Big Ag exploits RFK Jr.’s organic advocacy to push unregulated GMO "biologicals"

By willowt // 2025-04-24

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

Global agribusiness giants like Bayer and Syngenta are repackaging genetically modified (GM) “biologicals” as eco-friendly solutions, capitalizing on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organic farming advocacy while sidestepping safety reviews. These engineered microbes, marketed as sustainable alternatives, often lock farmers into corporate dependency.
The $15 billion “biologicals” market includes lab-edited microbes (e.g., Pivot Bio’s nitrogen-fixing bacteria) exempt from rigorous U.S. safety assessments. Despite failed yield results in trials and risks like allergen transfer or soil disruption, lax regulations — shaped by industry lobbying — allow unchecked deployment.
Kennedy’s calls for pesticide reduction and health-conscious agriculture are exploited to legitimize risky GM technologies, undermining organic principles. Critics argue these products perpetuate monocultures and genetic contamination, ignoring authentic agroecological practices like crop rotation.
Unlike Europe’s mandatory GMO labeling, the U.S. permits untested GM biologicals in food and soil. Independent studies linking GMOs to health risks (e.g., allergies, livestock sterility) are suppressed, while the 2012 Prop 37 labeling battle’s legacy highlights corporate resistance. A “revolving door” between regulators and industry exacerbates distrust.
The push for “biologicals” pits corporate profit against soil health and biodiversity. Advocates demand transparency, long-term environmental studies and prioritizing community-led farming practices over unproven corporate solutions to avoid repeating industrial agriculture’s harmful legacy.

In a cynical marketing twist, global agribusiness giants are co-opting Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organic farming advocacy to promote a new wave of genetically modified "biologicals" — substances derived from living organisms, some engineered in labs with unknown long-term risks. While Kennedy champions pesticide reduction and organic practices, corporations like Bayer, Syngenta and Corteva are rebranding GMO microbes as eco-friendly solutions, sidestepping rigorous safety reviews. This maneuver, critics warn, threatens human health, biodiversity and small-scale farmers’ autonomy.

The "biologicals" bait-and-switch

The farming industry is shifting toward "biologicals," a 15 billion market projected to reach 25 billion by 2030. While some products, like beneficial nematodes or compost teas, align with organic principles, others are genetically engineered microbes with scant oversight. For example, Pivot Bio’s gene-edited nitrogen-fixing bacteria, marketed as a synthetic fertilizer alternative, showed no yield boost in 51 of 53 university trials yet skirted USDA safety assessments due to lax regulation. Syngenta’s Jonty Brown admits farmers globally "want to use biologicals," but omits that many are patented GMOs designed to lock growers into corporate dependence. Meanwhile, USDA guidelines — influenced by industry lobbying — exempt most gene-edited microbes from review, despite risks like allergen transfer or soil ecosystem disruption.

RFK Jr.’s vision vs. corporate greenwashing

Kennedy, a vocal critic of glyphosate and industrial agriculture, has unwittingly become a poster child for this push. His calls to "Make America Healthy Again" are being exploited to legitimize products like GM soil treatments and pesticide-resistant microbes, which organic advocates argue perpetuate monoculture farming and genetic contamination. "These companies are hijacking regenerative agriculture," said Claire Robinson of GMWatch. "They’re using Kennedy’s credibility to sell unproven, potentially hazardous technologies while marginalizing real solutions like crop rotation and agroecology. These practices also degrade soil health, threatening long-term agricultural sustainability," she added.

The hidden costs of skipping safety studies

Unlike Europe, where GMO labeling is mandatory, the U.S. allows untested GM biologicals to enter fields and food chains. Pivot Bio insists its microbes are "regulated," yet a 2022 industry letter to the USDA lobbied to exempt gene-edited organisms from review — a plea partially granted in 2024. Independent studies linking GMOs to sterility in animals and allergy spikes are frequently suppressed. For example, genetically engineered soybeans with Brazil nut genes triggered allergic reactions in susceptible individuals, a risk proponents downplay. Farmers like Indiana’s Rick Clark, who transitioned to chemical-free farming, warn that abrupt shifts could backfire: "You can’t expect growers to change overnight." But with Big Ag’s "snake oil" marketing and Kennedy’s rhetoric divorced from policy action, the U.S. risks trading pesticide dependence for uncontrolled GMO contamination.

Transparency or corporate control?

The fight mirrors past battles over GMO labeling, which 90% of Americans support. Prop. 37’s legacy — defeated after agribusiness spent millions opposing it — lingers as a cautionary tale. "If biologicals are so safe," Robinson asks, "why resist labeling and independent studies?" The revolving door between government agencies and industry (e.g., ex-regulators now lobbying for biotech firms) exacerbates mistrust. Meanwhile, the lack of long-term environmental impact assessments (a key criticism in independent research) leaves ecosystems vulnerable.

A crossroads for food sovereignty

The exploitation of RFK Jr.’s platform underscores a broader struggle: Will farming prioritize people and ecosystems, or corporate profits masked as sustainability? Until independent science and transparency prevail, the "biologicals" boom risks becoming another chapter in industrial agriculture’s legacy of hidden risks and broken promises. For consumers and farmers alike, the demand is clear: Know what’s in your soil — and your food. Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org WSJ.com Bloomberg.com