Trump’s EPA Moves to Block State Pesticide Labels That Warn of Cancer Risks

President Donald Trump’s environmental regulators are advancing a proposal to block states from warning consumers about herbicides and other agricultural products in their food, according to federal documents reviewed by The Lever. Among the substances that could now go undisclosed is a widely used chemical that some studies have linked to cancer and that Trump’s own health secretary has called a “poison.”

Last month, Trump issued an executive order mandating agencies “fully address the growing health crisis in America.” But the initiative from Republican attorneys general — which would usurp state labeling authority — is now being moved forward by Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency. The measure would declare that any label citing scientific findings not acknowledged by Trump’s EPA would “constitute misbranding.”

The move could be setting up a confrontation with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., head of the Health and Human Services Department. Kennedy helped sue a major agrochemical company for failing to warn consumers of its pesticides’ harmful side effects. In a 2024 op-ed penned days after endorsing Trump for the presidency, Kennedy claimed that pesticides, among other issues, are to blame for widespread health issues afflicting Americans. He has specifically targeted glyphosate, a widely used herbicide that some studies have called carcinogenic. Trump’s EPA in 2020 said the compound is safe, but a court ruled that the decision “was not supported by substantial evidence.”

The new initiative to potentially roll back labeling requirements comes as former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) takes charge of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zeldin has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the agribusiness sector during his congressional career and has a history of voting against environmental and consumer protections.

On Jan. 21, Trump’s first full day in office, the EPA announced a public comment period for a petition for a new rule that would strip the ability of states and local municipalities to require labels on pesticides, herbicides, and other commonly used agricultural applications. The comment period is among the first steps towards implementing a rule that would bar statements and warnings attached to certain products that go beyond the recommendations of the EPA. These statements would “constitute misbranding,” according to a proposed paragraph to be added to previous legislation governing label requirements.

One of the warnings that could be banned if the petition is adopted would be information about glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the country. Multiple studies have found links between glyphosate and cancer, including studies by government scientists. But in 2022, the EPA said there is no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, a finding that is under review. The new initiative could also potentially bar states and local municipalities from warning residents that an area has been recently sprayed with the chemicals, experts told The Lever.

The proposed change in labeling regulations stems from an August 2024 petition to the EPA from 11 Republican state attorneys general asking the agency to limit states’ ability to require warning labels on products with potentially harmful side effects. The attorneys general were targeting a long-standing California proposition requiring warning labels for products with chemicals such as glyphosate that have the potential to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.

With the largest population and economy of any state in the country, California often sets the standard for these kinds of warnings and other regulations, leading other states and companies to adopt similar measures.

“There’s no way that a state like California should tell a farmer in Nebraska or Iowa how to farm,” said Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird in August.

Advocacy groups aligned against the widespread use of potentially harmful pesticides urged the EPA to reject the attorneys general’s request.

“States and local governments believe in their right to protect their residents from poisoning and contamination, a right that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,” antipesticide advocacy group Beyond Pesticide wrote in a Feb. 11 comment letter to the EPA. “The only conclusion that can be derived from the petition is that the [attorneys general] do not care if the people, including farmers, of their states are harmed by pesticides, and they should not be able to seek compensation if they suffer adverse effects due to a failure to warn on a pesticide label.”

If the petition is adopted as an agency rule, it would appear to run counter to a Feb. 13 executive order that Trump signed to establish a “Make America Healthy Again” commission — which will be chaired by Kennedy. Among other things, the executive order requires the commission, which includes Zeldin, to look into the “childhood chronic disease crisis,” a core focus of Kennedy’s advocacy career before he entered politics this past election cycle.

Multiple studies, including ones conducted by National Institutes of Health scientists, have found links between glyphosate and chronic diseases, including cancer, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in children, metabolic issues, autism, and other ailments. A 2022 report conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — which the Trump administration seemingly deleted during a mass-purging of government data — found glyphosate in more than 80 percent of urine samples collected from children and adults in the U.S. from 2013 to 2014.

“There’s no reason for using glyphosate or any of these other toxic chemicals, the only reason why it’s being done is because it’s convenient and it’s profitable for the chemical companies,” said Zen Honeycutt, executive director of children’s health advocacy group Moms Across America and former consultant for Kennedy’s presidential campaign. “[The government] can make it less profitable for chemical companies by making sure that they’re liable for harm, and also by not only allowing the use of these poisons in our food supply.”

Glyphosate in Your Cereal Bowl

Glyphosate was first registered with the EPA in 1974 by the chemical company Monsanto and soon became widely used across the country as a way to kill weeds and grasses under the name Roundup. Throughout its history, the chemical and its manufacturer have been embroiled in multiple controversies.

In 1985, the EPA issued a Group C Carcinogen classification to glyphosate, meaning there was “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.” The study behind this classification has been “a thorn in Monsanto’s side and a drag on the EPA’s push to find glyphosate” not carcinogenic, according to a 2017 In These Times article.

The study was scrutinized and picked apart by Monsanto-paid scientists, and six years later, environmental regulators removed the classification and placed glyphosate in a category for chemicals with no evidence of carcinogenic potential.

In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that “manufacturers have a duty to report incidents involving a pesticide’s toxic effects that may not be adequately reflected in its label’s warnings,” a decision that was later used in a landmark case in California.

In 2016, a groundskeeper in California sued Monsanto, claiming that the company’s products contributed to him developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that he was not adequately warned of the risks. The groundskeeper was eventually awarded $298 million in damages, an amount later cut down to $20.5 million during appeals. Kennedy was one of the groundskeeper’s attorneys.

That same year, pharmaceutical company Bayer purchased Monsanto for $63 billion. In 2018, Bayer shareholders sued the company, claiming that Bayer misled shareholders about the risks of merging with Monsanto. In particular, the shareholders claimed that Bayer failed to “sufficiently warn them about risks of cancer litigation from users of Roundup.”

In 2020, Bayer announced that it would pay more than $10 billion to settle more than 100,000 lawsuits stemming from glyphosate exposure. However, the company continues to dispute links between glyphosate and lymphoma.

In 2020, EPA officials under Trump announced that glyphosate does not pose a risk to healthy people and is “not likely” to cause cancer. But after court challenges, the agency revoked that finding two years later under Biden. In 2022, the EPA found that when used properly, glyphosate does “not result in risks to children or adults,” that ruling is under further review.

Because of cross-contamination and conventional agricultural practices, glyphosate has been found in a large assortment of everyday foods and drinking water.

In 2022, a study commissioned by Moms Across America of 43 school lunch samples found that 93 percent contained glyphosate, although the contamination was at levels deemed safe by regulators. The findings inspired Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to sponsor a bill banning glyphosate and other chemical residues from school meals — but the legislation died in the Senate.

In 2023, scientists conducting research on children in Salinas, California — an area that produces nearly 70 percent of the nation’s lettuce — found that glyphosate exposure among these children “were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood.”

Other studies have found a link between childhood exposure to products contaminated with glyphosate and health issues including autism and decreased birth weight for babies.

EPA vs. MAHA?

Honeycutt of Moms Across America believes that Kennedy will oppose the petition dismantling labeling requirements. She is hopeful that the Make America Healthy Again Commission will usher in real change — but doesn’t want the commission to suggest more studies on glyphosate and other chemicals commonly used in agriculture, since myriad studies documenting a connection to adverse health effects are already available.

“We don’t need more two- or three-year-long animal studies to prove that they’re harmful,” Honeycutt told The Lever. “It does not make any sense to allow harmful chemicals — i.e., poison — in our food supply. That has to stop.”

Kennedy has been a staunch opponent of pesticides and other issues afflicting Americans’ health throughout his legal career.

In a Sept. 5, 2024, op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy stated that Trump could “make America healthy again” by revisiting pesticide and chemical-use standards, among other initiatives. Kennedy highlighted how the U.S. allows companies to use 72 pesticides banned in the European Union and of that group, mentioned glyphosate by name. Kennedy has also called glyphosate a “poison” that contributes to soil degradation.

In the op-ed, Kennedy highlighted that more than 18 percent of young adults have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a condition that has been linked to glyphosate exposure.

But there are signs Kennedy may be waffling on some of his “Make America Healthy Again” positions.

On Feb. 24, Kennedy signed off on delaying a Biden-era Food and Drug Administration rule that would have updated labeling requirements for foods deemed “healthy.” The rule would have restricted processed food companies from advertising their products that exceeded limits on added sugars, saturated fat, sodium, and other stipulations.

Then on Feb. 28, Kennedy proposed a new Health and Human Services Department rule that would bar public comment on the agency’s proposed rules and regulations. Public comments, Kennedy wrote in the proposed rule barring future public comment, “impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

Trump’s Man in the EPA

Groups advocating for robust chemical labeling requirements face an EPA chief with a long history of rolling back safety and environmental protections.

As a congressman, Zeldin repeatedly voted to end the Clean Air Act, opposed a bill preventing the previous Trump administration from selling off public lands, and voted to slash EPA funding. During his recent New York state gubernatorial campaign, Zeldin campaigned on overturning the state’s fracking ban.

Throughout his 17-year congressional career, Zeldin has received more than $228,000 from the agribusiness sector and nearly $270,000 from oil and gas interests, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets. He’s also received more than $45,000 in campaign donations from a political action committee affiliated with petrochemical company Koch Industries, a major supplier of crop fertilizer.

Project 2025, the blueprint for the Trump administration to overhaul the federal government, calls for slashing the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the research arm of the EPA that in 2016 found connections between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a confidential report.

Zeldin fits into a Trump pattern of appointing people deeply loyal to the president but who lack qualifications, said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

“It’s especially problematic when we’re talking about protection of public health and safety and dealing with existential issues that go to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis,” Feldman told The Lever. “We’ve got three existential crises that fall under the jurisdiction of the EPA, and we have what appears to be an administrator who’s taking his marching orders from the White House, which has shown itself to be purely political, vindictive, and bereft of any real substantive justification for its actions.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to more accurately reflect the EPA’s rulemaking process.