As more Americans question the long-term health effects of agrichemicals like glyphosate and atrazine, some states are moving in the opposite direction—enacting laws that shield chemical manufacturers from legal liability as long as they comply with federal labeling standards. Georgia and North Dakota have already passed such laws, and similar proposals have surfaced in states like Florida, Iowa, and Tennessee.
In a recent article outlining this issue, Vermont farmer and attorney John Klar explains the risks of such legislation and calls on health professionals, farmers, and scientists to support a letter sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) community. While Klar’s article carries a passionate tone, the letter itself makes a focused and reasonable appeal: prevent states from creating legal immunity for chemical companies simply because they followed a label.
What the MAHA Letter Is Really About
The letter is a response to a campaign by 79 Members of Congress asking the administration to support industry-backed shield laws. These laws would protect pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits if their products meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeling requirements. The MAHA signatories argue that this would strip Americans of their right to legal recourse—just as awareness is growing around the long-term health risks associated with common agricultural chemicals.
The letter does not call for banning specific substances. Rather, it warns that a legal framework that removes accountability based on regulatory compliance alone is both short-sighted and dangerous.
The Limits of EPA Compliance
On paper, EPA guidelines are meant to ensure chemical safety. But history shows that federal approval is not a guarantee of public safety. A number of substances were once approved under EPA standards before being revealed—through lawsuits and independent science—to be seriously harmful.
- Asbestos was once widely used and federally approved, despite internal industry knowledge of its dangers. Only through litigation in the 1980s and 90s did the public learn the extent of its role in causing mesothelioma. Had shield laws been in place back then, tens of thousands of victims may have been denied justice.
- Chlorpyrifos, a common pesticide, remained on the market for decades while evidence accumulated linking it to developmental delays in children. It was finally banned for food use in 2021.
- PFAS chemicals, now known as “forever chemicals,” were also approved and long used in agriculture and manufacturing. Lawsuits—not early EPA action—were instrumental in bringing these hazards to light.
In each case, regulatory compliance was not synonymous with safety, and civil litigation was often the only effective mechanism for accountability and public awareness.
Glyphosate: More Than a Weed Killer
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. While most Americans associate it with weed control, fewer realize that glyphosate is also used as a pre-harvest desiccant. In this process, the chemical is sprayed directly onto crops like wheat, oats, barley, chickpeas, and lentils—not to kill weeds, but to dry the crop for easier harvesting.
Label guidelines recommend waiting 7 to 14 days between spraying and harvesting, but the practice involves the crop absorbing glyphosate at the end of its life, with residues remaining at harvest. Independent testing has found measurable glyphosate levels in common food products, including breakfast cereals. While these residues may fall within EPA’s allowable limits, the long-term health effects of low-dose, chronic exposure are still being studied—particularly in relation to liver disease, hormone disruption, and gut microbiome health.
This legal and scientific uncertainty is precisely why shield laws are premature. If consumers or farmworkers are harmed by such practices, they should retain the right to seek justice in court. Shielding manufacturers because they “followed the label” closes that door before the evidence is fully in.
A National Issue Demands National Responsibility
Food grown in Georgia or North Dakota doesn’t stay there. Agricultural products cross state lines, making chemical exposure a national public health issue, not a local matter. If individual states can grant blanket immunity to chemical companies, they create legal safe havens that undermine the rights of citizens everywhere else.
This is where federal leadership matters. HHS, under Secretary Kennedy, has a responsibility to ensure that corporate liability isn’t shielded by geography. Americans from Vermont to California are affected by the products and practices enabled in shield-law states.
The letter’s call to action is simple: ensure that public health—not industry lobbying—remains the guiding principle of policy. It urges the administration to oppose any effort that removes the public’s ability to hold powerful actors accountable when harm is done.
A Measured Call for Accountability
No one is suggesting that every farmer or every chemical is malicious. Most are operating under the pressures of a food system built on efficiency and scale. But that’s precisely why legal safeguards must remain in place. If glyphosate, atrazine, or any other product is later proven to cause long-term harm, victims should not be told they have no case because the label said it was okay.
Regulatory systems are not infallible. Science evolves. Accountability must remain.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #healthfreedom #pesticideliability #mahamovement
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply