numerous fronts," Frazin reports. "The issue is coming to a head in Congress, at the Supreme Court and on the state level, while other Republicans remain at the forefront of pushing pro-pesticide policies."

Frazin notes that although Republicans "have traditionally been supportive of big business," the MAHA movement is "vocally skeptical of pharmaceutical, agriculture and chemical companies."

"A key policy divide that has emerged is whether pesticide companies should have to disclose health impacts that are not officially recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — and whether they can be sued under state failure-to-warn laws for not doing so," Frazin explains. "While bigger than any one pesticide, much of the debate is related to glyphosate, a key ingredient in Bayer's Roundup weed killer that has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging cancer links."

Frazin makes her point by contrasting comments by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) and Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). Both of them were weighing in on a proposal that, according to critics, could limit pesticide companies' liability.

On X, formerly Twitter, Luna posted, "This is completely wrong, and some of these pesticides are linked to cancer and infertility. Why on earth would we want to shield the companies? This is not benefiting the American people at all."

But Simpson argued, "The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements."

Read The Hill's full article at this link.

From Your Site Articles