In the vast soybean fields of the American Midwest, Maria Gonzalez* wipes sweat from her brow under a relentless sun, her hands calloused from years of labor. As a farmworker in Illinois, she applies herbicides like dicamba, a chemical designed to kill weeds but notorious for drifting onto unintended crops and ecosystems. “Every spray season, I worry about what I’m breathing in,” she tells me over a crackling phone line. “My kids ask why I come home coughing.” Gonzalez’s story isn’t unique—it’s a symptom of a broader crisis where pesticide policies, influenced by industry insiders, are prioritizing profits over people and the planet. In 2025, as climate extremes amplify agricultural vulnerabilities and food justice movements gain momentum, a recent EPA proposal to loosen restrictions on dicamba exemplifies how regulatory capture is undermining sustainable food systems.

This article explores the intersection of pesticide pollution debates, labor conditions in food production, environmental effects of farming practices, policy reforms, and food sovereignty. At its core is a timely question: Why, in an era of advancing organic alternatives and state-level protections, is the federal government rolling back safeguards on harmful chemicals? The answer lies in the revolving door between industry and regulators, with fresh evidence emerging just this week.

The Policy Pivot: Industry Influence Takes the Helm at the EPA

In June 2025, Kyle Kunkler, formerly the top lobbyist for the American Soybean Association, was appointed as the EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for pesticideshttps://civileats.com/2025/06/30/epa-hires-farm-and-pesticide-lobbyist-to-oversee-pesticide-regulation/. Less than a month later, the agency proposed reauthorizing dicamba—an herbicide twice struck down by federal courts for its environmental risks—while stripping away key restrictions. The proposal eliminates buffer zones around fields and eases application timing rules, opting instead for temperature-based guidelines that critics argue provide “more flexibility for growers” at the expense of safety. Kunkler, who once described regulatory battles over dicamba as a “tennis match full of rocketing volleys,” is one of four former industry figures now leading the EPA’s pesticide office, raising alarms about conflicts of interest.

This move comes amid broader policy shifts in 2025. The Global Food Policy Report, released in May, highlighted how food systems have transformed since the Green Revolution, urging policymakers to prioritize equity and sustainability. Yet, under the Trump administration, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins unveiled a 10-point plan in August emphasizing deregulation to support local farmers—ironically, often at the cost of environmental protections. Meanwhile, Congress debated amendments in July to protect state pesticide labeling rights, and states like Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut advanced restrictions on neonicotinoids, another class of bee-killing pesticides.

Why now? The EPA’s dicamba proposal, announced in July 23, 2025, is under public review as harvest seasons wrap up, with final decisions looming before spring planting in 2026. This timing coincides with escalating labor shortages in agriculture—projected to worsen due to immigration enforcement policies—and a surge in food sovereignty advocacy, making it a pivotal moment for reform. As one advocate put it, “We’re at a crossroads: deregulate for short-term gains or transition to organics for long-term justice.”

People Under Pressure: Labor Conditions and Health Risks in the Fields

Farmworkers like Gonzalez are on the front lines of pesticide exposure, facing chronic health threats amplified by lax regulations. In 2025, studies continue to link pesticides to DNA damage, cellular harm, and neurological issues among agricultural laborers. Dicamba, while not deemed highly toxic to humans by the EPA, has been associated with increased risks of liver cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in longterm usershttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7660157/. Pregnant farmworkers in California’s Pajaro Valley, for instance, report heightened dangers, with prenatal exposure tied to childhood cancers and developmental disorders.

Compounding this is the dual threat of extreme heat and chemical exposure. As temperatures rise— 2025 has seen record heat waves in key farming regions—workers absorb more pesticides through sweat-soaked skin, leading to respiratory problems, eye irritation, and skin issues. Labor shortages exacerbate the issue: With 68% of U.S. farmworkers being foreign-born and facing deportation risks, remaining workers endure longer hours and higher exposure. A recent California report documented hundreds of pesticide-related illnesses in 2021 alone, a trend persisting into 2025.

• Key Health Impacts of Pesticide Exposure on Farmworkers (2025 Data)
• Neurological Issues: Memory loss, hormone disruption (e.g., from dicamba and neonicotinoids).
• Damicolegal.com
• Respiratory and Skin Problems: report skin irritation; eye issues. nature.com
• Cancer Risks: Elevated for liver, bile duct, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Centerforfoodsafety.org
• Prenatal Effects: Linked to childhood leukemia and brain cancer. santacruzlocal.org

These conditions highlight a social impact: Farmworkers, often marginalized immigrants, lack adequate protections, fueling calls for justice in food production.

The Planet Pays the Price: Environmental Effects of Farming and Packaging

Pesticides like dicamba don’t stay put—they volatilize and drift, wreaking havoc on ecosystems. In 2025, dicamba’s reauthorization threatens pollinators, with studies showing harm to bees and wildlife through habitat destruction. Drift has damaged non-target crops like sugar beets and grapes, pitting farmers against each other and contributing to biodiversity loss. Broader farming practices, including plastic mulch and packaging, compound this: Agricultural plastics break down into micro plastics, contaminating soil and water, with health risks extending to humans.

State actions offer hope: Maine’s new study on neonicotinoids, Vermont’s best management practices rule, and Connecticut’s turf grass restrictions signal a push toward organic transitions to reduce pollution. Yet, federal rollbacks could undermine these, as dicamba’s proposal ignores robust endangered species protections. Sustainable packaging trends—projected to reduce solid waste by emphasizing recycled materials—provide a counterpoint, but they’re insufficient without addressing upstream chemical use.

Food Sovereignty and Justice: Reclaiming Control from Corporate Capture

At the heart of these debates is food sovereignty—the right to healthy, culturally appropriate food produced sustainably. In 2025, movements like those documented in the “Rooted in Justice” report amplify voices from global leaders resisting corporate consolidation. From Nepal’s agro ecology workshops to Palestine’s anti-genocide actions, these stories emphasize land reclamation and healing amid crises. In the U.S., pesticide deregulation threatens this by entrenching dependency on chemicals, sidelining organic alternatives that empower communities.
Policy tools like the UN’s food systems transformation brief call for aligning subsidies with planetary boundaries, but U.S. actions lag. Advocates urge a “whack-a-mole” shift to holistic reforms, prioritizing ecological pest management.

A Fork in the Road: Toward Equitable Food Systems

As 2025 unfolds, the dicamba saga underscores how food systems affect us all—from the fields to our plates. Weakened regulations endanger workers, pollute the planet, and erode sovereignty, but grassroots wins in states and global movements offer blueprints for change. Policymakers must heed the call: Transition to organics, protect laborers, and reform policies for justice. Otherwise, stories like Gonzalez’s will only multiply, reminding us that sustainable food isn’t just about what we eat—it’s about who pays the price. Name changed for privacy.