The U.S. is talking with several nations as part of an emerging framework for trade policy, and in the Midwest, there are concerns about the ripple effect on farmers and consumers when it comes to pesticides.

The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework involves more than a dozen countries and has four negotiating pillars, including decarbonization and anti-corruption.

Steve Suppan, senior policy analyst at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said while there are motivations to move away from standard trade ideals, influence from large agribusiness firms still might complicate things. Pesticides are one of them.

"Some of the IPEF countries have pesticide policies that are rejecting US imports that have pesticide residues on horticulture and grain exports," Suppan observed.

He predicted it will lead to calls for the elimination of "zero tolerance" policies, with companies arguing they will disrupt the delivery of food. There is added concern the discussions will happen behind closed doors.

The Pesticide Action Network said the U.S. already has lax pesticide rules, and states like Iowa do not strongly enforce existing guidelines, impacting farmers' health and food safety.

Rob Faux, communications manager for the Network, who also has a farm in Iowa, said the U.S. and its agriculture sector have become too used to the reliance on pesticides.

"We've gotten to the point where we're blasé," Faux contended. "'It's just a pesticide, and we use it all the time.' "

Faux pointed to a proposal in Congress, the Protect America's Children from Toxic Pesticides Act, as a way to incorporate incremental improvements. He argued it would give regulators more teeth to keep harmful products off the market.

"That would change the process of both registration, making it a little bit more difficult, a little more burden of proof to show that it's safe," Faux suggested. "And then removing the chemical if it does show that there are dangers and problems with it would become easier"

While the future of the bill is uncertain, supporters say it also protects local governments and their ability to adopt their own pesticide rules. Some in Congress have been fighting a patchwork of regulations.

One organization is taking the Trump administration's promises to "Make America Healthy Again" seriously.

The Center for Biological Diversity is petitioning the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and several federal agencies responsible for different facets of food safety. The group is asking them to ban what it said Kennedy has called "extraordinarily toxic pesticides" from food.

Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director and senior attorney at the center, thinks Tennesseans would agree it is time for action, since it is estimated more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the U.S.

"For Tennessee, that would mean, essentially, that the most dangerous pesticides would no longer be used on food crops, so it would benefit consumers," Burd asserted. "It would also help to keep farmworkers, growers and their surrounding communities safer because they wouldn't have any exposure to these pesticides after they would be banned."

Recent Consumer Reports testing found concerning pesticide levels, some 100 times higher than deemed safe, in 20 percent of 20% of the foods tested, including common produce items like blueberries and green beans.

Burd noted Secretary Kennedy has already called out herbicides like atrazine as toxic. It is used primarily on corn crops and has been linked to water contamination, fertility issues and other health risks.

"We've also named glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the country and the most used pesticide overall," Burd noted. "We use about 330 million pounds of that in agriculture each year in the United States, and that is a suspected carcinogen."

The Modern Ag Alliance called glyphosate "Tennessee farmers' Number One tool to control weeds and keep crop yields high." The petition urges the Food and Drug Administration to enforce safety for imported foods, the Environmental Protection Agency to ban toxic pesticides, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tie farm subsidies to pesticide-free practices. It also called for clear warnings in federal dietary guidelines to avoid foods contaminated with harmful pesticides.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental advocates in Iowa want state lawmakers to tighten regulations on large livestock feeding facilities, which they say will help protect the state's air and water.

They say right now, Iowa is headed in the wrong direction.

The group Iowa Food and Water Watch has a list of priorities for the 2025 Legislature - from opposing legislation that could limit pesticide companies' liability, to protecting ground and surface water from the 4,000 large animal feeding operations in the state.

Food and Water Watch Iowa Organizer Jennifer Breon said cleaning up Iowa's drinking water is at the top of the list - by requiring those operations to adhere to the U.S. Clean Water Act.

"Only 4% of Iowa's CAFOs or factory farms have Clean Water Act permits," said Breon, "and Iowa has more factory farms than any other state."

Livestock industry operators say they are always balancing efforts to be more environmental friendly with the need to keep up with consumer demand for meat products.

Beyond polluting the air, ground, and surface water near CAFOs, Breon said the 109 billion gallons of manure produced by Iowa's factory farms every year is threatening the state's recreational opportunities.

"It's impossible to swim in the lake in Iowa in the summertime frequently, because of E. coli and algae blooms," said Breon. "Our state is forced to issue warnings about beach closures, pretty much all summer long."

An analysis by Food and Water Watch found that Iowa's factory farms have been fined less than $750,000, despite multiple citations for water pollution over a decade.



get more stories like this via email

Research shows toxic additives have been overlooked in the U.S. food supply, though the federal Food and Drug Administration is charged with regulating them.

Legislation in Montana could start new state-level rules. Senate Bill 155 would create a state panel on food safety and give it the authority to make and enforce rules limiting the availability of foods that contain certain toxic additives, like food coloring.

Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, sponsored the bill and said it will help the state understand the cumulative health effects of consuming toxins.

"First, it's a study process," Emrich explained. "We have to study the issue, see how extensive it is and see if there's regulations that need to be instituted to deal with the issue."

A 2024 study showed toxic chemicals have entered Americans' food supply by being put into a category called "generally recognized as safe." It was meant for common ingredients, like oil and baking soda, which the FDA exempts from a thorough approval process.

The Environmental Working Group in 2022 found 98.7% of the new chemicals introduced to the food supply since 2000 were not FDA approved, amounting to more than 750 chemicals. Emrich pointed out the state could more closely regulate what is being sold inside its boundaries.

"The Food and Drug Administration, they recognize the toxic cumulative effect of these additives, but they don't regulate it," Emrich noted.

He added regulation could improve Montanans' health and save the state "billions of dollars in health care." The bill was referred last week to the Senate Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Safety.