Cracks Emerge In Swamp’s Pork-Stuffed Farm Bill As Lawmakers Revolt Over Big Pesticide Immunity

As a massive farm bill heads toward a House floor vote this week, its more than 300 amendments and disputes over key provisions are raising questions about whether the bipartisan coalition behind the legislation can hold.

Divisions stem from disputes over the Save Our Bacon Act, a provision tied to federal limits on state agricultural standards and one particular amendment that would prevent states from implementing their own pesticide labeling and bar consumers from suing pesticide companies.

On April 24, Republican Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduced an amendment to strike the Save Our Bacon Act, a bill that seeks to block states from implementing their own production standards and has drawn support from industry stakeholders, including the largest pork manufacturer in the U.S., Smithfield Foods, a Chinese-owned company.

During a Tuesday House Rules Committee Hearing, the committee declined to allow a floor vote on Luna’s proposed amendment to strip the Save Our Bacon Act.

Luna’s amendment has garnered bipartisan support, with more than a dozen cosponsors, including Democratic California Rep. Jim Costa and Republican New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, according to Marty Irby, president and CEO of Capitol South. Irby warned the farm bill faces an “uphill battle” unless the disputed provisions are removed. Irby added that some agricultural groups could support final passage if the Save Our Bacon language is stripped from the bill. (RELATED: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly: Inside Swamp’s New Farm Bill)

Luna has also taken a hard stance, warning Monday in a post on X that she would “blow up the farm bill” if certain provisions are not removed, including sections she said would “shield pesticide makers from liability” and “weaken warning labels.”

A spokesperson for Luna did not immediately comment to the DCNF.

We will BLOW UP the farm bill if Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207 are NOT REMOVED from the Farm Bill.

Section 10205 would shield pesticide makers from liability, weaken warning labels, and put foreign chemical corporations above the health of American families.

— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) April 28, 2026

Democratic Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree and Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie are leading a bipartisan effort to remove pesticide labeling provisions.

“If farmers contract a form of cancer or non-Hodgkins lymphoma from this chemical, if this makes it into the Farm Bill, you won’t be able to sue for that,” Massie told reporters last week.

During a rally outside the Supreme Court yesterday, Massie highlighted that Americans are under attack by a foreign pesticide company, telling Lindell TV that “this administration has sided with a German company trying to get immunity from the harm that their products may cause.”

Thomas Massie just delivered an urgent warning:

Congress is about to betray every MAHA mom who supported this movement.

How?

They’re on the verge of passing a liability shield for Bayer to mass poison Americans with pesticides.

With no accountability.

This would be a public… pic.twitter.com/TXgAvvMDLQ

— Health Freedom Defense Fund (@theHFDF) April 2, 2026

The House Rules Committee drafted a rule to advance Luna’s version of the pesticide amendment, setting it up for a floor vote this week, according to Politico.

Pesticide-heavy environments could raise cancer risk by up to 150%, according to a recent study released April 27 and conducted by Institut Pasteur.

As disagreements among lawmakers continue, more than 300 agricultural groups representing farmers and ranchers have urged Congress to pass the bill, according to a letter sent to House leadership on April.

While another 300 farm groups urge Congress to reject the Farm Bill, according to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)’s April 24 press release.

The push from outside groups underscores the competing pressures lawmakers face as amendments reshape the bill ahead of a final vote.

As House leadership moves forward, the volume of amendments and internal disagreements leaves the bill’s future uncertain, even with a planned floor vote. The outcome of the House Rules Committee process — and which amendments are allowed to receive votes — could ultimately determine whether the legislation can secure enough support to pass.

Past farm bills have historically been bipartisan, built on farm subsidies and nutrition programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The current state of the farm bill is amendment-heavy, with over 300added before the House vote.

The surge of amendments reflects growing divisions among lawmakers as competing interests over nutrition spending, farming subsidies and federal regulations make it challenging to maintain the traditional coalition.

Republican Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson introduced the Save Our Bacon Act in July 2025. Hinson is the odds-on frontrunnerto be the GOP nominee in the state’s hotly contested November Senate race.

A spokesperson for Hinson did not immediately comment to the DCNF.

A vote on the farm bill is scheduled for this week, after passing the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The legislation relies on a “logrolling” process, in which lawmakers support provisions outside their priorities to pass the entire bill.

In the previous farm bill signed into law in 2018, SNAP accounted for roughly 80% of the bill’s total budget, according to AgriSompo. After SNAP cuts were enacted in separate legislation, the program would account for roughly 72% of spending, according to a CRS report.

The House Agriculture Committee did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The farm bill governs a wide range of programs, including crop insurance, commodity support, nutrition assistance and conservation funding.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].