In discussions about food and agriculture, certain scientific terms can quickly shape how people view an issue. Labels such as “carcinogenic,” while important for research and risk assessment, are often interpreted by the public as a simple yes-or-no measure of safety. However, this term is used by scientists to describe a wide range of exposure scenarios and risk levels. And when these distinctions are lost, conversations about how our food is produced can become more about perception than about the complete body of evidence.
Take red meat. Although the World Health Organization has classified forms of red meat as “probably carcinogenic” under specific conditions of consumption and processing, policymakers and nutrition experts continue to recognize beef as a valuable source of high-quality protein and essential nutrients when consumed as part of a balanced diet. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s inverted food pyramid advocates for higher consumption of nutrient-dense proteins – specifically, red meat. Why? Because here in the U.S., we rely on guidance and approvals from federal regulators like the USDA, which continuously inspects and approves red meat as safe for consumption.
That same common-sense approach should apply to modern crop protection tools.
These products are among the most studied and regulated inputs in agriculture. Just as the USDA evaluates red meat, the EPA evaluates pesticides with the same care and consideration. Farmers trust that process. What threatens it now isn’t new science—it’s a growing wave of lawsuits from special interest groups attempting to force these tools off the market through the courts.
By using the WHO designation and exploiting legal loopholes, these lawsuits have become so costly that American manufacturers could be forced to stop producing these essential products. This replaces science-based oversight with litigation—and leaves farmers paying the price.
From my own experience raising cattle, I know crops don’t grow themselves. Livestock production depends on a reliable supply of feed, and feed depends on healthy crops. Corn, soybeans, and other staples are essential inputs not just for farmers, but for the entire food system. Undermining access to the tools that protect those crops ignores how food actually gets from the field to the table.
Without proven crop protection tools, weeds and pests will overwhelm fields. Yields would fall, feed costs would rise, and grocery prices would follow. For farmers already operating on tight margins, losing access to these tools isn’t just disruptive—it’s unsustainable.
This is especially true for Missouri’s family farms, which make up 96% of our agriculture industry. Many operations are one bad season away from shutting their doors, and when products are pushed off the market through lawsuits rather than science-based review, it’s family farms that feel the impact first.
There’s also a broader concern. If American-made crop protection tools disappear, farmers won’t stop needing them. Sadly, they’ll be forced to rely on China for the inputs they need. That’s not just an issue for farmers—that’s an issue for our country’s food supply and our national security.
None of this is about dismissing health concerns. It’s about using common sense. The WHO’s “probably carcinogenic” designation shouldn’t be a conversation-ending accusation — or a legal weapon. With smart, practical legislation that protects American-made crop protection tools from being litigated off the market, we can support farmers, protect consumers, and keep America’s food system strong.
President of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association
