House Republicans splinter over pesticide provision in farm bill as MAHA movement flexes its muscle

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers moved Thursday to strip out a controversial pesticide provision from legislation setting U.S. farm and nutrition policy after Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., threatened to "slaughter" the legislation if her measure did not receive a floor vote.

Seventy-three Republicans backed Luna's measure, while 142 GOP lawmakers rejected it.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, policy chair of the House Freedom Caucus, also endorsed Luna's amendment, arguing it would "protect Americans from dangerous pesticides."

Republican critics, however, contended that Luna's amendment would raise costs for consumers if the pesticide provision was stripped from the farm bill. 

"If the EPA says the label is good, I don't see why every state municipality should have to have another label that would simply raise the price for the American consumer," Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., said in opposition to Luna's measure.

"We're not talking about the pesticide in the jug as has been misrepresented to the American citizens and especially the MAHA movement," Scott continued. "We're talking about just the label on the jug. There is no liability shield for the pesticide in the jug. 

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., also sharply criticized Luna's measure.

"The arguments on the other side are pretty shallow, and they're emotional," Thompson said on the House floor. "They're not science-based."

Democrats also widely backed the effort to remove the pesticide provision from the bill.

"Put simply, this language puts chemical company profits over the health of Americans," Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said during debate on the House floor. 

Bayer has repeatedly maintained that its product is safe to use and has not been found to cause cancer.