A bipartisan group of House lawmakers moved Thursday to strip out a controversial pesticide provision from legislation setting U.S. farm and nutrition policy after Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., threatened to “slaughter” the legislation if her measure did not receive a floor vote.

Lawmakers voted 280 to 142 to approve Luna’s amendment, which removed language from the farm bill shielding pesticide manufacturers from legal liability. 

The successful vote could be a sign of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement’s growing influence over congressional Republicans, who splintered over the issue. Leading MAHA advocates applied public pressure on Republicans to back the amendment, arguing that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the MAHA movement.

Seventy-three Republicans backed Luna’s measure, while 142 GOP lawmakers rejected it.

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES THREATEN EXTENDED SHUTDOWN OVER ELECTION INTEGRITY MEASURE

The provision that lawmakers struck would block lawsuits against pesticide companies for failing to disclose potential health risks as long as they are in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on labeling. States and localities would be barred from issuing pesticide labeling guidance that diverges from the EPA. 

“I have a little boy, and the amount of articles I have seen on pesticides and herbicides popping up in children’s products (to include organic) is very bad,” Luna, a MAHA-aligned Republican, wrote on social media earlier this week. “On behalf of all the moms and dads that aren’t in office, I am not going to be bullied into supporting a bill that is providing protections and immunity to corporations that are responsible for giving children and adults cancer.”

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, policy chair of the House Freedom Caucus, also endorsed Luna’s amendment, arguing it would “protect Americans from dangerous pesticides.”

‘LONG OVERDUE’: SENATE REPUBLICANS RAM THROUGH TRUMP’S CLAWBACK PACKAGE WITH CUTS TO FOREIGN AID, NPR

Republican critics, however, contended that Luna’s amendment would raise costs for consumers if the pesticide provision was stripped from the farm bill. 

“If the EPA says the label is good, I don’t see why every state municipality should have to have another label that would simply raise the price for the American consumer,” Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., said in opposition to Luna’s measure.

“We’re not talking about the pesticide in the jug as has been misrepresented to the American citizens and especially the MAHA movement,” Scott continued. “We’re talking about just the label on the jug. There is no liability shield for the pesticide in the jug. 

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., also sharply criticized Luna’s measure.

“The arguments on the other side are pretty shallow, and they’re emotional,” Thompson said on the House floor. “They’re not science-based.”

Democrats also widely backed the effort to remove the pesticide provision from the bill.

“Put simply, this language puts chemical company profits over the health of Americans,” Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said during debate on the House floor. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The floor battle over the pesticide provision also comes as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week about whether pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, should be given legal preemption from failing to warn consumers that its weedkiller product Roundup could cause cancer.

The Trump administration sparked controversy among MAHA advocates earlier this year when it declared domestic production of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, a national security priority. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an influential MAHA voice, publicly defended the move despite railing against glyphosate for years.

Bayer has repeatedly maintained that its product is safe to use and has not been found to cause cancer.

Three seats are on the June 2 primary ballot for the seven-member Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, but the District 6 race is essentially a foregone conclusion: The only name on the ballot is two-term incumbent Kelly Gonez.

The nation’s second-largest school system, with close to 400,000 students, faces evolving challenges and uncertainties that could alter the direction of the district for years.

In mid-April L.A. Unified officials barely averted a strike by agreeing to significant employee raises, rescinding about 200 layoffs and agreeing to hundreds of new hires of counselors, school psychologists and other student support staff. The contracts with three district unions, including teachers, will cost nearly $1.2 billion a year, and board members now must find a way to pay for them amid budget pressures.

Standardized test scores have trended upward since the nadir of the COVID-19 pandemic, recovering faster than the state average, but the pace remains too incremental for critics.

The future of L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho is uncertain. He’s on paid administrative leave following FBI raids of his San Pedro home and downtown office. At least part of the investigation centers on a failed chatbot project that was supposed to revolutionize and individualize education.

Carvalho said he’s done nothing wrong and would like to return to work. If he does not return — and cannot serve out his new four-year contract — board members would select a superintendent.

L.A. Unified also faces declining enrollment — which reduces state funding and increases pressure to save money by closing many campuses.

Heightened federal immigration enforcement also has affected enrollment and attendance while creating anxiety that spills over into the classroom. Officials responded by declaring L.A. Unified a sanctuary district — both for immigrants and for the LGBTQ+ community, which also has been a target of some conservative groups.

Carvalho’s central focus on improving test scores has led to increased tutoring, repeated diagnostic measures and phonics training. In addition, the district put a successful school bond on the ballot to continue renovations, worked to lower student absenteeism and emphasized greener campuses.

The board majority consists of candidates elected with the endorsement of the powerful teachers union — United Teachers Los Angeles. This election will not change that balance because five seats are held by union-friendly incumbents. But the outcome will determine whether UTLA can further strengthen its hand or whether other constituencies will gain a measure of power at that union’s expense.

The material below was assembled through reporting and a survey provided to Gonez. Some responses are paraphrased for clarity or condensed for brevity.