Rep. Anna Paulina Luna

In the U.S., Congress periodically passes a new farm bill—comprehensive legislation that serves as the federal government’s primary agricultural and food policy instrument—and it has been over seven years since it passed the last one.

As part of the chemical/pesticide industry’s multipronged campaign to build itself a liability shield, the industry managed to slip into the February draft of the 2026 farm bill a controversial measure that would have given the industry-friendly EPA sole regulatory oversight over pesticide labeling—preempting more protective actions by state and local government.

Fortunately, the House voted two-to-one (280-142) in favor of an amendment—introduced by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna—to delete the pro-pesticide policies; this is part of what allowed the farm bill to overcome the House logjam and move on to the Senate. Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona co-led the amendment.

Rep. Luna, who is only in her second term representing Florida’s 13th Congressional District, declares on her website that she is committed to fighting an “elitist political establishment that has, for far too long, ignored the interests and needs of the American people.” Luna’s two House committee assignments focus on Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Government Reform, but perhaps because she is a Mexican-American who was raised in Southern California, she seems to have her finger on the pulse of agriculture-related topics as well. On social media, she vowed to “slaughter the farm bill” if the House did not remove the industry-favorable provisions.

Discussing her amendment, she noted:

“Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence. This amendment ensures we stand on the side of the American people and the health of our nation, not corporate interests.”

We will now want to keep an eye on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently deciding whether to reverse Monsanto v. Durnell, an important 2023 case in which the injured party “successfully argued that a chemical manufacturer has a duty to disclose potential harm,” even when the EPA does not require such product label disclosure.