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.

Gene editing, celery powder and organic enforcement: A roundup from the NOSB’s fall meeting

Originally Appeared in New Hope Network’s Idea Xchange, November 2019
By Steven Hoffman

The National Organic Standards Board recently addressed some of the industry’s critical issues: protecting small-scale organic dairy farmers; strengthening fraud enforcement; and gene editing.

From protecting small-scale organic dairy farmers and strengthening enforcement over organic fraud, to expressing concern over the use of celery powder in processed organic meats and the threat of gene editing in organic production, the National Organic Standards Board addressed several critical issues surrounding the integrity of the organic seal during its recent fall meeting.

The board voted to prioritize four areas of organic research: ecosystem services and biodiversity of organic systems; managing cover crops for on-farm fertility; identifying barriers and developing protocols for organic nurseries; and assessing the genetic integrity of organic crops at risk.

Approximately 150  advocates, producers, farmers, manufacturers and others attended the fall meeting of the National Organic Standards Board Oct. 23-25 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, according to a USDA spokeswoman. During the 12 hours of public comment, about 115 people spoke to the board members about their concerns, she said.

“Farmers are some of the most innovative people in the world when we need to be,” said Jeff Dean, an organic farmer and member of the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association. “Please keep our standards strong and give our proud, innovative farmers the chance to provide organic products to the consumers who want them,” he appealed to the NOSB board members.

This overview of the meeting was collected from published accounts and Twitter feeds from Organic Trade Association, Cornucopia Institute, Organic Insider, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Foundation and other organizations attending the event.

Strengthening organic enforcement

Preventing fraud in organic trade is critical to maintaining product integrity and consumer confidence. Jennifer Tucker, deputy administrator of the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), presented a proposed NOP Enforcement and Oversight Rule that will be issued later this year for public comment, and improvements already underway to strengthen enforcement.

Those improvements include additional training resources focused on oversight of complex domestic operations; traceback and mass balance audits; and research into risk-based certification models for accreditation and certifier oversight. The National Organic program accredits and oversees more than 80 independent certification organizations, examining and verifying how these organizations document, certify and inspect more than 37,000 organic farms and businesses around the world.

In the realm of imports, farm-level yield analysis has been a valuable tool in taking enforcement action, Tucker said. In the Black Sea region, the NOP examined records from organic grain and oilseed producers, data from regional producers and weather models and found many organic farms reported yields far higher than regional averages. As a result, more than 275 operations in that area have lost their organic certification, according to the agency.

The NOP has continued country commodity studies and ship surveillance, increased the number of unannounced visits it makes, Tucker said. Follow-up investigations have led to certifiers and operators adverse actions, she said.

Tucker shared that new training on dairy compliance is available for certifiers and inspectors at the online Organic Integrity Learning Center, which continually offers new courses since its launch in May. 

Also, the comment period for the Origin of Livestock rule—a proposal to change how farmers may transition their dairy animals to organic—has been reopened. Written comments must be received or postmarked on or before Dec. 2. 

What’s the deal with celery powder?

To the relief of organic meat producers but to the chagrin of those concerned about the potential health hazards of nitrates and nitrites in processed foods, the NOSB board voted 11-1, with one abstention, to allow the continued use of celery powder in organic food production. Dave Mortensen, chair of the Department of Agriculture, Nutrition and Food Systems at the University of New Hampshire, voted against keeping celery powder on the list, and Emily Oakley, founding partner of Three Springs Farm in Oaks, Oklahoma, abstained from voting.

Used in the curing of processed meats such as hot dogs, sausages, bacon and deli meats, celery powder is a key processing ingredient in the organic meat industry, as it is the only allowed alternative to synthetic nitrates and nitrites used in conventional meat production. At issue, reports New Food Economy, is the fact that a significant amount of processing goes into producing celery powder for use in cured meats, and that the celery itself does not have to be organic, which brings with it the concomitant use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Non-organic celery is ranked 11th on the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen list of vegetables that, when grown conventionally, absorb the highest levels of pesticides.

Additionally, whereas the amount of synthetic nitrates is limited in conventionally processed meats, unlimited quantities of celery powder are allowed in meats that are labeled “uncured” or “nitrate free,” New Food Economy reports, which has been cause for concern among some health advocates.

“There is little evidence that preserving meats using celery … is any healthier than other added nitrites,” Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy at Tufts University, told New Food Economy. “Until industry provides strong evidence that nitrites in celery juice have different biologic effects than nitrites from other sources, it’s very misleading to label these [products] as ‘nitrite free’ or to consider such processed meats as being healthier.” 

The Organic Trade Association supported continuing the allowance of non-organic celery powder at the Fall NOSB 2019 Meeting so as not to disrupt the organic meat industry. However, the trade association, in collaboration with the Organic Center, submitted a $2 million proposal to the USDA and convened a working group to find organic sources of celery powder and research alternatives to celery powder in organic meat processing. NOSB members expressed hope that when the ingredient comes up for review again in five years, their successors may be presented with more alternatives.

Gene editing in organic

Gene editing, which the organic industry considers GMO technology, remains a prohibited method in organic agriculture, Tucker said, adding that gene editing is not on USDA’s regulatory agenda for organics. However, according to Informa’s IEG Policy News, Tucker also noted that USDA does encourage “continued robust dialogue about the role of new technologies and innovations in organic agriculture.”

That idea alarmed a number of organic advocates concerned that USDA might try to influence the NOSB’s position on gene editing. In response, Mortensen criticized USDA NOP officials. “It’s clear from the many comments that we received that organic consumers and organic farmers do not want genetically modified practices as any part of our production system, end of story,” he said. “And I don’t think we should be encouraging or suggesting that we need robust dialogue. I think this is just one example of where we get ourselves into trouble and compromise the policies that we were charged to do.”

Consistent with its gene-editing position, NOSB voted unanimously to exclude induced mutagenesis via in vitro nucleic acid techniques as a method in organic production, reported the Organic Seed Alliance in its Twitter feed. According to the organic advocacy organization IFOAM Organics International, such mutagenesis technology—as well as CRISPR, grafting onto transgene root stock and other related practices—“are genetic engineering techniques that are not compatible with organic farming and that must not be used in organic breeding or organic production.”

Other board activity

On Oct. 24,  the USDA published a final rule in the Federal Register to amend the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances based on public input and the April 2018 recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board. This final rule allows elemental sulfur to be used as a slug or snail bait to reduce crop losses; allows polyoxin D zinc salt for plant disease control; and reclassifies magnesium chloride from a synthetic to a non-synthetic substance. The final rule is effective Nov. 22.

During the fall meeting, new NOSB officers, who serve 1-year terms, were elected:

• Chair—Steve Ela (Producer), Ela Family Farms, Hotchkiss, Colorado.

• Vice chair—Scott Rice (Certifier), Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington.

• Secretary—Jessie Buie (Producer), Ole Brook Organics, Jackson, Mississippi.

In addition, outgoing NOSB members Harriet Behar, Ashley Swaffer, Tom Chapman and Lisa de Lima were recognized for their public service.

The next NOSB meeting is scheduled for April 29-May 1 in Crystal City, Virginia.