How a Surprise Vote on Pesticides Reshaped the 2026 Farm Bill

This article first appeared in the June 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

The U.S. food and agriculture sector is navigating a pivotal transition as new legislative actions and regulatory shifts take shape. Recent developments in Washington are establishing a new policy landscape that business owners, brand executives, retailers, and farmers in the natural, organic, and regenerative space will need to monitor closely.

On April 30, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 by a vote of 224–200, marking the first major movement on a Farm Bill since 2018. However, for a natural and organic industry that has now grown into a $325.2 billion market, according to the Natural Foods Merchandiser 2025 Market Overview, the current legislation has drawn mixed reactions regarding its alignment with modern agricultural practices and evolving consumer demand.

As the bill moves to the Senate, where its passage remains uncertain, it introduces a mix of regulatory adjustments, funding reallocations, and structural reorganizations. These legislative changes, combined with a concurrent restructuring at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), present both operational challenges and new market dynamics for the natural products industry.

The following is an overview of these policies, the political context, and the business implications for the regenerative and organic food supply chain.

The MAHA Movement and a Shift in Pesticide Regulation
One of the most notable developments to emerge from the House Farm Bill debates was a bipartisan vote regarding pesticide oversight—a legislative shift influenced in part by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

For months, the drafted Farm Bill contained language designed to federally preempt states from requiring health and cancer warning labels on pesticides, a provision intended to protect agrochemical manufacturers from state-level lawsuits. However, the House voted, 280-142, to strip this pro-pesticide language from the bill.

According to Politico, this vote represents a major win for MAHA-aligned Republicans and Democrats. The amendment to remove the shield was championed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who had signaled she would oppose the entire Farm Bill if the protections remained. Despite pressure from House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.), who argued the shield was necessary to prevent “frivolous lawsuits” and to protect crop yields, 73 Republicans joined the majority of Democrats to remove the provision.

This legislative fight highlights the increasing complexity of food politics. As reported by the Montana Free Press, Bob Quinn, a renowned organic kamut farmer from Big Sandy, Montana, noted his surprise at the outcome, acknowledging the historical influence of the pesticide lobby. Interestingly, six Democrats representing regions with heavy pesticide use voted with the chemical industry to bar state labels, showcasing the fact that regional agricultural interests often intersect with party lines.

The removal of the liability shield is being hailed as a significant public health and environmental victory. According to Friends of the Earth, stripping the shield affirms that corporations selling chemicals linked to human health concerns should not be insulated from state-level oversight. Similarly, Kathleen Merrigan, executive director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, told FoodTank that the MAHA movement has pushed the pesticide issue to a "tipping point" in food policy.

Even conservative outlets are analyzing this shift. An op-ed in Fox News questioned the broader coherence of a Farm Bill that maintains high levels of agrochemical support while elements of the party simultaneously back MAHA principles.

The Business Takeaway: For natural and organic CPG brands, this development provides a distinct market signal. Consumers are increasingly attentive to the use of synthetic inputs. With states retaining the right to mandate health warnings on conventional, chemically treated products, the value proposition of the USDA Organic label and third-party certifications like Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) will likely strengthen. Brands should continue to emphasize transparency and clean-label marketing, as the regulatory contrast between conventional and organic agriculture becomes more visible.

Organic Legislation: Modest Progress Amid Broader Funding Cuts
While the pesticide provision's removal was a focal point, the broader Farm Bill presents a challenging framework for the organic and sustainable agriculture sectors.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) noted that the House-passed bill includes some important wins for organic agriculture, but it stressed that federal policy must evolve to support the sector proactively rather than treat it as an "afterthought." Despite the industry's significant retail footprint, the National Organic Coalition warned that the legislation "largely assumes a stagnant organic marketplace rather than making the targeted investments needed to support continued growth."

Critiques of the bill suggest it continues to heavily favor industrial agribusiness. According to Friends of the Earth, the legislation reduces critical conservation funding—including a $1 billion cut to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)—while shifting resources toward subsidies for larger agribusiness operations. Furthermore, the bill attempts to override voter-approved laws such as California’s Proposition 12, which mandates humane animal welfare standards, potentially invalidating numerous state and local measures on food safety and environmental protection.

Conservation programs remain a cornerstone of the regenerative movement. As The Nature Conservancy highlights, the Farm Bill typically provides roughly $6 billion annually for conservation work on private working lands. Reducing these incentive-based programs may stifle farmers' ability to transition to climate-smart, soil-building practices.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) states that the bill "falls unmistakably short" in addressing the current needs of farmers. NSAC points out that producers are currently facing abrupt trade policy shifts and federal workforce reductions. Earlier this year, the USDA began freezing and terminating held contracts, disrupting planning for the 2025 and 2026 planting seasons for many small and mid-sized producers.

SNAP Policy Changes and Food Access
Another critical component of the House Farm Bill is its approach to nutrition assistance. The legislation outlines $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), alongside expanded work requirements for certain demographics and stricter eligibility rules, according to Food & Wine.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that one in eight participants could lose access to some form of food relief as a result of these measures. Kathleen Merrigan noted via FoodTank that food pantries are already seeing increased demand, a trend that could accelerate later in the year as the cuts take full effect.

The Business Takeaway: SNAP funding is integral to the broader grocery economy, injecting tens of billions of dollars into retail annually. Reductions in food purchasing power can cause a ripple effect across the entire grocery ecosystem. Natural and organic retailers, who have increasingly integrated SNAP benefits to democratize access to healthier foods, may see shifts in consumer purchasing behavior. Brands and retailers will need to evaluate pricing strategies and explore ways to maintain accessibility without compromising on product integrity.

Organizational Restructuring at the USDA
Alongside the legislative process in Congress, recent administrative and structural changes within the USDA under Secretary Brooke Rollins are impacting the organic community's oversight and funding mechanisms.

Recent reports indicate a rollback of infrastructure designed to support alternative agriculture. In a recent op-ed published by Civil Eats, it was noted that the USDA abruptly canceled $300 million in contracts for the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (ILCM). This program was established to help underserved and first-generation farmers overcome barriers to entry; its termination halts 50 community-based agricultural projects nationwide.

Staffing challenges within the USDA are also drawing attention. According to the Federal News Network, a significant majority of USDA researchers tapped for an agency relocation have declined to move, raising concerns about a potential reduction in agricultural research capacity.

This staffing shift directly affects the organic sector. According to industry watchdog OrganicEye, the National Organic Program (NOP)—which oversees certification within the $76 billion organic products market—has reportedly seen staff reductions of up to 30%. In addition, Secretary Rollins delayed appointing five members to the 15-member National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) prior to their spring meeting.

Consequently, the NOSB convened in Omaha last month with only 10 members. OrganicEye reported that this lack of representation for key constituencies—such as farmers, consumers, and scientists—strays from the original intent of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, leading to concerns that business conducted during the meeting could face legal challenges.

Personnel reductions extend to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a key agency assisting farmers with soil health improvements. As reported by Organic Insider, the NRCS has reportedly lost approximately 22% of its staff, leaving offices in several vital agricultural states operating with limited personnel. This comes shortly after the launch of a $700 million pilot program aimed at boosting soil health, raising questions about the agency's capacity to administer the new funds effectively.

The cumulative impact of these changes is placing significant pressure on producers. Food industry analyst Robyn O'Brien highlighted this convergence of factors on her Substack, noting that farmers are currently facing "a convergence of policy decisions, tariffs, immigration crackdowns, energy freezes, [and] budget cuts" that threaten operational stability.

The Senate's Role and the Path Forward
With the House-passed Farm Bill viewed by many as highly partisan and unlikely to pass the Senate in its current form, industry stakeholders are focusing their attention on the upper chamber. Senate markups are expected in June, and differing legislative priorities are already emerging.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a new voice on the Senate Agriculture Committee, has outlined a contrasting legislative vision. According to AgInfo, Schiff’s priorities include enhanced support for specialty crops, regional food systems, organic agriculture, and expanded fruit and vegetable purchasing within federal food programs. Additionally, Schiff has stated his intention to oppose any Farm Bill language that overrides state-level animal welfare standards like California’s Proposition 12, while advocating for the protection of SNAP benefits.

Industry Implications and Next Steps
For business leaders in the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture sectors, navigating this transition requires strategic adaptation. The legislative and regulatory events of the past month underscore a shift in federal support structures for sustainable food systems.

With government grants for new farmers being canceled, adjustments to the organic oversight board, and proposed reductions in conservation funding, the private sector may need to assume a larger role. As noted by Organic Insider, brands, investors, and retailers have an opportunity to privately fund transition programs, invest in supply chain resilience, and cultivate direct, supportive partnerships with farmers managing these macroeconomic pressures.

At the same time, the industry can look to align with the shifting priorities of consumers. The bipartisan rejection of the pesticide liability shield demonstrates that shoppers across the political spectrum are prioritizing clean food, transparency, and corporate accountability. Industry advocacy will remain crucial as the Senate drafts its version of the Farm Bill—urging investments in organic research, the protection of nutrition assistance, and policies that recognize regenerative agriculture as a key component of the nation's food economy.

As agricultural policy continues to be debated in Washington, it is essential for the natural products industry to remain engaged, ensuring that future legislation supports the health of the soil, the economic viability of the farmer, and the well-being of the consumer.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.

A Toxic Combination: Forever Chemicals Are Adding to the Health Risks of Pesticides

This article first appeared in the August 2024 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

Two recent studies, one conducted by Consumer Reports and published in May 2024, and another published in Environmental Health Perspectives in July 2024, suggest that exposure to toxic synthetic pesticides continues to be a serious issue and a growing threat to human, animal and environmental health.

Now, add forever chemicals into the mix, as environmental advocacy groups found that 66 active ingredients currently approved for use in pesticides qualify as PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” 

In addition, according to the study, “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment,” eight approved “inert” ingredients – added to pesticides to help chemicals disperse and stick to the plants, for example – also qualify as PFAS. The research was conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Environmental Working Group, and was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Most Comprehensive Pesticide Review Ever
According to the Consumer Reports study published in May, the advocacy group conducted “our most comprehensive review ever of pesticides in food,” looking at 59 common fruits and vegetables (fresh versions, and in some cases, also canned, dried and frozen fruits and vegetables) and analyzing seven years of data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA annually tests a selection of conventional and organic produce grown in or imported to the U.S. for pesticide residues.

“Our new results continue to raise red flags,” said Catherine Roberts on behalf of Consumer Reports. “Pesticides posed significant risks in 20% of the foods we examined, including popular choices such as bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes, and strawberries. One food, green beans, had residues of a pesticide that hasn’t been allowed to be used on the vegetable in the U.S. for over a decade. And imported produce, especially some from Mexico, was particularly likely to carry risky levels of pesticide residues.”

Added Roberts, “When it comes to healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. But along with all their vitamins, minerals and other nutrients can come something else: an unhealthy dose of dangerous pesticides.” Science has strongly linked pesticide exposure to increased risks of cancer, diabetes, neurological and childhood development issues, and many other health problems.

PFAS: Compounding the Concern
Compounding the concern of pesticide pollution is the discovery that PFAS chemicals are being used in many of the toxic, synthetic pesticide formulations approved for use on farms across the U.S., raising questions about the long-term consequences of such pernicious substances enduring for decades in our soil and water. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these chemicals “break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time.” 

PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive issues and developmental delays in children, among other adverse health effects. To make matters worse, the researchers who published the Environmental Health Perspectives report found that a process called fluorination, which can create PFAS chemicals, is being used increasingly in the manufacture of pesticides to make them stick around for longer, Civil Eats reported.

“This is truly frightening news, because pesticides are some of the most widely dispersed pollutants in the world,” said Nathan Donley, Environmental Health Science Director for the Center for Biological Diversity and one of the study’s authors. “Lacing pesticides with forever chemicals is likely burdening the next generation with more chronic diseases and impossible cleanup responsibilities. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to get a grasp on this fast-emerging threat right away.” 

“Toxic PFAS have no place in our food, water or homes, posing a serious threat to our health and environment,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., Deputy Director of Investigations and a Senior Scientist with the Environmental Working Group, a co-author of the study. “The increasing use of PFAS pesticides will lead to increasing levels of PFAS in the environment. PFAS not only endanger agricultural workers and communities but also jeopardize downstream water sources, where pesticide runoff can contaminate drinking supplies. From home gardens to pet care, the use of these pesticide products further illustrates why we must end all non-essential uses of these persistent forever chemicals,” Andrews added.

Choose Organic
Based on Consumer Reports’ research, the largest risks of dietary exposure to pesticide residues are caused by just a few pesticides concentrated in a handful of fruits and vegetables. Their findings also indicated that nearly all of the organically produced fruits and vegetables tested presented little to no risk.

To help educate consumers, Consumer Reports produced a printable guide showing the risk in produce from pesticides in both their conventional and organically produced counterparts, as well as whether they are grown domestically or imported.

Consumer Reports advised, “A proven way to reduce pesticide exposure is to eat organic fruits and vegetables, especially for the highest-risk foods. We had information about organically grown versions for 45 of the 59 foods in our analysis. Nearly all had low or very low pesticide risk, and only two domestically grown varieties—fresh spinach and potatoes—posed even a moderate risk. Organic foods’ low-risk ratings indicate that the USDA’s organic certification program, for the most part, is working,” Consumer Reports said.

“Less pesticide on food means less in our bodies: Multiple studies have shown that switching to an organic diet quickly reduces dietary exposure. Organic farming protects health in other ways, too, especially for farmworkers and rural residents, because pesticides are less likely to drift into the areas where they live or to contaminate drinking water,” Consumer Reports added.

However, of concern to advocates of organic agriculture, the report also showed that imported organic green beans had a very high pesticide risk – “the exact same rating as imported conventional green beans,” said Max Goldberg, Publisher of Organic Insider, in commenting on the study. Additionally, Consumer Reports findings indicated that U.S. grown organic spinach presented a “moderate” pesticide risk – “the exact same rating as both U.S.-grown and imported conventional Spinach,” Goldberg noted. U.S.-grown organic potatoes also presented a moderate risk, as did imported organic kale, according to USDA data analyzed by Consumer Reports.

While organic agriculture does allow for certain pesticides to be used, they are low-risk and derived from natural mineral or biological sources that have been approved by the USDA’s National Organic Program, said Goldberg, a renowned advocate for organic food and agriculture. Additionally, he noted, chemicals linked to human health and environmental issues, such as glyphosate or neonicotinoids, are prohibited in organic.

“The organic system is not fool-proof, and organic farmers may have persistent pesticides in their soil that have not degraded after the three-year transition period. Or, they may be the victim of pesticide drift from neighboring conventional farms. That being said, any fruit or vegetable that has a moderate, high or very high pesticide risk is a very serious red flag and should call for an immediate investigation. The fact that Consumer Reports looked at nearly 30,000 fruit and vegetable samples would invalidate an ‘isolated incident’ excuse,” Goldberg asserted.

“One of the primary reasons that we are paying extra to buy organic is specifically to avoid these chemicals. And yet, not only do imported organic green beans pose a very high pesticide risk, but they, along with U.S.-grown organic spinach, pose the exact same pesticide risk as their conventional counterparts,” he said.

“In the interim, retailers and brands must demand that their suppliers conduct third-party pesticide testing for all organic fruits and vegetables, or at a bare minimum, for all imported organic green beans and organic kale, and U.S.-grown organic spinach and organic potatoes. This will help identify who the bad actors are, so they can be removed from the system. We have no choice but to be unrelenting when it comes to pesticide contamination of organic fruits and vegetables,” said Goldberg.

Learn More
Download a printable version of Consumer Reports’ guide to pesticides in produce here. 

Learn more about “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment” here.

Follow and subscribe to Organic Insider here.