SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pesticides
Trump EPA 'Hitting New Heights of Absurdity' With Plan to Reapprove Pesticide Dicamba
"This is what happens when pesticide oversight is controlled by industry lobbyists," said one campaigner.
Jul 23, 2025
Despite U.S. President Donald Trump's supposed goal to "Make America Healthy Again," his administration is moving to reregister dicamba, a pesticide twice banned by federal courts, for use on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans.
In response to legal challenges from the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, National Family Farm Coalition, and the Pesticide Action Network, courts ruled against the herbicide's registration in 2020 and again last year.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced its latest push to allow the use of dicamba on Wednesday, detailing proposed mitigation efforts—including temperature restrictions and the use of drift reduction agents—that EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou told The Washington Post would "minimize impact to certain species and the environment."
The EPA's proposed registration is now open for public comment until August 22, but supporters and critics are already weighing in. While the pesticide companies welcomed the agency's attempt to allow dicamba products from BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta, the advocacy groups behind the court battles sharply called out the Trump administration.
"EPA has had seven long years of massive drift damage to learn that dicamba cannot be used safely with GE dicamba-resistant crops," said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety, in a statement.
"If we allow these proposed decisions to go through, farmers and residents throughout rural America will again see their crops, trees, and home gardens decimated by dicamba drift, and natural areas like wildlife refuges will also suffer," he warned. "EPA must reverse course and withdraw its plans to reapprove this hazardous herbicide."
Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, declared that "Trump's EPA is hitting new heights of absurdity by planning to greenlight a pesticide that's caused the most extensive drift damage in U.S. agricultural history and twice been thrown out by federal courts."
"This is what happens when pesticide oversight is controlled by industry lobbyists," he charged. "Corporate fat cats get their payday and everyone else suffers the consequences."
The centers pointed out that "the decision to seek reapproval comes less than a month after Kyle Kunkler, a former lobbyist for the American Soybean Association, was installed as the deputy assistant administrator for pesticides in the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The ASA has been a vocal cheerleader for dicamba since its initial approval for use on soybeans in 2016, despite the fact that soybeans have been the most widely damaged crop."
The Post asked the EPA whether Kunkler's recent appointment influenced the dicamba decision. In response, Vaseliou said that the "EPA follows the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act when registering pesticides" and any insinuation otherwise was "further 'journalism' malpractice by The Washington Post."
After Kunkler's new job was made public last month, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) also flagged his "years of advocating against restrictions on farm chemicals such as glyphosate and atrazine," and stressed that "these are the very pesticides singled out in Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' report for their potential links to chronic illness in children."
"The appointment of Kyle Kunkler sends a loud, clear message: Industry influence is back in charge at the EPA," said EWG president Ken Cook at the time. "It's a stunning reversal of the campaign promises Trump and RFK Jr. made to their MAHA followers—that they'd stand up to chemical giants and protect children from dangerous pesticides."
"To those who genuinely believed the MAHA movement would lead to meaningful change on toxic exposures: We understand the hope," he said. "But hope doesn't regulate pesticides. People with power do. And this pick all but guarantees the status quo will remain untouched."
Cook—whose group has also sounded the alarm about dicamba—concluded that Kunkler's EPA post "is but the latest example of the Trump administration's sweeping betrayal of environmental protection and public health."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Moral Imperative: Embracing the Precautionary Principle and the Right to Know
When there is a suspected risk of harm—and scientific certainty is not yet established—the burden of proof should not fall on the people who may be harmed by it.
Jul 19, 2025
We live in a time that celebrates innovation—but too often, it’s innovation without accountability. Pesticides are sprayed where children play. Harmful chemicals are embedded in everyday products. Communities are exposed to toxic risks without warning.
The pattern is clear: Dangerous substances are allowed into our lives before their safety is truly understood. Industry profits from speed, while public protections are stuck in delay. The default approach often favors inaction until overwhelming evidence of danger is undeniable. But by then, the damage is already done. From asbestos to lead paint to Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) “forever chemicals,” history offers a grim catalog of missed opportunities to prevent harm. Each case is a reminder that early warnings were ignored, risks were downplayed, and the public was left unprotected.
That’s why we must fully embrace the Precautionary Principle and defend the Right to Know as the foundation of public health, environmental justice, and informed consent.
At its core, the Precautionary Principle is straightforward and rooted in common sense: When there is a suspected risk of harm—and scientific certainty is not yet established—the burden of proof should not fall on the people who may be harmed by it. These aren’t bureaucratic ideals—they’re essential safeguards in a world where the cost of delay is measured in illness, inequity, and lost public trust.
It’s not radical to ask what’s in our air, water, or soil. What’s radical is expecting families to live with uncertainty, secrecy, or delayed action.
When I founded California Safe Schools, it was because of one disturbing reality: Parents had no idea when or where pesticides were being used on school campuses. There was no warning, no notice, and no choice. Children and school staff were being exposed—without their knowledge or consent.
Through years of community organizing, scientific research, and policy advocacy, we helped secure a major shift in how public schools approach pesticide use. In 1999, the Los Angeles Unified School District—the second-largest in the country—adopted a groundbreaking Integrated Pest Management Policy grounded in the Precautionary Principle and the Right to Know. It required written notification of pesticide use, prioritized least-toxic alternatives, and banned broadcast spraying.
This became a model for statewide reform. In 2000, California passed the Healthy Schools Act, ensuring that all public schools would follow similar transparency and notification requirements. And in 2005, AB 405, sponsored by California Safe Schools, made California the first state in the nation to ban the use of experimental, conditional, or phased-out pesticides on school grounds.
These victories weren’t just legislative—they were lifesaving. They proved what’s possible when grassroots voices, science, and public values come together. They also reaffirmed a fundamental truth: People have a right to know what they’re being exposed to and the right to act on that knowledge.
Still, these principles continue to face resistance. The Right to Know is sometimes viewed with hesitation—treated not as a basic public good, but as a burden or threat. Communities are routinely left in the dark about nearby industrial emissions, pesticide use near schools, or the presence of toxic substances in drinking water. In Flint, Michigan residents were told their water was safe long after it had been poisoned with lead. If we’re serious about protecting public health—especially for the most vulnerable—then transparency and prevention must be the norm, not the exception. It’s not radical to ask what’s in our air, water, or soil. What’s radical is expecting families to live with uncertainty, secrecy, or delayed action.
The Precautionary Principle and the Right to Know are practical tools that remind us that safety should never be an afterthought—and that acting early, openly, and ethically is not just the right thing to do; it’s essential.
We don’t need to wait for more evidence to take meaningful steps forward. What we need is the collective courage to revisit outdated systems, to consistently put human well-being first, and to ensure that those most vulnerable are fully protected.
The good news is that each of us can play a role in advancing this work. Real change begins with awareness—and is sustained through action. Learn what chemicals are being used in your schools, parks, and neighborhoods. Ask questions. Show up to school board meetings and local government hearings. Speak out for policies that reflect transparency, precaution, and the use of least-toxic alternatives. Organize with neighbors. Support legislation that puts health before profit. And perhaps most importantly, share what you learn—because awareness leads to advocacy, and advocacy leads to change.
Every voice counts. Every action matters. Together, we can protect the places where our families live, learn, and grow—and build a future that prioritizes health, safety, and transparency.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say RFK's MAHA Report Offers 'Half-Baked Finger-Pointing' Instead of Real Policy Solutions
"To be meaningful, the findings of the report must translate into concrete actions that truly advance a healthier, more sustainable food system for America's farmers and consumers."
May 23, 2025
Hours after Republicans in the U.S. House passed a budget reconciliation package Thursday that would slash hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare and federal food assistance programs for low-income Americans, the nation's top health agency released a highly anticipated report on chronic diseases in children—one that had nothing to say about the impacts those cuts will have on millions of children and instead offered a litany of complaints about families' lifestyles, vaccines, and "overmedicalization," with few solutions.
Led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the so-called "Make America Healthy Again" Commission released The MAHA Report, urging the federal government to "act decisively" to reverse "the childhood chronic disease crisis by confronting its root causes—not just its symptoms."
But longtime campaigners in the food safety realm said that while the report's partial focus on the wide use of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals—many of which are banned in Europe—is a positive step, the document gave little indication that Kennedy and other Trump administration officials plan to listen to scientists who warn that these chemicals are linked to cancer, birth defects, and immune function.
As Civil Eats reported in April, dozens of GOP lawmakers wrote to Kennedy and other commission members including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, warning that a push to limit pesticides in food was being pushed by "activist groups promoting misguided and sometimes malicious policies masquerading as health solutions."
"Protecting children's health and building a healthy food system must trump pesticide corporations' profits," said George Kimbrell, legal director of Center for Food Safety, in a Thursday statement. "Policy and governance must be based on sound science and reject fearmongering and lobbying influence alleging that these toxins are needed for a healthy food system or agricultural economy."
The report also includes numerous mentions of health guidelines and standards in Europe, but Zeldin was clear in a call with reporters as the document was released that ensuring the health of American children "cannot happen through a European mandate system that stifles growth."
The commission suggested that U.S. farmers will continue to use 300 millions of pounds of glyphosate and 70 million pounds of atrazine per year—herbicides that, respectively, have been the subject of thousands of lawsuits filed by cancer patients and contaminate the drinking water of 40 million Americans.
While the World Health Organization has classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen and numerous countries have banned the weed-killer, the MAHA Commission said "human studies are limited" regarding glyphosate and similar products. The report allowed that "a selection of research studies... have noted a range of possible health effects."
Even that language was enough to anger agricultural groups and the Republican politicians who are allied with them, with the American Soybean Association accusing the commission of "glaring misinformation and anti-farmer findings" on Friday.
Kimbrell said the report "falls woefully short of providing any next steps in how the government is going to stop this health epidemic from continuing."
"To be meaningful, the findings of the report must translate into concrete actions that truly advance a healthier, more sustainable food system for America's farmers and consumers," he said.
The report also makes no mention of factory farming and its link to antibiotic resistance via corporate farmers' widespread antibiotic use; the leading causes of death for children in the U.S., gun violence and car accidents; and dental cavities, which is one of the most common chronic health problems in children.
Kennedy has spearheaded an effort to remove fluoride from public drinking water, saying in the report that exposure to high levels of fluoride is linked to low IQ in children. Widespread community water fluoridation has been linked to a sharp decrease in tooth decay among children, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hailing the practice, now used in 60% of the country, as a major public health achievement.
Medical organizations have said concerns about fluoridation raised by Kennedy and others are unfounded.
During his confirmation hearings, Kennedy dismissed the idea that healthcare should be a human right—falsely claiming Americans prefer the for-profit health insurance industry to government-run systems that have been shown to be far less costly and have better outcomes. The report also makes no mention of the harms of tying healthcare to profit, even as it compared U.S. life expectancy and healthcare costs unfavorably to those in other wealthy nations.
In a video posted to social media, dietician Jessica Knurick emphasized that Kennedy is right to point out the nation's "chronic disease problem."
"But he gets the causes and the solutions completely wrong," she said. "His causes are not evidence-based and they play into the idea of scientific and regulatory corruption to erode trust in science. And his solutions distract from evidence-based solutions that could actually help while actively undermining public health."
With the MAHA Report focusing heavily on sedentary lifestyles and low-income people's reliance on ultraprocessed, inexpensive food, Food and Water Watch (FWW) senior policy analyst Rebecca Wolf said the document amounts to "half-baked finger-pointing that blames the sick."
"Improving public health in America cannot happen without reigning in corporate control. It is a grave mistake to exclude Big Ag from culpability," said Wolf. "Any administration serious about public health must strictly regulate the corporations putting our food and water supplies at risk."
Policy solutions that went ignored in the report, said Wolf, include:
- Closing the "Generally Recognized as Safe" loophole that allows corporations to self-certify the safety of food additives without Food and Drug Administration approval;
- Canceling plans to roll back existing regulations for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS;
- Fully funding and staffing food safety agencies, which have been slashed by the Trump administration; and
- Stopping state legislatures from passing laws called "Cancer Gag Act legislation" by opponents, which would limit pesticide manufacturer liability in health-related lawsuits.
"The report is right to highlight the health impacts of ultraprocessed foods, microplastics, PFAS, and pesticides," said FWW, "but falls short of directing real policy recommendations capable of reigning in corporate polluters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular