Modern ag alliance bayer

---

ALEC?

LIABILTY SHIELD ~ HUGE # SUITS, CA PROP 65?

EPA LABEL?

SEE FED PRE-EMPT

---

===

Joe Rogan gave RFK Jr. a platform to defend the administration’s embrace of glyphosate, but some other MAHA personalities aren’t letting it go so easily

MAHA-friendly Rogan previously emphasized the harms of glyphosate in the herbicide Roundup. A new interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saw Rogan take a far more passive approach.

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Ilana Berger

Published 03/16/26

In a February 27 interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., podcaster Joe Rogan did not press the secretary on President Donald Trump’s recent executive order boosting the domestic production of the Roundup ingredient glyphosate, nor did he mention that the move, as well as other significant actions, angered MAHA influencers.

The White House’s executive order, which was announced on February 18, calls glyphosate a “cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy.” Using the Defense Production Act, Trump is prioritizing production of glyphosate “over performance of any other contracts or orders” because he argues it is “central to American economic and national security."

For years, Kennedy was a strong opponent of glyphosate, much like the social media figures he was able to add to his coalition during his presidential campaign by promising to “Make America Healthy Again.” Prior to his appointment in the Trump administration, he was part of a legal team that won a lawsuit against Monsanto after “arguing that its Roundup weedkiller contributed to his client’s cancer."

Before this episode, Rogan had also spoken extensively about the harms of glyphosate. He has also praised the MAHA movement and platformed its leaders, and he’s been described as a “walking incubator for supplements" much like other MAHA figures who benefit tremendously from the $1.5 trillion global wellness market.

The executive order — and Kennedy’s support of it — has revealed some fractures in the MAHA-Trump alliance.

In a recent episode of Ask Dr. Drew, conservative host Drew Pinsky interviewed Hands Off My Food! author Dr. Sina McCullough, who has been featured in the MAHA Report newsletter. McCullough said that while she applauds Kennedy’s work, she’s worried that “the corruption, the loopholes that will always be there, the backdoor deals — that's government."

Pinksy echoed her frustration, saying, “The back room deals immediately causes me to wonder, how did we get red food dye back, why is red food dye back? Why is glyphosate back? What happened there? What’s going on?"

Zen Honeycutt, who founded the advocacy group Moms Across America, later told Pinsky that Trump is “sending a message to our legislators that he wants to prioritize glyphosate accessibility in America. … He wants to sort of protect glyphosate and its availability to the farmers, and this is extremely concerning to us.” In the interview, Honeycutt called the executive order “a betrayal."

Meanwhile, on MAHA Media Hub, MAHA Action President Tony Lyons said the Trump administration's support of Bayer in the Roundup lawsuit is a “mistake.”

While these figures are speaking out, Rogan stopped short of demanding accountability.

On his podcast, Rogan gave Kennedy an enormous platform to defend the executive order as a supposedly necessary response to “national security vulnerability” and claim that “we have addicted our farmers to these pesticides” who don't like using it.

:{Video

Citation

From the February 27, 2026, episode of The Joe Rogan Experience

Toward the end of the episode, Rogan asked Kennedy, “What was the recent ruling on glyphosate?"

Kennedy said that it was “not something I was particularly happy with — let me put it that way mildly" and highlighted his work getting “an $11 billion settlement with Monsanto." But he went on to defend the executive order, saying, “I also understand the president's point of view. The president didn't create this system. He's dealing with a problem that was created long before over the past 60 years."

Kennedy also argued that glyphosate is key to national security, because “if you got rid of it or if somebody else cut off our supply, it would destroy the American food system.”

The question came after Rogan claimed earlier in the podcast that he was “watching liberals, the people that are always worried about food ingredients, just dismissing all of this talk about preservatives and glyphosate.”

Some groups that are typically viewed as left-leaning on key issues and receive funding from progressive donors and foundations, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Working Group, and Food & Water Watch, have long been critical of the herbicide. Their advocacy against glyphosate largely predates the MAHA movement.

In the interview, Kennedy also attempted to smooth over the different stances his Make America Healthy Again movement and the agriculture industry take on Roundup. He said that “we’ve got to transition off of glyphosate" and that “the farmers hate it."

“We all understand that this is a huge problem," Kennedy added, before highlighting a “billion-dollar commitment” made by Trump to support farming.

In reality, according to a statement from Modern Ag Alliance, numerous major farming groups including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, and the National Corn Growers Association have thanked Trump for the executive order.

The whole conversation stood in stark contrast to a 2023 interview Rogan did with Kennedy prior to his role in the Trump administration, when he himself was running for president. The podcaster asked about glyphosate, and Kennedy discussed the “many, many diseases that are linked to glyphosate exposure” and even suggested that glyphosate exposure may be “one of the reasons we had the highest death rate during COVID." He said that such “chronic disease … is bankrupting us."

:{Video

Citation

From the June 15, 2023, edition of The Joe Rogan Experience

Fast-forward to 2026, and Kennedy is deferring to Trump’s argument about Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018. During the interview, Kennedy said that we do ultimately need to “transition” away from such chemicals but noted that Trump has said “we can't allow the company to go bankrupt."

At no point during the February 2026 interview did Rogan bring up Kennedy’s past campaign promise to put additional limitations on the pre-harvest use of glyphosate.

Rogan also did not mention the response to the executive order, which, as MAHA influencer Vani Hari put it, sparked “a level of anger and frustration like I’ve never seen before.” Hari, who is also known as The Food Babe, and the group Moms Across America have praised Rogan for discussing MAHA-related issues in the past.

This wasn’t the administration’s first slight against MAHA. In January, the Supreme Court agreed toreview a case that could result in limits on Bayer’s liability for failing to warn consumers about Roundup’s cancer risks on labels, and Trump’s Department of Justice filed a brief in support of Bayer.

Recent reporting has also revealed that “less than two weeks ahead of a request" from the Supreme Court for the Trump administration’s Department of Justice to weigh in on whether the court should hear Bayer’s case, Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Lee Zeldin met with Bayer’s CEO “to discuss ‘litigation’ issues — including ‘supreme court action’ over its glyphosate weed killer."

Influencer Kelly Ryerson, also known as Glyphosate Girl, highlighted the reporting on her Instagram page. “Many concerning discussion topics, but perhaps the most concerning is that Bayer planned to thank the EPA for their help updating the glyphosate web page (wonder how) and for working with MAHA," she wrote.

---

GGL 2 26

AI Overview

The ALEC model bill, often mirrored in state legislation like Georgia's SB 144, shields pesticide manufacturers from "failure to warn" lawsuits if their products have EPA-approved labels, effectively bypassing state-level requirements like California's Proposition 65

. These bills aim to neutralize cancer warnings for glyphosate (Roundup).

National Agricultural Law Center +3

Key Aspects of the ALEC-Backed Model Bill:

Liability Shield: Provides that a pesticide label approved by the EPA is sufficient to defend against state-law failure-to-warn claims.

Targeting Prop 65: Specifically aims to prohibit enforcement actions related to California's Proposition 65 regarding glyphosate.

Federal Preemption: Asserts that the EPA is the ultimate arbiter of pesticide safety, overriding local or state labeling requirements.

Industry Influence: Drafted with input from organizations like CropLife America, Dow AgroSciences, and the American Chemistry Council.

National Agricultural Law Center +5

These legislative efforts have been introduced in multiple states to counteract lawsuits alleging that glyphosate causes cancer.

Beyond Pesticides +1

---

REFS

Update on State Pesticide Liability Limitation Bills

Apr 15, 2025 — Georgia is currently poised to be the first state to adopt such a bill. Should Georgia's SB 144 become law, starting on January 1 ...

National Agricultural Law Center

15 APRIL

#### Update on State Pesticide Liability Limitation Bills

Categorized Brigit Rollins, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Pesticides, Plaintiffs & Pesticides

This legislative session has seen various trends in legislation among different states, including at least nine states that have introduced bills to limit the liability of pesticide companies in injury and product liability lawsuits. While the trend initially kicked off last year with a handful of states introducing pesticide liability limitation bills during the 2024 session, it gained new momentum this year as more states introduced bills and a few have come close to passing. However, with the end of the legislative session approaching for many states, there is still some question as to whether any of the pesticide liability limitation bills introduced in 2025 will clear the finish line.

Background

The last decade has seen a sharp rise in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming that exposure to a pesticide product caused them to develop some sort of illness or injury. While the highest profile pesticide injury cases have involved plaintiffs who claim that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the pesticide Roundup, have caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, plaintiffs have also filed cases alleging injury as the result of exposure to paraquat, chlorpyrifos, and other commonly used pesticide products. Despite the pesticide at issue in a particular lawsuit, most pesticide injury plaintiffs raise similar legal claims, which the National Agricultural Law Center have reviewed in a series called Plaintiffs & Pesticides. Over the last few years, one of those legal claims, the claim that pesticide manufacturers failed to warn consumers about health risks allegedly associated with exposure to certain pesticide products, has become central to pesticide injury litigation.

Failure to warn claims are raised by almost every plaintiff in a pesticide injury lawsuit. Failure to warn arises out of state law and is most often raised during product liability lawsuits by plaintiffs claiming that the manufacturer of a particular product failed to warn consumers about potential injuries that can result from normal use of the product. For example, a plaintiff who alleges failure to warn in a glyphosate injury lawsuit will argue that Bayer, the manufacturer of glyphosate, failed to warn consumers that regular exposure to glyphosate could cause the user to develop cancer.

Pesticide manufacturers have pushed back against failure to warn claims by arguing that pesticides are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), a federal law that requires all pesticides bear a federally-approved label in order to be legally sold in the United States. Part of registering a pesticide product label requires the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to conduct a human health risk assessment and make a carcinogenicity classification. Additionally, FIFRA prohibits states from adding language to a federally registered pesticide label that is “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. Pesticide manufacturers, and Bayer in particular, argue that failure to warn claims in pesticide injury lawsuits should be dismissed because the only way to avoid the claims would be for Bayer to affix cancer warning statements to the packaging of any product containing glyphosate. Bayer argues that this would violate FIFRA by introducing label language that is different from the federally approved label as EPA has never concluded that glyphosate is carcinogenic in humans.

While courts continue to consider whether failure to warn claims should be permitted in pesticide injury lawsuits, some states are looking to pass legislation that would limit the liability of pesticide manufacturers facing failure to warn lawsuits over pesticide products that bear federally approved labels that are consistent with the most recent human health risk evaluations and carcinogenicity classifications from EPA.

Pesticide Liability Limitation Bills

In 2025, at least nine states have introduced liability limitation bills for pesticide manufacturers. As the end of the 2025 legislative session approaches for many states, this is where the various pesticide liability limitation bills stand.

Florida

Legislators in Florida introduced HB 129 in early January. Originally, HB 129 would have only limited liability for anyone who distributed, sold, or applied pesticide products and would extend that liability limitation to “any products liability actions, including failure to warn.” However, the bill has since been amended to limit any products liability action based on failure to warn for any pesticide product that is registered under FIFRA provided that the pesticide bears a label that has been approved by EPA, and is consistent with both the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification of the pesticide. HB 129 would only allow a failure to warn claim to proceed in a pesticide products liability case if EPA determines that the pesticide manufacturer “knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information” related to the human health risks or possible carcinogenicity of the pesticide.

Currently, HB 129 is before the Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee in the Florida House of Representatives. The Florida legislative session is set to adjourn on May 2.

Georgia

Legislators in Georgia introduced SB 144 in February alongside companion bill HB 424. While HB 424 was withdrawn in early April, SB 144 has passed both the Georgia Senate and House of Representatives and is headed to the Governor’s desk to be signed into law. Under SB 144, a pesticide label that is approved by EPA under FIFRA and is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment for the pesticide shall be considered “a sufficient warning label” for any failure to warn claims raised under state law. Like the bill in Florida, the only exception under SB 144 arises if EPA determines that a pesticide manufacturer knowingly “withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information regarding the human health risks of such pesticide.”

Georgia’s governor has 40 days following the end of the legislative session to review all bills that passed the legislature and decide whether to sign them into law. Georgia’s legislative session ended on April 4 which gives the governor’s office until May 14 to make the decision. Should the governor sign SB 144, it will go into effect on January 1, 2026. Should the governor veto the bill, it will return to the legislature during the next session to determine whether lawmakers wish to override the veto which requires a two-thirds majority of each legislative chamber. Should the governor choose to do nothing at all, SB 144 would become law automatically 40 days after the legislative session ends. Should SB 144 become law, it would make Georgia the first state to successfully enact a pesticide liability limitation law.

Iowa

SF 394 was originally introduced to the Iowa legislature in late February as SSB 1051. The bill is nearly identical to one that was introduced in the Iowa legislature in 2024 and, like other pesticide liability limitation bills, would provide that a pesticide label which is registered under FIFRA and consistent with both the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification would be an adequate defense to any claims that manufacturer failed to warn consumers about possible health risks of the pesticide. SF 394 passed the Iowa Senate on March 26 and is currently in the Iowa House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Iowa’s legislative session ends on May 2.

Mississippi

Lawmakers in Mississippi introduced HB 1221 and its companion bill SB 2472 in late January. Both bills would have exempted pesticide manufacturers from liability for failure to warn claims for any pesticide product that bears a label approved by EPA. However, both bills died on the calendar in early February. It is possible that similar legislation could be reintroduced during the next legislative session.

Missouri

Missouri’s HB 544 was pre-filed in late December 2024 and is largely identical to a bill introduced during Missouri’s 2024 legislative session. HB 544 provides that a pesticide label that has been approved by EPA and is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification would be a sufficient defense for state law failure to warn claims. The bill passed the Missouri House of Representatives in late February and is currently before the Missouri Senate. Missouri’s legislative session concludes on May 30.

North Dakota

HB 1318 was introduced to the North Dakota legislature in January and is similar to other pesticide liability limitation bills. It would make a federally approved pesticide label that is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification a sufficient defense to any failure to warn claims. HB 1318 unanimously passed the North Dakota House of Representatives before the end of January and is currently before the Senate. A Senate hearing on HB 1318 is scheduled for April 20. North Dakota will adjourn its legislative session on May 9.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma legislators introduced HB 1755 at the start of February. Like other bills, HB 1755 would find that a pesticide label is a sufficient defense to any failure to warn claims if it is approved by EPA and consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification. HB 1755 is currently before the Oklahoma House of Representatives Rules Committee. It has yet to be introduced to the House floor. Oklahoma’s legislative session is scheduled to conclude on May 30.

Tennessee

SB 527 and its companion bill HB 809 were introduced to the Tennessee Senate and House of Representatives in late January and early February respectively. The two bills are identical to one another, although both are slightly different than the pesticide liability limitation bills that have been introduced in other states. SB 527 and HB 809 would provide that a pesticide manufacturer is not liable for any civil action related to the labeling of the pesticide, including failure to warn, so long as the pesticide bears a label approved by EPA and the pesticide itself was not manufactured or sold in violation of FIFRA. This makes the Tennessee bills slightly broader than other pesticide liability limitation bills which are focused primarily on failure to warn claims. SB 527 passed the Senate in early April and has been sent to the Tennessee House of Representatives. However, the House tabled HB 809, opting to schedule it for the 2026 calendar instead of hearing it this year. With Tennessee’s legislative session set to adjourn on April 25, it appears unlikely that either SB 527 or HB 809 will pass this year.

Wyoming

Lawmakers in Wyoming introduced HB 0285 in late January. The bill would have provided that a pesticide manufacturer’s duty to warn consumers about the risks associated with a particular pesticide would be presumed satisfied so long as the pesticide bore a label approved by EPA. That presumption could only have been overcome if the weight of scientific evidence showed that an additional warning label was necessary. HB 0285 died in committee in early March, however it is possible that the bill could be reintroduced during the 2026 legislative session.

Conclusion

As the end of the 2025 legislative session approaches, it appears that so far only one state is on track to successfully enact a pesticide liability limitation bill. Georgia is currently poised to be the first state to adopt such a bill. Should Georgia’s SB 144 become law, starting on January 1 of next year, a federally approved pesticide label that is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification will be a sufficient defense to state law failure to warn claims filed by pesticide injury plaintiffs in Georgia state court. Recently, a jury in Georgia awarded the plaintiff in a pesticide injury lawsuit $2.065 billion. Similar lawsuits pending in Georgia state court could ultimately be less successful after SB 144 goes into effect.

Overall, it is currently unclear what the impact of pesticide liability limitation bills will be. There are currently thousands of pesticide injury lawsuits pending in states across the country and even if all nine states that introduced pesticide liability limitation bills in the 2025 legislative session had passed them, it is not clear how many lawsuits would be resolved. For the moment, it appears that pesticide injury lawsuits will continue to make their way through the court system.

To view the text of FIFRA, click here.

For more information on pesticides from the National Agricultural Law Center, click here.

---

The Impact of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R. 4288) on Proposition 65 | Steptoe

Oct 10, 2023 — The bill is supported by state and national agricultural organizations. However, environmental advocates are certain to battle the...

Steptoe

California Consumer Chemicals Law Blog | October 10, 2023

The Impact of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R. 4288) on Proposition 65

The U.S. House of Representative’s recent introduction of a bipartisan pesticide labeling bill would, if passed, preempt states from imposing different –or additional– pesticide labeling obligations than those approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This effort, entitled the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R. 4288), would take aim at the ongoing consequence of states and local agencies requiring different labels for the same pesticide products, and the variable science underlying these obligations. The impact of these inconsistencies has been felt both by the agricultural industry faced with an onerous if not impossible compliance burden, as well as consumers who are left puzzled by contradictory warnings.

For companies doing business in California that are regularly under the threat of Proposition 65 (Prop 65) enforcement, the shift in labeling requirements would mean that only labels approved by EPA could appear on pesticide packaging. This immediately calls to mind pesticide products containing the popular herbicide, glyphosate, which is listed as a Prop 65 cancer causing chemical. Among other things, Prop 65 requires that businesses provide warnings to consumers before purchase of a product that contains any one of over 900 chemicals identified by the state as capable of causing cancer or reproductive harm. Glyphosate was added to the Prop 65 list based on an International Agency for Research on Cancer finding that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” However, because EPA has a contradictory finding that there is insufficient evidence to show that glyphosate causes cancer, the bill would directly preempt a Prop 65 cancer warning for pesticide products containing glyphosate.

The validity and constitutionality of the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate has already been under judicial scrutiny for several years. In National Association of Wheat Growers v. Zeise, 309 F. Supp. 3d 842 (E.D. Cal. 2018), the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of California issued a permanent injunction blocking the enforcement of the Prop 65 cancer warnings for glyphosate, holding that requiring companies to label glyphosate-based products as a known carcinogen violates First Amendment rights by compelling “false, misleading, and highly controversial statements.” In coming to its ruling, the Court pointed to the debate over glyphosate’s carcinogenicity and EPA’s contradictory finding that there is insufficient or no evidence to support the claim that glyphosate causes cancer. This decision is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and oral arguments were heard in April 2023.

Interestingly, even if the injunction were overturned on appeal, passage of H.R. 4288 would accomplish a similar end result of prohibiting Prop 65 enforcement actions for alleged failure to warn for glyphosate content in pesticide products. Certainly, the outcome of this legislation could shape the future of Prop 65 enforcement. If enacted it would, at the least, effectively knock glyphosate off the Prop 65 enforcement list. Its passage would also curb enforcement actions for other Prop 65 listed chemicals contained in pesticide products, where EPA has determined that those chemicals are not carcinogenic.

Whether the introduction or enactment of the bill will jumpstart a trend toward uniformity and sound science in the application of Prop 65 that reaches beyond pesticides is to be determined. The fact that the Ninth Circuit reinstated a temporary injunction against the filing or prosecution of new Prop 65 lawsuits related to acrylamide in food and beverage products bodes well for that prediction. Cal. Chamber of Comm. v. Becerra, 529 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2021), aff’d, 29 F.4th 468 (9th Cir. 2022), cert denied, ---U.S.----, ---S.Ct.----, ---L.Ed.2d----, 2023 WL 2959385 (Apr. 17, 2023). The Becerra Court recognized that the scientific evidence fails to demonstrate that acrylamide causes cancer, and its listing as a carcinogen under Prop 65 is tenuous at best. If a permanent injunction is eventually issued, it may provide more momentum toward addressing areas of weakness and abuse in Prop 65 enforcement.

Not surprisingly, the bill’s desired effect of promoting consistency and uniformity through the application of sound science in pesticide labeling is supported by state and national agricultural organizations, who have long struggled to manage the obstacles presented by regulations such as California’s Prop 65. On the other hand, environmental advocates are certain to battle the legislation and ignite a contentious debate concerning the balance of authority between local, state and federal regulatory control. The bill is in the early stages of the legislative process and was referred to the relevant House Subcommittee on August 21, 2023. We will continue to track its progress and implications.

---

Gov. LePage's pesticide bill mirrors ALEC's model - POLITICO Pro

May 9, 2017 — The model bill was drafted by ones of ALEC's task forces with corporate members like CropLife America, Dow AgroSciences and the Am...

POLITICO Pro

House Republican Farm Bill Draft Would Cripple Pesticide ...

May 20, 2024 — The provision will block lawsuits like those successfully advanced against Bayer/Monsanto for adverse health effects, like cancer,

Beyond Pesticides

Federal Bill Benefits Monsanto/Bayer, Overriding Labeling of ...

Jul 16, 2018 — Yet another bill has been introduced in Congress to remove accountability from Monsanto/Bayer for its glyphosate herbicide Roundup...

Beyond Pesticides

Outrage mounts as Republicans in Congress move to protect ...

Sep 27, 2025 — ... glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide and other weed killers can affect its research and product development and other “important...

The Guardian

Press conference on bill to create near-immunity shield for all ...

Jan 21, 2026 — by state trying to pull the wool over lawmakaker. eyes today Tennessee is in the crosshairs. that's why we're here at least five s...

YouTube·FOX NASHVILLE

19:12

:---}:

pesticide-use-and-cancer-risk-rise-together-across-americas-heartland

MANY PIX GFX NO LNX

Investigative / Enterprise:Health

Pesticide use and cancer risk rise together across America’s heartland

America’s farmers and farmworkers, their families and neighbors, are being diagnosed with cancer at rates higher than the national average. A growing body of research indicates that pesticides are partly to blame.

by Ben Felder, Investigate Midwest

February 18, 2026

Why you can trust Investigate Midwest

Lisa Lawler wasn’t surprised when diagnosed with breast cancer in 2025. Her mother had breast cancer and died in 2016. It seemed like cancer had become a common diagnosis for many of her neighbors and friends.

“With how many people seem to get cancer in our community, you just assume you will get it,” said Lawler, who lives in rural Hardin County, Iowa. “But no one really talks about what’s causing it.”

After 10 rounds of radiation and a surgery to remove the tumor, Lawler’s cancer was in remission. Last year, she took a test to determine if her cancer was likely genetic, meaning a high chance of recurrence, which could lead her to have her entire breast removed.

She was surprised by the results.

“The genetic test they ran for me was one that covered 81 genes that are typically related to breast cancer,” Lawler said. “After the test, they told me my cancer is likely not genetic, but likely environmental, based on these 81 genes.

“Your next thought is, then what’s in the environment that caused my cancer?”

Increasingly, pesticides are being blamed for rising cancer rates across America’s agricultural communities.

Hardin County, home to around 800 farms, has a pesticide use rate more than four times the national average and a cancer rate among the highest in the state.

Most of the 500 counties with the highest pesticide use per square mile are located in the Midwest. Sixty percent of those counties also had cancer rates higher than the national average of 460 cases per 100,000 people, according to an analysis of data from both the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Cancer Institute.

Last year, Investigate Midwest, in partnership with the University of Missouri, investigated the link between agrichemicals and cancer in Missouri, finding that many were rural communities that already lacked access to healthcare.

This story was produced as part of the Pulitzer Center’s StoryReach U.S. Fellowship.

Investigate Midwest expanded on that coverage by analyzing data across the country, along with interviewing more than 100 farmers, environmentalists, lawmakers and scientists as part of a partnership with the Pulitzer Center’s StoryReach U.S. Fellowship. The result was the picture of a nation at a crossroads in dealing with this public health crisis that has not just been ignored by state and federal health officials, but aided.

This story was also supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

“Cancer is everywhere and it’s an experience that is unfortunately all too common,” said Kerri Johannsen, senior director of policy and programs at the Iowa Environmental Council, a Des Moines-based nonprofit that has been studying the state’s growing cancer rate.

Agrichemicals have helped America become a crop-producing power, increasing yields of commodity crops — such as corn and soybeans — used for food, fuel and animal feed.

Sprayed from airplanes, drones, tractors and handheld devices, these chemicals can drift through the air or run off into nearby rivers and streams.

And for decades, some farmers and pesticide users have developed neurological and respiratory issues. Thousands of lawsuits have alleged that pesticides and the companies that make them were to blame.

Kerri Johannsen, senior director of policy and programs at the Iowa Environmental Council

Pesticide manufacturers often rejected those claims while sometimes concealing research by their own employees that raised similar concerns. These companies — such as Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and BASF — have also spent millions to lobby federal and state lawmakers for laws that would limit their legal liability and continue to allow them to sell agrichemicals.

“This is one of the most transparently reviewed products ever,” said Jessica Christiansen, the head of crop science communications for Bayer, speaking about her company’s production of Roundup, a glyphosate-based pesticide. “This product is so well studied … been on the market for over 50 years with thousands and thousands of studies. There is no linkage to cancer, there just isn’t.”

Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture have also hired dozens of former pesticide executives and lobbyists, some of whom have already pushed for deregulation of their industry. The Department of Health and Human Services has also altered its own reports to downplay the harm of pesticides.

Two states — North Dakota and Georgia — recently passed laws limiting their residents’ ability to sue pesticide companies, and at least a dozen other states will consider similar laws in the coming months.

“We’ve gotten to a point in the U.S. … where we’ve stopped treating pesticides as if they are dangerous tools,” said Rob Faux, who manages a small Iowa farm and has advocated against pesticide liability shield laws. “Instead, these companies tell these stories that these pesticides are completely safe and we are encouraged to use them anytime. We’ve been convinced that we must use them or we are not going to have enough food to eat.”

In Iowa, a state with heavy pesticide use — 53 million pounds last year — and the nation’s second-highest cancer rate, doctors and health officials have been sounding an alarm for years.

The state has become ground zero in the fight to limit the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. Farmers have gathered at the state Capitol to advocate for increased laws and funding to address the rising cancer rate. That advocacy likely helped defeat a bill last year that would have protected pesticide makers from some lawsuits.

I call myself a Republican, but this is not about politics; this is about money, about the almighty dollar.”

Bill Billings, a resident of Red Oak, Iowa, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2024

“I believe the groups wanting this (bill) to go through didn’t expect any substantial resistance, but there was enough resistance,” said Faux, who also works for the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network, a nonprofit advocating for less agrichemical use.

The Iowa bill was strongly opposed by environmental and health organizations, which have traditionally been left-leaning. But there was also strong opposition from many conservative residents and farmers.

“I call myself a Republican, but this is not about politics; this is about money, about the almighty dollar,” said Bill Billings, a resident of Red Oak, Iowa, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2024.

Initially, doctors told Billings, then 61, he would likely be dead in a matter of months after discovering lymphoma in his lungs. A health enthusiast and hospital administrator, Billings had been a regular user of Roundup, the popular Bayer pesticide used on farms and residential properties.

“The cancer specialist said, very directly, (my) cancer is a result of being exposed to chemicals,” Billings said. “In my records, it literally says that I have cancer as a result of exposure to Roundup and agrochemicals.”

Billings was prescribed a five-drug regimen, along with chemotherapy. In September, he was declared cancer-free.

Last year, he hired a lawyer to file a lawsuit against Bayer.

“The irony is … Bayer Pharmaceuticals makes one of the drugs that treated my cancer,” Billings said. “It’s disturbing to find out you are in this financial circle — not only as a consumer, but as a patient.”

Bill Billings, his home, and surrounding neighborhood in Red Oak, Iowa, photographed Jan. 21, 2026. photos by Geoff Johnson, for Investigate Midwest

Research increasingly links pesticides to growing cancer risk

Cancer is a complex disease and can be caused by numerous environmental and genetic factors. Some links have been clear — such as smoking and lung cancer — while other forms can be impossible to trace back to an original cause.

But scientific research linking pesticides with certain types of cancers has been growing.

“Our findings show that the impact of pesticide use on cancer incidence may rival that of smoking,” scientists wrote in a 2024 study, which was published in Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society.

The study linked pesticides to prostate, lung, pancreas and colon cancers. Pesticides have also been associated with lymphoma and Parkinson’s disease, the study claimed.

Many doctors in agricultural communities say the link with pesticides is hard to deny.

“Iowa has a super high rate (of cancer) and when you look at all of our modifiable risk factors … tobacco, obesity, too many calories, highly processed foods, lack of physical activity, alcohol consumption, getting vaccinated for HPV, sun exposure, and so on, Iowa doesn’t really stand out dramatically at any of those,” said Dr. Richard Deming, medical director at MercyOne Cancer Center in Des Moines. “But one thing that distinguishes Iowa from other states is our environmental exposure to agricultural chemicals.”

Richard Deming, medical director at MercyOne Cancer Center in Des Moines

Deming and other health experts also point to Iowa’s high radon levels, a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced by uranium and radium.

The state also has high levels of fertilizer-derived nitrate in its water, which has been associated with increased cancer risk.

“But we use tons of ag chemicals that make it quite likely that the volume of these chemicals is contributing to what we’re seeing in Iowa in terms of the increased incidence of cancer,” Deming said.

A direct correlation can be difficult to determine, as cancer development times can range from months to decades. Overlaying cancer rates onto a map, however, highlights the nation’s top crop and vegetable growing regions, where pesticide use is highest.

The Midwestern states of Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska and Missouri — leading corn-growing states — had the highest rates, while rates were also high in California and Florida, high fruit-growing states.

Lawler, who developed breast cancer in Hardin County, grew up on her family’s 400-acre farm, where her father grew corn and used 2,4-D, a pesticide made by Dow Chemicals. She and her siblings moved out of state after high school, but Lawler returned in 2010.

Pesticides have become indispensable in farming, Lawler acknowledged, but she wishes more people would ask questions about the risks.

“We change products all the time when we learn about the health impacts,” Lawler said.

These family photos show Lisa Lawler with her mother and siblings over the years. Lawler was recently diagnosed with breast cancer; her mother later died after a cancer diagnosis. The family believes years of farm pesticide and herbicide exposure may have contributed. All photo provided by Lisa Lawler.

As lawsuits mount, Bayer pushes state laws to limit liability

In early 2022, Rodrigo Santos had just been promoted to the head of Bayer’s crop sciences division, a prestigious position within the German-based chemical company. But a global pandemic, climate change and a pending war in Ukraine were disrupting the global production and sale of crops — a direct hit to the company’s pesticide sales.

“The global food system is in crisis,” Santos wrote in a column for the World Economic Forum, going on to say that the world needed to grow more food without a significant increase in the amount of land devoted to crops.

But beyond the pandemic and war, another crisis presented an existential threat to one of the company’s top-selling products. Roundup, the glyphosate-based weed killer produced by Monsanto, which Bayer bought in 2018, had been blamed for causing cancer in thousands of lawsuits.

In 2019, a California jury ordered Bayer to pay $2 billion in one lawsuit (the amount was later reduced). Since then, more than 65,000 lawsuits have been filed against the company, according to Bayer, and the company has agreed to pay more than $12 billion in settlements.

Since purchasing Missouri-based Monsanto, Bayer’s stock price has dropped more than 90% over five years.

This investigation looks at the relationship between pesticide use and rising cancer rates across the heartland. It’s the first in a series and part of a larger reporting effort that takes time, data, and sustained work.

In recent years, Bayer executives, including Santos, openly discussed discontinuing glyphosate production. We are “evaluating all the alternatives that we have for the business,” Santos told investors last year when asked about a possible sale of its Roundup division.

But while Bayer publicly said it was reconsidering its glyphosate business, a review of lobbying disclosure statements, campaign finance records, state legislative records and other documents reveals the world’s largest pesticide company remains committed to expanding its sales.

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the EPA regulates the warning labels on pesticide products. While state-level lawsuits have claimed that federal labeling is insufficient, pesticide companies, including Bayer, have argued that federal regulations should trump state laws.

Bayer, along with other corporate agriculture groups, has pushed for bills in more than a dozen states that would codify the view that federal labeling regulations are sufficient warning, effectively voiding state-level lawsuits.

Jessica Christiansen, head of crop science communications for Bayer

Christiansen, the head of crop science communications for Bayer, disputed that these laws will stop lawsuits and said courts have yet to begin interpreting those that have passed.

“Folks can still sue a company, and they should if there’s a problem,” Christiansen said. “But the litigation industry has a lot to lose with these (bills) that are out there.”

Founded by Bayer, the Modern Ag Alliance has lobbied for these bills and promoted opinion articles downplaying the health impacts of pesticides.

“If farmers lose access to crop protection products because of misguided ideological agendas, U.S. agriculture would be upended, potentially forcing many family farms to shut down and driving up food costs for every American,” said Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance.

The Modern Ag Alliance has spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on state lobbying since 2024.

In Idaho, the organization spent one in four lobbyist dollars last year. In Iowa, Bayer has spent $209,750 on lobbying since 2023, double what the company spent in the previous decade.

Most of the bills came up short in 2025, but Georgia and North Dakota passed liability shields that will complicate local lawsuits.

Georgia’s Senate Bill 144, which took effect Jan. 1, received some bipartisan support but was mostly approved by the Republican majority and opposed by Democrats.

Similar bills have been filed in at least 10 states for this year’s legislative sessions.

In 2024, the Iowa bill was passed by the state Senate with a 30-to-19 vote. Ahead of a vote in the House last year, farmer and environmental groups lobbied against the bill.

The session ended without the House taking up a vote. The bill could return in 2026, but Faux, the Iowa farmer, said he also worries about it being “snuck into” another bill or budget agreement.

“I don’t think we can just assume this fight is over,” Faux said.

In other states, backlash seemed to stop liability shield bills before they got started.

Rep. Dell Kerbs, R-Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, Rep. Dell Kerbs, a Shawnee Republican, authored a pesticide liability shield bill he said was meant to end “frivolous” lawsuits against pesticide makers.

“What’s happened in our country is we have … judges that have decided they need to be in the labeling business,” Kerbs said when introducing his bill at a Feb. 11, 2025, hearing of the House agriculture committee.

State Rep. Ty Burns, another Republican, asked Kerbs why he chose to author the bill.

“I was first approached by Bayer,” Kerbs responded.

“But this is a labeling bill; it is not an immunity bill. It is just clarifying on EPA labeling regulations,” Kerbs added. “There is nothing that prevents a lawsuit from any single person. This is not giving a free pass to kill people. This simply is saying that a frivolous lawsuit to potentially pad the pocket of somebody who was not reading the label is not a justification to add that to a label through a state district court.”

But when Burns asked Kerbs about opposition to the bill, especially from many farmers, Kerbs denied receiving any complaints.

“That is hard to believe,” Burns told Kerbs, “because I have been bombarded.”

The bill was never presented to the House for a vote.

After early promises, MAHA walks back pesticide oversight

While liability shield laws have been largely advanced by Republican lawmakers, the push to further regulate pesticides has transcended partisan lines.

Both left-leaning environmental groups and conservative health movements, which have targeted agrichemicals and some vaccines, have called for reducing or eliminating the use of pesticides.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been a longtime critic of pesticides. In a May 2025 report, his Make America Healthy Again commission linked pesticide overuse to children’s health issues, which drew praise from both political camps.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. makes remarks at an event announcing the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) Commission on May 22, 2025, in the East Room of the White House. photo by Joyce N. Boghosian, The White House

George Kimbrell, co-executive director of the Center for Food Safety, which has advocated for stronger pesticide regulations, called the initial report a “baby step” forward and said he was encouraged after decades of inaction by the federal government.

“Going back my entire career, 20-plus years now of doing this work, it doesn’t matter if it’s a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, they have been beholden to and done the wishes of the pesticide industry,” Kimbrell told Investigate Midwest last year. “So, this is a unique moment where … there’s a chance that there could be some positive change in terms of responsible oversight for these toxins.”

Corporate agriculture groups heavily criticized the report, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and CropLife America, a national organization representing many large agrichemical companies, including Bayer, Corteva Agriscience and Syngenta.

Many of those groups and companies had been large financial backers of Trump. But Kennedy downplayed any concerns that the president would avoid taking a hard position against pesticide companies because of that support.

“I’ve met every president since my uncle was president, and I’ve never seen a president (like Trump), Democrat or Republican, that is willing to stand up to industry when it’s the right thing to do,” Kennedy said at a May 22, 2025, MAHA commission meeting as the president sat smiling to his right.

Three months later, Kennedy’s MAHA commission published its final report, which contained no calls to further regulate pesticides. In fact, it called for the federal government to work with large agrichemical companies to ensure public “awareness and confidence” in the EPA’s current pesticide regulations.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment from Kennedy.

MAHA-Report-The-White-House

Many of the groups that expressed optimism over the initial report were outraged over the change.

“This report is … a clear sign that Big Ag, Bayer, and the pesticide industry are firmly embedded in the White House,” said David Murphy, the founder of United We Eat and a former finance director for Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

The Trump administration has employed several pesticide executives, researchers and lobbyists at the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Kyle Kunker, who was a registered lobbyist for the American Soybean Association, an organization that has advocated for the legal liability shield laws at the state level, was hired last year to oversee pesticide policy at the EPA.

Three weeks later, the EPA recommended expanded use of dicamba-based herbicides, which federal courts had previously restricted. The EPA proposal was closely aligned with the position of the American Soybean Association.

In 2025, the EPA also hired Nancy Beck and Lynn Ann Dekleva, both of whom worked with the American Chemistry Council.

Last month, a coalition of MAHA supporters called for the removal of Lee Zeldin, administrator of the EPA.

Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, testifies during his Senate Environment and Public Works confirmation hearing on Jan. 16, 2025. photo by Tom Williams, CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Recent EPA decisions around pesticides “will inevitably lead to higher rates of chronic disease, greater medical costs, and tremendous strain on our healthcare system,” the group stated in a petition circulating online.

Several prominent MAHA influencers have joined the petition, posting anti-pesticide messages on social media under handles such as The Glyphosate Girl and the Food Babe. “The EPA is acting like the Everyone Poisoned Agency,” wrote Kelly Ryerson, on her Glyphosate Girl Instagram feed.

As the EPA advances pesticide use, the Trump administration has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that federal labeling laws invalidate state-level lawsuits.

“After careful scientific review and an assessment of hundreds of thousands of public comments, EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings,” Trump’s solicitor general wrote in an amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

However, one of the studies the EPA has often cited in claiming pesticides are safe was recently retracted due to concerns about its authorship and potential conflicts of interest.

The report, published in 2000 by the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, claimed Roundup “does not pose a health risk to humans.” The report has been the foundation for numerous other studies, court cases and policy decisions.

The journal retracted the study last year, noting that court cases had revealed that Monsanto employees had contributed to the study. “This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented,” the retraction stated.

“This is just one example of how the current process of certifying these chemicals is broken in the U.S.,” said Colleen Fowle, water program director at the Iowa Environmental Council. “At the very least, we’re hoping that this (retraction) eliminates this specific research article from being cited in the future and concentrates more on independent peer-reviewed research as our basis to determine the safety of glyphosate.”

SOME LNX

“Our findings show that the impact of pesticide use on cancer incidence may rival that of smoking,” scientists wrote in a 2024 study, which was published in Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society.

The Modern Ag Alliance has spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on state lobbying since 2024.

In Idaho, the organization spent one in four lobbyist dollars last year. In Iowa, Bayer has spent $209,750 on lobbying since 2023, double what the company spent in the previous decade.

Most of the bills came up short in 2025, but Georgia and North Dakota passed liability shields that will complicate local lawsuits.

Georgia’s Senate Bill 144, which took effect Jan. 1, received some bipartisan support but was mostly approved by the Republican majority and opposed by Democrats.

Similar bills have been filed in at least 10 states for this year’s legislative sessions.

In 2024, the Iowa bill was passed by the state Senate with a 30-to-19 vote. Ahead of a vote in the House last year, farmer and environmental groups lobbied against the bill.

The session ended without the House taking up a vote. The bill could return in 2026, but Faux, the Iowa farmer, said he also worries about it being “snuck into” another bill or budget agreement.

“I don’t think we can just assume this fight is over,” Faux said.

WHOLE REPORT?

MAHA-Report-The-White-House

The report, published in 2000 by the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, claimed Roundup “does not pose a health risk to humans.” The report has been the foundation for numerous other studies, court cases and policy decisions.

The journal retracted the study last year, noting that court cases had revealed that Monsanto employees had contributed tothe study. “This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented,” the retraction stated.

---

IOWA PBS

[Yeager] Looking at legislation and looking at bills, I'll talk specifically about the bill that went through the Iowa Senate, because those are the that's the bill that I get the email most of the emails on, and it's arguing that they're calling it an ad gag bill for cancer. That's why we want this legislation is because we're shielding companies in case. And I know, I know, asking a lawyer a question about hypotheticals is going to not get me anywhere. But it's a hypothetical of there's there's a group of people who tell me that this is just shielding. If if it's determined that certain things are causing cancer, that might trace back to agriculture, that this is just a preemptive run to prevent, large scale litigation against these large companies. Is that is that an accurate concern people have?

[EBT] I think it's a consistent misrepresentation of what the language of the bill does. and and back to where we kind of talked about and talked through the three kind of legs of that product liability stool. What those three major responsibilities are duties of manufacturers are, you know, I highlighted that duty for a safe and effective design, that duty to manufacture in a safe and effective fashion, both of those pathways. Absolutely. In fact, all three of these pathways arguably still exist. It just argued what we are working on is clarifying how does one satisfy that warning label requirement? What is an adequate warning label? Right now, we don't have a definition. Once that bill is passed into law, we do. If someone is injured by a product, that pathway of defective product or or harm, if that, that pathway to the courthouse absolutely still exists. If there is a bad batch of product manufactured from that pathway absolutely still exists. So folks that are harmed by products absolutely have protections still under the law today. And they would after this bill is signed into law in every one of the jurisdictions that we are working in, this effort is purely focused on clarifying the label parameters.

...

[Yeager] Well, let's talk about the bill then you mentioned I heard you say Tennessee. I heard you say North Dakota. We've talked about Iowa. What other states is this? in the works, or at least being introduced.

[EBT] Sure. So I will give a nod to, to our friends down in Georgia. They were actually the first state this year to move it through both chambers. It's actually awaiting the governor's signature right now. So we saw a great bipartisan support on both sides. moved unanimously through committees, as well as bipartisan on the floor of the Senate and then the House here earlier this month, we saw an incredible support from North Dakota that moved unanimously through their committee on the House side. It was an 88 to 0 vote on the House floor. again, when I say that this is a bipartisan issue, I think that that vote in North Dakota, it showed showcases that to to a tee. we were just up there earlier this week to move through the Senate process there. we've got legislation that's been introduced in Oklahoma, Florida.

I mentioned Tennessee, and I'm sure I'm in Missouri. Excuse me. Yes, we've moved through the house as well in Missouri and are working our way through, the Senate side conversation is there. There are a handful of states also that had begun to consider this legislation. but just like, you know, we have a funnel process in, in the state of Iowa where certain things need to be considered or brought up by a certain date. Otherwise they're considered dead for this session or this cycle. We had some, some states where where the bill just wasn't brought up. and so while that's unfortunate, we'll, we'll keep our collaborations kind of together and maybe tee up those conversations come this time next year.

[Yeager] I hear a lot of red states. I didn't hear Minnesota or Wisconsin. Michigan in your or have has it been introduced there?

[EBT] it has not. So we've, I think the initial count was about 11 states. it is hard to do this effort everywhere all at once. it just this many states is a lot to to in part also because the state legislative sessions, for the most part, almost all coincide. Right. So, you know, the state of Florida being a different exception. They didn't start until I think, like the first week of March was, which was nice to be able to, you know, frontload a few of these other states, but, I think we wanted to be able to focus in some areas where, you know, we had some boots on the ground partnerships already. we, we had already begun to have some of these conversations, and there was lawmakers that were interested in running this.

So, that network I absolutely anticipate will continue to grow as we move into 2026 and beyond. Additionally, and I know we haven't talked about it at length just yet, but there is going to also be continuation of a federal effort on this topic. So there was legislation introduced in the last Congress, entitled the the AG Labeling Uniformity Act. That was actually part of the House farm bill. This, during the last Congress. So as we are getting back into it feels a little deja vu ish, right? Or Groundhog Day, right. Coming back to it to farm bill conversations year after year after year. But, I fully anticipate that that that, provision would be reintroduced and will be reintroduced this Congress. We haven't seen it yet, but I think they're still working on co-sponsors. and that that would be a critical part of our 2025, farm bill conversations this year.

[Yeager] So not necessarily centered in RED? states, but, that are primarily road crop production that we have in Iowa and Missouri and North Dakota. Because when you mention. Yeah, and and Georgia and yeah, in other things. But I mean Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, I mean all possible in the future, I think.

[EBT] Absolutely. We've got great, we've got great partners, we've got great partners. And many of those states do. I you know, if I started rattling off the list, we'd unfortunately take all of our time on the podcast. But, you know, I would encourage folks to, to, to go on to modern AG Alliance Dorgan and just take a scroll through, just how broad and wide that list of partners is, state organizations and federal and and like I said, we've got great partners from coast to coast and beyond. And so looking forward to continuing to build that coalition and then build our outreach efforts as we move into, you know, the next legislative cycles....

---

LI 2 26

elizabeth-burns-thompson-4871a21b

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson

3rd degree connection3rd

Executive Director, Modern Ag Alliance

Modern Ag Alliance

Drake University Law School

Omaha Metropolitan Area Contact info

500+ connections

Message

ActivityActivity

2,275 followers2,275 followers

Posts

Comments

Images

Loaded 9 Posts posts

Elizabeth’s profile photo

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson reposted this

National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG)National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG)

1,295 followers1,295 followers

2w • 2 weeks ago • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn

Context matters following glyphosate testing reported recently in Florida.

At the highest glyphosate residue level reported, an adult would need to consume approximately 600 loaves of bread per day for a lifetime, and a child about 300 loaves per day, to reach the conservative safety thresholds established by U.S. health authorities.

This perspective reinforces the strength of EPA’s science-based regulatory system and why wheat farmers remain confident in the safety of the food we grow.

…more

Activate to view larger image,

No alternative text description for this image

Activate to view larger image,

likeinsightfulcelebrate

2 comments

25 reposts

Elizabeth’s profile photo

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson reposted this

Ag Partners CooperativeAg Partners Cooperative

2,410 followers2,410 followers

3w • 3 weeks ago • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn

🔊 Take a listen: Our CEO, Wes Spohr, shared his perspective on HB 2476, a Kansas bill focused on pesticide labeling requirements.

He spoke during Legislative Action Day, hosted by the Kansas Cooperative Council, Kansas Grain & Feed Association, and Kansas Agribusinesses Retailers Association.

hashtag#LegislativeActionDay hashtag#KansasAg hashtag#AgPartners

…more

likecelebrate

2 comments

3 reposts

Show all posts

ExperienceExperience

Modern Ag Alliance logo

Executive Director

Executive Director

Modern Ag Alliance · Full-timeModern Ag Alliance · Full-time

Jan 2025 - Present · 1 yr 2 mosJan 2025 to Present · 1 yr 2 mos

Landus logo

Vice President, External Affairs

Landus · Full-timeLandus · Full-time

Dec 2023 - Jan 2025 · 1 yr 2 mosDec 2023 to Jan 2025 · 1 yr 2 mos

HybridHybrid

Lead all government and policy engagements on behalf of nearly $3B grain and agronomy agribusiness reaching 34 states and 16 countries

Coordinate advocacy activities for 600+ employees, as well as representative for industry partners/associations at the local, state, and federal levels

Serve on public policy committees for: National Grain and Feed Association, National Council of Farm Cooperatives, The Fertilizer Institute, Ag Retailers Association, and Iowa Agribusiness Association

Manage political action committee, lobby compliance reporting, and build out of charitable foundationLead all government and policy engagements on behalf of nearly $3B grain and agronomy agribusiness reaching 34 states and 16 countries Coordinate advocacy activities for 600+ employees, as well as representative for industry partners/associations at the local, state, and federal levels Serve on public policy committees for: National Grain and Feed Association, National Council of Farm Cooperatives, The Fertilizer Institute, Ag Retailers Association, and Iowa Agribusiness Association Manage political action committee, lobby compliance reporting, and build out of charitable foundation…see more

Public Policy, Agricultural Policy and +4 skills

Vice President, Government and Public Affairs

Navigator CO2 Ventures · Full-timeNavigator CO2 Ventures · Full-time

Jul 2021 - Dec 2023 · 2 yrs 6 mosJul 2021 to Dec 2023 · 2 yrs 6 mos

Omaha, Nebraska, United States · HybridOmaha, Nebraska, United States · Hybrid

Direct public outreach efforts with local, state, and federal governmental entities, as well as industry leaders

Oversee teams implementing advocacy campaigns, grassroots programs, and relationship management

Facilitate media messaging and strategic communications, serve as company spokespersonDirect public outreach efforts with local, state, and federal governmental entities, as well as industry leaders Oversee teams implementing advocacy campaigns, grassroots programs, and relationship management Facilitate media messaging and strategic communications, serve as company spokesperson…see more

Chevron Fuels and Renewable Solutions logo

Manager, Corporate Affairs

Renewable Energy Group, Inc.Renewable Energy Group, Inc.

Feb 2019 - Jul 2021 · 2 yrs 6 mosFeb 2019 to Jul 2021 · 2 yrs 6 mos

Ames, Iowa · On-siteAmes, Iowa · On-site

Led state-level political outreach within the Midwest for the nation’s largest biodiesel producer

Coordinated advocacy messaging and engagement for 800+ employees, as well as industry partners

Relationship development with lawmakers, regulators, and stakeholders to boost the blending of biofuelsLed state-level political outreach within the Midwest for the nation’s largest biodiesel producer Coordinated advocacy messaging and engagement for 800+ employees, as well as industry partners Relationship development with lawmakers, regulators, and stakeholders to boost the blending of biofuels…see more

Iowa Corn logo

Iowa Corn

4 yrs 8 mos4 yrs 8 mos

Johnston, Iowa, United States · On-siteJohnston, Iowa, United States · On-site

Regulatory Affairs Counsel

Jan 2018 - Feb 2019 · 1 yr 2 mosJan 2018 to Feb 2019 · 1 yr 2 mos

Oversaw the implementation of policy priorities within regulatory agencies at the state and federal levels

Organized issue calls to action and other policy engagement activities for farmer members

Managed fundraising efforts for the Iowa Corn Political Action CommitteeOversaw the implementation of policy priorities within regulatory agencies at the state and federal levels Organized issue calls to action and other policy engagement activities for farmer members Managed fundraising efforts for the Iowa Corn Political Action Committee…see more

Government Relations Manager

Jul 2014 - Jan 2018 · 3 yrs 7 mosJul 2014 to Jan 2018 · 3 yrs 7 mos

Coordinated policy implementation efforts for membership engagement at state and federal level

Supported grassroots policy development programming, including local meetings and annual policy summit

---

More profiles for you

Jori Showalter

Director of Learning and DevelopmentDirector of Learning and Development

Matt Carstens

Strategic c-suite leadership and operational excellence solving complex sustainability and transformation, enabling navigation through challenges and regulations.Strategic c-suite leadership and operational excellence solving complex sustainability and transformation, enabling navigation through challenges and regulations.

Amanda De Jong

CEO | Strategic Communications Leader | Driving Powerful Strategies & Programs around Agriculture, Education, and PolicyCEO | Strategic Communications Leader | Driving Powerful Strategies & Programs around Agriculture, Education, and Policy

Claire Carstens

Customer Experience & Event Coordinator Customer Experience & Event Coordinator

Katie P. Hall

Senior Director of Advocacy/Executive DirectorSenior Director of Advocacy/Executive Director

Benjamin Toot

Territory Manager - Norres-BaggermanTerritory Manager - Norres-Baggerman

Stephanie Copley

· 3rd+3rd+ degree connection

Deputy General CounselDeputy General Counsel

Molly Toot

Retired Professional - Agriculture BusinessRetired Professional - Agriculture Business

Gregg Muehler

Owner/Operator @ Muehler Farms | Director @ Minnesota Corn Growers Association | Certified Crop AdvisorOwner/Operator @ Muehler Farms | Director @ Minnesota Corn Growers Association | Certified Crop Advisor

Andrew Walmsley

Vice President, Government Relations | Strategy, Advocacy & PolicyVice President, Government Relations | Strategy, Advocacy & Policy

Mike Downey

Farm succession expert for 500+ family farms • I help farmers & ag professionals grow-diversify-transition their legacies • Farm Futures contributor🎙️Host of 2 Ag meetups • Passive RE investor • farm owner #farmraisedFarm succession expert for 500+ family farms • I help farmers & ag professionals grow-diversify-transition their legacies • Farm Futures contributor🎙️Host of 2 Ag meetups • Passive RE investor • farm owner #farmraised

Jaci Winkelpleck

Landus Agronomist •

Farming in NE Iowa Landus Agronomist • Farming in NE Iowa

Dr. Brooke Blessington

Krista Swanson

Agriculture Economist. Midwest Farmer. Data Translator. Effective Communicator. Skilled Speaker. Strategic Thinker. Life Learner.Agriculture Economist. Midwest Farmer. Data Translator. Effective Communicator. Skilled Speaker. Strategic Thinker. Life Learner.

Adam Schleisman

Salesman and Partner at Allied Ag LLCSalesman and Partner at Allied Ag LLC

Dehra Harris

Vice President of Leadership & Team DevelopmentVice President of Leadership & Team Development

Susan Tronchetti

Enthusiastic Advocate for Agriculture from the Board room to the Farm !Enthusiastic Advocate for Agriculture from the Board room to the Farm !

Mace Thornton

Partner and COO / Stratovation Group, Published NovelistPartner and COO / Stratovation Group, Published Novelist

Matthew Bennett

Bennett Farms. Commodity Broker & CEO of AgMarket.Net, Farm Division - John Stewart & Associates, SpeakerBennett Farms. Commodity Broker & CEO of AgMarket.Net, Farm Division - John Stewart & Associates, Speaker

Rachael Whitehair

Director of Innovation and Stewardship at Nebraska Corn BoardDirector of Innovation and Stewardship at Nebraska Corn Board

:{:{---}:

GGL 2 26

[### Modern Ag Alliance Appoints New Executive Director To ...

Modern Ag Alliance

https://modernagalliance.org › news-resources › modern-...](https://modernagalliance.org/news-resources/modern-ag-alliance-appoints-new-executive-director-to-lead-advocacy-efforts/)

Jan 9, 2025 — Ag advocacy veteran Elizabeth Burns-Thompson will lead the coalition's efforts to ensure US farmers' continued access to critical crop protection tools.Read more

[### About Us

Modern Ag Alliance

https://modernagalliance.org › about-us](https://modernagalliance.org/about-us/)

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson serves as the Executive Director of the Modern Ag Alliance, where she leads the Alliance's efforts to advocate for U.S. farmers' ...Read more

[### Aligning Many Interests in Agriculture on Crop Chemistry ...

Iowa PBS

http://www.iowapbs.org › mtom › mtom-podcast › podcast](http://www.iowapbs.org/shows/mtom/mtom-podcast/podcast/12288/aligning-many-interests-agriculture-crop-chemistry)

Apr 1, 2025 — We're going to talk about that this week in the MTM podcast with the executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance, it's Elizabeth Burns Thompson ...Read more

Videos

[Understanding the Modern Ag Alliance YouTube · No-Till Farmer

1 month ago](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rldokwVS0Qw)

YouTube · No-Till Farmer

1:34

We are a coalition of 110 plus uh farm and a organizations from coast to coast that have come together to ensure that farmers continue to have access.

[No-Till Farmer's 1:1 with Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, Modern ... YouTube · No-Till Farmer

1 month ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubR7K7RexvM)

YouTube · No-Till Farmer

28:58

We are a coalition of 110 plus uh farm and a organizations from coast to coast that have come together to ensure that farmers continue to have access.

[MAA recently released our first State of The American Farmer ... Facebook · Modern Ag Alliance

2 weeks ago](https://www.facebook.com/modernagalliance/videos/maa-recently-released-our-first-state-of-the-american-farmer-report-and-the-mess/1817085309009539/)

Facebook · Modern Ag Alliance

[

0:53](https://www.facebook.com/modernagalliance/videos/maa-recently-released-our-first-state-of-the-american-farmer-report-and-the-mess/1817085309009539/)

[Modern Ag Alliance on Instagram: "Meet Elizabeth Burns ... Instagram · Modern Ag Alliance

Dec 3, 2025](https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRziOMtjZwn/)

Instagram · Modern Ag Alliance

[

0:23](https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRziOMtjZwn/)

Feedback

[ * View all](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=e661ce2bce94833d&udm=7&sxsrf=ANbL-n4RH2o0ju5e07kUWBVlmzkOyoVRLg:1772066324868&q=Elizabeth+Burns-Thompson,+executive+director+of+the+Modern+Ag+Alliance&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqs7--9fWSAxVBDjQIHRxkAS4Q8ccDKAR6BAg3EAY)