Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Webinar: Cell Tower Risks 101 - What You Need To Know To Protect Your Community

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Ohio’s largest utility pushes to slash rooftop solar compensation

Ohio’s largest utility wants to slash compensation for rooftop solar owners — which would affect not only future investments but also thousands of regulated utility customers who have already installed panels on their homes based on existing rules. Later this year, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio will decide…

The Citizens Utility Board of Ohio, Interstate Gas Supply, the Retail Energy Supply Association, Solar United Neighbors, the Ohio Environmental Council, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center have all filed formal replies with the PUCO, urging regulators to reject AEP’s arguments and to keep the current net-metering rules in place for all ratepayers. AEP’s Ohio media relations office wrote via email, ​“Under net metering, a portion of the distribution-related charges are essentially shifted to other customers when the charges are calculated only for the net portion of the electricity delivered,” because infrastructure costs ​“are designed to be spread across the customers the system was built to serve.” The company did not respond to Canary Media’s request for data showing how it or other regulated utilities would be hurt by net metering for customers who pick competitive energy suppliers or take part in community aggregation programs. The company has come after net metering before — and ultimately lost. More than a decade ago, AEP took its arguments to limit net metering to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court ultimately dismissed that case after the PUCO released new rules that generally favored the company. A year after hearing lawyers’ arguments urging it to reconsider those rules, however, the commission changed course. The current policy, adopted in December 2018, requires regulated utilities to compensate all rooftop solar customers for excess power, but it does not allow credit for distribution charges or for any avoided capacity charges. AEP’s gambit to change the rules now surprised advocates for renewable energy, such as Mryia Williams, Ohio program director for Solar United Neighbors. ​“The PUCO staff had already concluded that net-metering rules are working as intended, and they didn’t think any changes needed to be made,” she said, referring to a Nov. 5 administrative law judge’s order in the rules docket. The utility has not offered any data or other detailed assessment to justify its proposed changes, Williams said. And many rooftop solar owners relied on the current regulations when calculating whether to make the investment. ​“Everybody is just wanting to make sure that what’s already been promised is continued,” she said. Plus, rooftop solar customers already pay for equipment to feed excess power to the utility. Levying distribution costs for electricity that customers wind up feeding back to the grid would, in effect, charge them for supplying the utility with distributed energy. Other energy suppliers don’t have to pay that expense, so it shouldn’t be something utilities can charge residents for either, said Nat Ziegler, manager of community solutions for Power a Clean Future Ohio. Moreover, reducing net-metering compensation and limiting who can get it would discourage more people from adding rooftop solar, said Joe Flarida, executive director for Power a Clean Future Ohio. “More generation on the grid will help limit the amount of price increases we’re seeing,” Flarida explained. ​“Certainly, if we can encourage more distributed energy, that would offset the amount of added power we need on the grid.” Power a Clean Future Ohio is among the hundreds of groups and individuals who filed public comments with the PUCO, in addition to the formal party filings. That level of response represents a big change from a decade ago, Rutschilling said, noting increased interest in rooftop solar over the past few years. People’s electricity bills have already jumped dramatically as grid operators like PJM have sounded the alarm about needing more electricity to meet demand from data centers, increased electrification, and other factors. And results of the most recent auction will almost certainly increase costs even more. A bill introduced last fall would declare it state policy to ​“ensure affordable, reliable, and clean energy security,” with ​“clean energy” specified as meaning electricity from nuclear or natural gas, with no reference at all to renewables. But any new nuclear power requires years of review, and even with expedited permitting, Rutschilling noted, orders for new natural gas plant turbines have lag times of several years. “We need as much generation as possible,” he said. ​“We need to have things like distributed energy.” { if ($event.target.classList.contains('hs-richtext')) { if ($event.target.textContent === '+ more options') { $event.target.remove(); open = true; } } }" >

Violence, death and stolen land: people need to know the true cost of an avocado | Claudia Ignacio Álvarez

Behind the west’s huge appetite for the fruit lies the dark reality of environmental destruction and Indigenous exploitation in MexicoI grew up in San Andrés Tziróndaro, a Purépecha community on the shores of Lake Pátzcuaro in the Mexican state of Michoacán. My childhood was shaped by water, forests and music. The lake fed us. The forest protected us. In the afternoons, people gathered in the local square while bands passed through playing pirekua, our traditional music.That way of life is now under threat as our land is extracted for profit. Continue reading...

I grew up in San Andrés Tziróndaro, a Purépecha community on the shores of Lake Pátzcuaro in the Mexican state of Michoacán. My childhood was shaped by water, forests and music. The lake fed us. The forest protected us. In the afternoons, people gathered in the local square while bands passed through playing pirekua, our traditional music.That way of life is now under threat as our land is extracted for profit.Michoacán is one of Mexico’s leading export states for agricultural products. Avocados and berries are promoted internationally as symbols of healthy, sustainable consumption. Yet behind this lies a reality of land dispossession, environmental destruction and violence.Most avocados and berries from Michoacán are exported to the US, though some also reach European markets, including the UK.In San Andrés Tziróndaro, agribusiness companies rent land that is legally communal. This land is meant to guarantee food for our people, not profits for export. Pipes have been installed to extract water from Lake Pátzcuaro and divert it to plantations. During last year’s severe drought, the lake nearly dried up. Fish disappeared. A fishing community was suddenly unable to eat its own traditional food.If governments are serious about human rights and environmental protection, they must move beyond rhetoricIn the forests, avocado orchards consume enormous amounts of water and eliminate other forms of life. Forest fires, often deliberately set, clear land that is then quickly converted into plantations.We have done everything we can to protect our land, but sadly this has led to threats, killings and disappearances.Communities such as mine find ourselves caught between corporate interests, organised criminal actors and a state that repeatedly fails to protect us.This pattern is not limited to agribusiness. In Michoacán’s coastal region, Indigenous Nahua communities have faced similar threats while opposing mining and steel-related projects imposed without consultation. In San Juan Huitzontla, the defence of communal territory brought defenders into direct confrontation with extractive interests linked to the steel industry. It was in this context that Eustacio Alcalá Díaz was murdered, and environmental defender José Gabriel Pelayo was forcibly disappeared. Both cases remain unresolved, emblematic of the dangers faced by those who challenge powerful economic interests.A protest in Puebla in November. For us, defending the land is not an abstract environmental cause: it is about memory, survival and dignity. Photograph: Alejandro Munoz/AlamyI have not been immune to this violence.I have had to physically intervene when authorities have attacked community members, often traditional leaders.One incident remains etched in my memory. Outside a government building in Michoacán, I noticed a police officer loitering near people organising a peaceful demonstration. When I asked him to identify himself, he stepped directly in front of me, using his height and strength to block me. I activated the emergency button provided by the authorities while he made mocking gestures. I stepped back and began writing my report, trying to hide that my hands were shaking.The context has grown even more tense after the killing of Carlos Manzo, the mayor of Uruapan, who had launched a public confrontation with organised crime. His assassination in November took place during a public event in the central square of a city that is economically crucial as the capital of the world’s main avocado-exporting region. It has been reported that at least three mayors have been murdered this year. These killings create widespread fear and reveal how violence is used politically in Michoacán.According to Global Witness, at least 36 defenders were attacked in Mexico between 2023 and 2024, most of them Indigenous. Few of these cases have seen meaningful progress in investigations. Carrying out sustained human rights work now means accepting serious personal risk.In practice, protection does not come from the state but from strengthening community networks, international accompaniment and collective self-protection strategies.Red handprints symbolising violence surround a picture of murdered mayor Carlos Manzo. Photograph: Alejandro Munoz/AlamyThe emotional toll of this violence is collective. Many defenders, including myself, now live in forced displacement. We return to our communities only briefly, always alert. Violence is not only physical; it is psychological. The perpetrators are trying to fragment us; exhaust our resistance and corrode our hope.Responsibility does not lie with Mexico alone. The US, the main destination for Michoacán’s avocados and berries, plays a central role in sustaining this model. European and British markets are also implicated through imports, corporate finance and trade relationships that prioritise profit while ignoring conditions locally.If governments are serious about human rights and environmental protection, they must move beyond rhetoric. Importing countries should require binding human rights and environmental due diligence across agricultural and extractive supply chains. Indigenous peoples must be consulted, communal land and water rights respected, and defenders protected.For us, defending the land is not an abstract environmental cause. It is about memory, survival and dignity. If the international community continues to enjoy the benefits of extraction while ignoring its costs, violence in places such as Michoacán will not end. It will simply remain out of sight.

‘Mad fishing’: the super-size fleet of squid catchers plundering the high seas

Every year a Chinese-dominated flotilla big enough to be seen from space pillages the rich marine life on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned part of the South Atlantic off ArgentinaIn a monitoring room in Buenos Aires, a dozen members of the Argentinian coast guard watch giant industrial-fishing ships moving in real time across a set of screens. “Every year, for five or six months, the foreign fleet comes from across the Indian Ocean, from Asian countries, and from the North Atlantic,” says Cdr Mauricio López, of the monitoring department. “It’s creating a serious environmental problem.”Just beyond Argentina’s maritime frontier, hundreds of foreign vessels – known as the distant-water fishing fleet – are descending on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned strip of the high seas in the South Atlantic, to plunder its rich marine life. The fleet regularly becomes so big it can be seen from space, looking like a city floating on the sea. Continue reading...

In a monitoring room in Buenos Aires, a dozen members of the Argentinian coast guard watch giant industrial-fishing ships moving in real time across a set of screens. “Every year, for five or six months, the foreign fleet comes from across the Indian Ocean, from Asian countries, and from the North Atlantic,” says Cdr Mauricio López, of the monitoring department. “It’s creating a serious environmental problem.”Just beyond Argentina’s maritime frontier, hundreds of foreign vessels – known as the distant-water fishing fleet – are descending on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned strip of the high seas in the South Atlantic, to plunder its rich marine life. The fleet regularly becomes so big it can be seen from space, looking like a city floating on the sea.The distant-water fishing fleet, seen from space, off the coast of Argentina. Photograph: AlamyThe charity Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) has described it as one of the largest unregulated squid fisheries in the world, warning that the scale of activities could destabilise an entire ecosystem.“With so many ships constantly fishing without any form of oversight, the squid’s short, one-year life cycle simply is not being respected,” says Lt Magalí Bobinac, a marine biologist with the Argentinian coast guard.There are no internationally agreed catch limits in the region covering squid, and distant-water fleets take advantage of this regulatory vacuum.Steve Trent, founder of the EJF, describes the fishery as a “free for all” and says squid could eventually disappear from the area as a result of “this mad fishing effort”.The consequences extend far beyond squid. Whales, dolphins, seals, sea birds and commercially important fish species such as hake and tuna depend on the cephalopod. A collapse in the squid population could trigger a cascade of ecological disruption, with profound social and economic costs for coastal communities and key markets such as Spain, experts warn.“If this species is affected, the whole ecosystem is affected,” Bobinac says. “It is the food for other species. It has a huge impact on the ecosystem and biodiversity.”She says the “vulnerable marine ecosystems” beneath the fleet, such as deep-sea corals, are also at risk of physical damage and pollution.An Argentinian coast guard ship on patrol. ‘Outside our exclusive economic zone, we cannot do anything – we cannot board them, we cannot survey, nor inspect,’ says an officer. Photograph: EJFThree-quarters of squid jigging vessels (which jerk barbless lures up and down to imitate prey) that are operating on the high seas are from China, according to the EJF, with fleets from Taiwan and South Korea also accounting for a significant share.Activity on Mile 201 has surged over recent years, with total fishing hours increasing by 65% between 2019 and 2024 – a jump driven almost entirely by the Chinese fleet, which increased its activities by 85% in the same period, according to an investigation by the charity.The lack of oversight in Mile 201 has enabled something darker too. Interviews conducted by the EJF suggest widespread cruelty towards marine wildlife in the area. Crew reported the deliberate capture and killing of seals – sometimes in their hundreds – on more than 40% of Chinese squid vessels and a fifth of Taiwanese vessels.Other testimonies detailed the hunting of marine megafauna for body parts, including seal teeth. The EJF shared photos and videos with the Guardian of seals hanging on hooks and penguins trapped on decks.One of the huge squid-jigging ships. They also hunt seals, the EJF found. Photograph: EJFLt Luciana De Santis, a lawyer for the coast guard, says: “Outside our exclusive economic zone [EEZ], we cannot do anything – we cannot board them, we cannot survey, nor inspect.”An EEZ is a maritime area extending up to 200 nautical miles from a nation’s coast, with the rules that govern it set by that nation. The Argentinian coast guard says it has “total control” of this space, unlike the area just beyond this limit: Mile 201.But López says “a significant percentage of ships turn their identification systems off” when fishing in the area beyond this, otherwise known as “going dark” to evade detection.Crews working on the squid fleet are also extremely vulnerable. The EJF’s investigation uncovered serious human rights and labour abuses in Mile 201. Workers on the ships described physical violence, including hitting or strangulation, wage deductions, intimidation and debt bondage – a system that in effect traps them at sea. Many reported working excessive hours with little rest.Much of the squid caught under these conditions still enters major global markets in the European Union, UK and North America, the EJF warns – meaning consumers may be unknowingly buying seafood linked to animal cruelty, environmental destruction and human rights abuse.The charity is calling for a ban on imports linked to illegal or abusive fishing practices and a global transparency regime that makes it possible to see who is fishing where, when and how, by mandating an international charter to govern fishing beyond national waters.Cdr Mauricio López says many of the industrial fishing ships the Argentinian coastguard monitors turn off their tracking systems when they are in the area. Photograph: Harriet Barber“The Chinese distant-water fleet is the big beast in this,” says Trent. “Beijing must know this is happening, so why are they not acting? Without urgent action, we are heading for disaster.”The Chinese embassies in Britain and Argentina did not respond to requests for comment.

10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026

Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair […] The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

As lawmakers wrapped up 2025 and agriculture leaders signaled they intend to move forward on a five-year farm bill early this year, many introduced bills that would typically be included in that larger legislative package. Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Arkansas) said his chamber would work on it “right after the first of the year.” But most experts say there’s no clear path forward for a new farm bill. The last five-year farm bill expired in September 2023. Because Congress had not completed a new one, they extended the previous bill, then extended it again in 2024. In 2025, Republicans included in their One Big Beautiful Bill the biggest-ever cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and a boost in commodity crop subsidies, and later extended other farm programs in the bill package that ended the government shutdown. The SNAP actions torpedoed Democrats’ willingness to compromise (some have signaled they won’t support a farm bill unless it rolls back some of the cuts), while the extension of the big farm programs took pressure off both parties. Still, that didn’t stop lawmakers from introducing and reintroducing over the last month many marker bills they hope to get in an actual farm bill package if things change. Here are 10 recent proposals important to farmers, most of which have bipartisan support. Fair Credit for Farmers Act: Makes changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) to make it easier for farmers to get loans. Introduced by Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) in the House and Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) in the Senate. Key supporters: National Family Farm Coalition, RAFI. FARM Home Loans Act: Increases rural homebuyers’ access to Farm Credit loans by expanding the definition of “rural area” to include areas with larger populations. Introduced by Representatives Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Michigan) and Bill Huizeng (R-Michigan). Key supporters: Farm Credit Council. USDA Loan Modernization Act: Updates USDA loan requirements to allow farmers with at least a 50 percent operational interest to qualify. Introduced by Representatives Mike Bost (R-Illinois) and Nikki Budzinski (D-Illinois). Key supporters: Illinois Corn Growers Association, Illinois Pork Producers Association. Relief for Farmers Hit With PFAS Act: Sets up a USDA grant program for states to help farmers affected by forever-chemical contamination in their fields, test soil, monitor farmer health impacts, and conduct research on farms. Introduced by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) in the Senate and Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Mike Lawler (R-New York) in the House. Key supporters: Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act: Requires the USDA to weigh factors including environmental sustainability, social and racial equity, worker well-being, and animal welfare in federal food purchasing, and helps smaller farms and food companies meet requirements to become USDA vendors. Introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. AGRITOURISM Act: Designates an Agritourism Advisor at the USDA to support the economic viability of family farms. Introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-Virginia) and Dan Newhouse (R-Washington) in the House. Key supporters: Brewers Association, WineAmerica. Domestic Organic Investment Act: Creates a USDA grant program to fund expansion of the domestic certified-organic food supply chain, including expanding storage, processing, and distribution. Introduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in the Senate, and Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-Oregon) and Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) in the House. Key supporters: Organic Trade Association. Zero Food Waste Act: Creates a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to fund projects that prevent, divert, or recycle food waste. Introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House, and Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) in the Senate. Key supporters: Natural Resources Defense Council, ReFed. LOCAL Foods Act: Allows farmers to process animals on their farms without meeting certain regulations if the meat will not be sold. Introduced by Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: Rural Vermont, National Family Farm Coalition. PROTEIN Act: Directs more than $500 million in federal support over the next five years toward research and development for “alternative proteins.” Introduced by Senator Adam Schiff (D-California) in the Senate, and Representative Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House. Key supporters: Good Food Institute, Plant-Based Foods Institute. The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

A Rare Whale Is Having an Encouraging Season for Births. Scientists Warn It Might Still Go Extinct

One of the world’s rarest whale species is having more babies this year than in some recent seasons, but experts say many more young are needed to help stave off the possibility of extinction

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — One of the world's rarest whale species is having more babies this year than in some recent seasons, but experts say many more young are needed to help stave off the possibility of extinction.The North Atlantic right whale's population numbers an estimated 384 animals and is slowly rising after several years of decline. The whales have gained more than 7% of their 2020 population, according to scientists who study them.The whales give birth off the southeastern United States every winter before migrating north to feed. Researchers have identified 15 calves this winter, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday.That number is higher than two of the last three winters, but the species needs “approximately 50 or more calves per year for many years” to stop its decline and allow for recovery, NOAA said in a statement. The whales are vulnerable to collisions with large ships and entanglement in commercial fishing gear.This year's number is encouraging, but the species remains in peril without stronger laws to protect against those threats, said Gib Brogan, senior campaign director with environmental group Oceana. The federal government is in the midst of a moratorium on federal rules designed to protect right whales until 2028, and commercial fishing groups have pushed for a proposal to extend that pause for even longer.There is still time left for more baby whales to be born this winter, but 50 is not a reasonable expectation because of a lack of reproductive females in the population, Brogan said.“We're not going to be able to calve ourselves to recovery,” Brogan said. “We also need to be doing more to tackle the two primary causes of right whale deaths, being entanglement in fishing gear and being hit by boats.”The whales have fared better than last winter, when they gave birth to only 11 calves, according to NOAA data. The whales have reached 20 calves only twice since 2010, and they gave birth to no calves in a disastrous 2018 season. The whales are less likely to reproduce when they have suffered injuries or are underfed, scientists have said. The whales were hunted to the brink of extinction during the era of commercial whaling and have been federally protected for decades. They remain in a crisis at the moment because there have been more deaths than births in the population in the past decade, NOAA said in its statement.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Funding bill excludes controversial pesticide provision hated by MAHA

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental...

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Known as Section 453 for its position in a House bill released earlier this year, it has drawn significant ire from MAHA-aligned activists. Opponents of the provision argue that it can be a liability shield for major chemical corporations, preventing them from facing failure-to-warn lawsuits by not disclosing health effects of their products. MAHA figures celebrated the provision’s exclusion from the legislation. “MAHA WE DID IT! Section 453 granting pesticide companies immunity from harm has been removed from the upcoming House spending bill!” MAHA Action, a political action committee affiliated with the movement, wrote on X. The issue is one that has divided Republicans, a party that has traditionally allied itself with big business.  “The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said earlier this year.  However, the growing MAHA movement has been critical of the chemical industry. The legislation is part of a bicameral deal reached to fund the departments of the Interior, Justice, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the EPA. And while the provision’s exclusion represents a win for the MAHA movement for the moment, the issue is far from settled. Alexandra Muñoz, a toxicologist and activist who is working with the MAHA movement said she’s “happy to see” that the provision was not included in the funding bill. However, she said, “we still have fronts that we’re fighting on because it’s still potentially going to be added in the Farm Bill.” She also noted that similar fights are ongoing at the Supreme Court and state level. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to take up a case about whether federal law preempts state pesticide labeling requirements and failure-to-warn lawsuits. The Trump administration said the court should side with the chemical industry. Meanwhile, a similar measure also appeared in a 2024 version of the Farm Bill. —Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.