
Provision 453 of the current House Appropriations bill for FY 2026 will create, in effect, a kind of liability shield for pesticide companies, protecting them from lawsuits. This means that if you are made sick by their products you will have no real legal recourse, even though scientific evidence points to the harm caused by their products.
Today, molecular toxicologist Dr. Alexandra Muñoz helps us examine this particular provision that is in front of U.S. lawmakers right now. We invite you to learn more about what’s at stake, the ramifications of this bill’s passage, and to act swiftly to communicate to U.S. representatives in the House and Senate that we do NOT want this bill passed with this provision.
Visit Alexandra’s website: toxicology.riverwyn-institute.com
Contact your U.S. representatives at congress.gov/members
Become a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation (and use code pod10): westonaprice.org
—
Watch the episode here
Listen to the podcast here
Episode Transcript
Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda
.Sometimes, provisions are included in federal bills that go by practically unnoticed by most, though they will have a huge impact on the American public. This is the case of Provision 453 and the House Appropriations Bill for the fiscal year 2026. The provision will, in effect, create a liability shield for pesticide companies, protecting them from lawsuits. This means that if you are made sick by their products, you have no legal recourse, even though scientific evidence points to the harm caused by their products.
This is a bonus episode with Dr. Alexandra Muñoz. She is a toxicologist and an expert on such things. We’ve invited her to talk to us about what this provision means and its implications for us. We’ll learn more about its impact, the ripple effect, what it all has to do with, and how you can take action to communicate to your US Representatives in the House and the Senate that we do not want this bill to be moved forward with this provision. For more information on who your representative is, go to Members of the U.S. Congress, so you can find out exactly who your representative is and how to get in touch with them. Let’s get straight to this interview, which we conducted in Washington, DC., in he last week of July.
‐‐‐
Welcome to the show, Alexandra.
Thank you so much for having me here.
Unmasking The Pesticide Immunity Bill
You’re in DC because of some big pesticide shield immunity bill. I don’t even know if I understand it all. Help us know what’s going on. Haven’t farmers always used pesticides?
Farmers haven’t always used pesticides. That’s a relatively new business that has come out. They’ve been using them for a long time, though, without a liability shield. The companies that sell them are looking for a legal form of immunity so that they’re not liable for any lawsuits for harmful impacts from their products.
Why are they looking for that now?
That’s an important question. It’s because the company, Bayer, which purchased the company, Monsanto, that sells Roundup, is receiving so many lawsuits for cancer that its product causes. They’re paying out millions to people who have been harmed by this product. Instead of changing the label on their product, they’re looking for a liability shield. They’re looking for a way out so that they don’t have to pay anyone anymore.
What would happen if they just relabelled it?
If they just changed the label and put a cancer warning on it, then they wouldn’t be liable for any of these failure-to-warn lawsuits because then, they would have warned the people.
They don’t want to do that?
They don’t want to do that because they know that if they put a cancer warning on their product, people are going to be less likely to buy it, and it’s going to affect their sales.
That’s true. If I saw a skull and crossbones on a product, I’d be like, “Get away from me.”
If you saw something that said, “If you get this on your skin, it could lead to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” would you buy it then?
No, I wouldn’t. They are lobbying to get this liability and immunity protection in place. Why is this a secret? I heard someone say this is a secret vote.
What happened was that there was some language slipped into an appropriations bill. In the appropriations committee, an amendment was proposed to remove Section 453, which contains this immunity provision. Instead of doing a roll call vote where we could see how everyone voted on that amendment to remove it, they did a voice vote. We don’t know exactly who was opposed to it and who was in support of this amendment to remove it.
Does that mean that politicians don’t want it to be known in history which way they voted? Why would that be?
That’s exactly what’s going on here. They are realizing that people are very angry about this. They’ve had moms calling all week, saying that they don’t want this. Instead of standing up for their own position, they’re hiding it so that it doesn’t become a voting issue when it comes to primaries in 2026.
Political Divide: Who Supports Pesticide Immunity?
How political is this? What I mean is I understand that the Make America Healthy Again movement, which was the platform by which Trump was elected, is all about food. By the way, the Weston A. Price Foundation is apolitical. I’m asking because I want to know how it plays into it. Do they care about this bill? That’s a Republican platform, but I heard that the vote was evenly split and that the Republicans were for this pesticide liability and immunity.
That’s what we’re seeing. I’ve been working on this in a number of states where it has been proposed earlier in the year, in Tennessee and North Carolina. In both of those states, initially, all of the Democrats were opposed to the liability shield, and all the Republicans were in support of it. It is falling on partisan lines here.
Why would any party support this?
I can’t understand it myself, but it seems like they want to protect businesses, and they want to protect farmers. They’re hearing from the company itself that has been proposing this legislation that if they don’t give them this immunity and liability shield, they’re going to go out of business, and that their favorite farming chemicals are not going to be available anymore. There might even be a global food shortage. That’s what they’re telling everyone.

Let’s get specific here. With glyphosate, for example, some of these farmers depend on that because they have gotten accustomed to using it with certain crops. If this goes through, maybe they will be sunk.
I don’t think that’s the case because this type of legislation has already failed two years in a row in Iowa, and they’re still selling their chemicals there. This legislation isn’t trying to ban any chemicals. Not having it isn’t going to create any bans on chemicals. It’s leaving things the way that they are. The only risk is that this company may decide that it’s not worth it for them to sell these chemicals here because of all the lawsuits that they’re facing financially. It might not be the decision that they want. Maybe they won’t have access to them. Here’s the catch. Glyphosate isn’t patented. There are other companies selling glyphosate. The farmers who want to use that will still have access to it even if Bayer goes out of business.
Glyphosate isn’t patented, so other companies sell it. Farmers who want to use it will still have access, even if Bayer goes out of business.
They’re acting like, “Don’t take my glyphosate away from me.”
They’ve run this massive fear campaign with ads and so much lobbying. They’ve gone to all the farmers directly and told them, “We need this piece of legislation or we’re going to go out of business.” They have genuinely convinced people across the country about their narrative. That’s why they’re pushing it, and that’s why they’re having success in some places.
I understand that this immunity, this clause in this appropriations bill, will also protect foreign and domestic companies. The reason I’m bringing this up is that Paraquat, which is this very intense chemical that is found and sprayed over all kinds of soil, is banned in China, but this Chinese company is selling it over here. Is that true?
That’s so true. It’s wild when you think about that. They’re selling something that they’ve banned in their own country, here in the US. Paraquat is known to cause Parkinson’s disease, which is a neurodegenerative disease. It’s sad that they’re willing to sell it. It intentionally poisoned Americans. They’re asking for immunity to do that as well because they’re also facing lawsuits.
That’s interesting. To reiterate, you are not saying to ban paraquat forever, which sounds good to me, or ban glyphosate forever, but you’re saying these companies need to be held accountable for the consequences. Tell me if this is true. If this gets passed and someone were to get cancer or some degenerative health condition, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court against these companies.
That’s right. We’re not trying to ban anything by being in opposition to this piece of legislation. This legislation has nothing to do with taking any pesticides on or off the market. What it does impact, though, is how those things are labeled and whether those labels are considered sufficient to warn people about the actual risks of these products. The way that they’ve structured the language and these different types of legislation gives them immunity from lawsuits.
The Sneaky Tactics Of Liability Shields
How did they get this in an appropriations bill? I’m not sure I understand some of the ins and outs of this stuff.
This is so tricky. The other thing that’s happening here is that they’re getting sneakier in how they’re trying to sneak this language through. At the beginning of 2025, they ran it as its own bill in different states, and they lost in a lot of states.
I heard about that. We had Kelly Ryerson on the show talking about such a thing. They were doing it more boldly, and it was being shut down. They were like, “Maybe we can sneak this in some other bill.” I guess this is how it happens on the Hill.
I’m not sure exactly how things happen, but they have started to be way sneakier. I watched it happen in North Carolina, where they snuck it into the Farm Act there. It’s a lot harder to fight something like this when you have to get it removed from a big piece of legislation. It’s pretty clear that they don’t even want anyone to know what they’re trying to do, because the language of Section 453 is so confusing in terms of how it creates immunity. When you first read it, it doesn’t sound like it’s giving a liability shield or immunity at all.
What does it sound like?
It sounds like it’s reiterating some labeling rules or taking funding. It’s pretty unclear. If you’ve never read anything like this, it sounds like they’re doing something to the labels, and you don’t even know what it means.
I heard a doctor say that this label language sounds very benign, but she said, “Know this. They were aware that glyphosate was harmful 30 years ago, and here we are now, still trying to get the product labeled.” This shows how slowly the wheels of the EPA churn. Even if it is something specific about the label, it will cause a ripple effect that will make it hard for consumers to know what they’re using or what’s being used on their soil and on their food.
Exactly. The label is so important. That’s why there’s this big fight over the label on pesticides and food products. Who can put what on the label is what these big industries are trying to control. They only want the EPA to put information on the pesticide labels because they’ve captured the EPA. They figured out how to game the system so that when they submit their own data to the EPA, they can structure and then write their own label. They’ve gotten it so that their product, which does cause cancer, has no cancer warning on it.
What this piece of legislation does is it blocks the obligation. It blocks their ability to voluntarily update their own label with a cancer warning. The reason that’s important is that when they still have the ability to voluntarily update their label and they don’t do it and don’t properly warn people, then they can be held liable in court for that. That’s when they lose these lawsuits. If they block the funding to update labels voluntarily, they can go to court and say, “It was impossible for us to update the label. There’s no funding for it to do it through that mechanism. We can only put on the label what the EPA tells us to put. Therefore, our hands are clean.”
What this legislation does is it blocks their ability to voluntarily update their label with a cancer warning.
The Dangerous Ramifications Of Pesticide Immunity
Why does this remind me of Pilate in the Bible, washing his hands and saying, “I have nothing to do with this.” That’s very interesting. If this passes, they don’t have a legal obligation to voluntarily update the label. Why would they? Why should they?
They still have a legal obligation to warn under the state product liability code, but under the federal law, it’s impossible for them to comply if this goes through. That creates this special thing called impossibility preemption that gets them off the hook in these lawsuits. That’s what they’re after here.
What happens if this is passed? Will more people get sick without recourse? Will life continue as it has, and we won’t even notice? What do you expect the ramifications to be?
There are some serious ramifications of this legislation. The first thing that’s going to happen is that we are going to know that the labels that are on the products can’t be updated to reflect the most recent science through this voluntary pathway of label updating. That means that when new science emerges, it’s going to take even longer to get it onto the label to warn people about it.
This is an industry that is known to sell dangerous chemicals. These are known toxins. There are known carcinogens, known neurotoxins, and known endocrine-destructing chemicals. There is going to be more harm to people if this goes through because they’re already selling things that they know are dangerous without the proper warnings. What are they going to sell when they know they can’t be sued?
It could escalate, in other words. Let’s look at the other scenario, because I would rather look at that. Let’s say it gets shut down. What happens then?
We’re just back at the status quo. They’re still selling all these dangerous chemicals, and there’s still a fight over what’s on the label, but at least in some states, they can mandate additional warnings, potentially. You can still sue them, which is more important than it might sound. Being able to sue a company like this is an important mechanism of accountability. During those lawsuits or the discovery process, they have to hand over all of these internal documents. That’s so important here.
That’s where we’ve seen the fraud and collusion that has happened within Monsanto and also Syngenta related to Paraquat. We see these emails where they lay out the fact that they don’t want to do this toxicology testing because it’s going to lead to results that they know they don’t want to see. They’re like, “We can’t use that toxicologist. We need to find someone who wants to work with us our way. We’re going to stop this test right away.” All of that information about how they’re acting fraudulently is available when we can still sue them. It allows for this transparency and accountability that is so important for this industry and everybody’s health and safety.
It’s so critical. It reminds me of the papers that Naomi Wolf and her team put together, the COVID papers. She was able to get ahold of internal Pfizer documents that showed that they knew the harm these shots would cause. This kind of transparency is needed. If it has to happen through legal means, so be it. I want to go back to something. I talked to Kelly Ryerson. She said that if glyphosate is ever pulled from the market, and let’s say Bayer, after a while, is like, “Everybody knows this isn’t good. I’m going to pull it,” she’s concerned that they’re going to put another even more dangerous and unhealthy toxic pesticide on the market. What do you think of that?
That’s possible. That’s what they have done. They’ve changed their Roundup formulations that are available for home and garden use, commercial use, and have replaced glyphosate in some of those with four other compounds. Some of them are seemingly more acutely toxic than glyphosate. It includes two ingredients that are banned in other countries as well. There’s clearly no motivation in this industry to make choices that protect people’s health. That’s the most concerning thing here. They don’t care, and we can see that from an array of choices that they’ve made. They will likely start selling something more dangerous.
That’s so scary. Let’s talk about what we can do. We’re in DC. You and some other folks, without any compensation, and you’re not professional lobbyists, are going to raise awareness on the Hill. Can we do that wherever we live?
You can raise awareness right now. It’s so important that we get the word out about what’s going on here. Share information with your community, with your family, and with your state legislators. Honestly, this could be coming to a lot of states again in 2026. It doesn’t look like they’re giving up yet. Raising awareness online and in person that this industry is trying to achieve this and that we all need to work together to stop it is important. That’s why I’m so glad that we’re talking about this.
Forever Chemicals: The Hidden Dangers In Our Products
Me, too. Going back to the chemicals that are being spread and so forth, I saw something in one of the papers about forever chemicals, what they call PFAS. How are they involved? Can I also have some kind of liability shield related to the off-gassing or the stuff that is going to come off of some of their products? I’m a little bit confused about that.
This piece of legislation regulates 1,200 active ingredients that have been registered at the EPA and are regulated under this act called FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It includes all kinds of things: pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides. Some of those products do contain PFAS, these forever chemicals. Sometimes, they are not necessarily the active ingredient. They could be contaminants in those products. There are also other uses of PFAS that are not part of chemicals regulated under FIFRA. It won’t affect all of them. Flame retardants wouldn’t be in this group of chemicals, but there are some things that do include those chemicals. Those types of things would get immunity under this provision if it goes through.

In other words, if our family gets sick because we have exposure to some of these forever chemicals, no one would take our case, is what I’ve heard. No one would say, “Let’s stand up to the company,” because they have a way out.
They have a perfect legal defense if they get this. The lawyers are unlikely to even try to take a case. That’s part of what’s so sneaky here. You can still technically sue. It’s not blocking you from suing. That’s what they like to emphasize when they’re getting the legislators to talk about it. They’re like, “You can still sue.” We heard that so many times in North Carolina and Tennessee. That may be true, but you can’t make it very far with that action. It might get dismissed at the first motion to dismiss, or the lawyer might not even take it up because they know that there’s this defense already there for them.
This makes me wonder. What do you say to the naysayers who are like, “You’re anti-farmer,” or “It’s easy enough for you to say you’re against these pesticides and forever chemicals, but we need these and these products to keep farming the way we’re doing it.”
I would say that having this or not having this isn’t banning any chemicals. That’s important to keep in mind. The company can still sell what it wants to sell. All we’re saying is to leave things the way they are. These companies still need to be accountable, even if an important industry depends on them, and probably more so, because do they want to be potentially poisoning the people that are their biggest customers?
That’s a good question that maybe we all need to ponder for a little bit. It always boggles my mind when I think of the people who work at these companies. They are people, like you and me, who are trying to feed their families and ostensibly do good for the world. Are some of them unaware, do you think?
I do. I’ve spoken to a number of farmers and legislators in the last several months while I’ve been working on this. I’ve had multiple people sit across from me and tell me, “I’m a farmer. I use glyphosate or 2,4-D. I’ve been using it my whole life. It’s my favorite pesticide, and I’ve never gotten sick from it.” That’s this cognitive dissonance that we have to encounter. People have the experience of using them and haven’t gotten cancer, so it’s hard for them to understand that it does cause cancer. That’s the tricky thing about cancer. Something can be a carcinogen and, in some cases, it will cause cancer, and in others, it won’t. That is to be expected.
The tricky thing about cancer is that something can be a carcinogen, and in some cases it will cause cancer and others it won’t.
When you say the person says, “I haven’t gotten cancer,” I’m imagining in my mind an ellipsis, and it’s like, “…yet.” These toxins accumulate. When I think about PFAS, paraquat, glyphosate, and diquat, they’re being used right now. When we get our little produce even from the farmer’s market, unless it says organic, we can’t be sure that it isn’t being used on those very produce pieces that we’re buying.
You’re right. Toxins accumulate, and also, their impact accumulates. That’s what a lot of people don’t necessarily understand about cancer. I’m a molecular toxicologist, which means that I’ve taken a lot of time to study the molecular mechanisms at the level of the cell of how these toxins lead to cancer. What’s interesting about this process is that there are a lot of steps to it, and it takes a lot of time, usually. There’s a delay between the exposure and the development of cancer. During that process, these long-term low-dose exposures can lead to the progressive development of cancer.
Sometimes, it can be hard to put two and two together because you could have been using it for a number of years and not gotten cancer until one day, that shows up. That’s part of it. There also needs to be a deeper understanding of what causes this process, what promotes it, and what that looks like. It can be an acute exposure, and it can also be an acute exposure combined with low-dose exposures or a low-dose long-term exposure.
I remember talking to Beth Lambert from Documenting Hope, Kelly Ryerson, Stephanie Seneff, and people who have studied this glyphosate and toxins at length. They say that it can be found in our urine. It’s because it’s in the air, the water, and the food. Is that right?
It’s showing up in all types of biomonitoring that people are doing in their urine and in their blood. The exposure can happen through drift exposure and other pathways as well. We are in a moment where there are a lot of exposures in a lot of ways. Everyone is impacted by the presence of these chemicals.
Toxicologist’s Take: Lowering Everyday Chemical Exposure
I do want to talk to you about this in the next episode or some other conversation, but I want to broach it a little bit here. What would you recommend as a toxicologist in terms of lowering our everyday exposure?
There are a lot of ways that you can make an intervention in your daily life to reduce your exposure. Especially if you have kids, you want to take some time to think about that. What I teach parents about in my course is how to think like a toxicologist. You have to start thinking like a toxicologist to reduce your exposure because it’s so tricky. It can be in anything.
You have to start seeing, “This type of material might have toxins in it that leach out and can impact my kids. This type of material also might have toxins that leach out.” You can start changing out the materials that you use. Plastic, for example, leaches so many endocrine-disrupting chemicals. As much as you can reduce your children’s exposure or your family’s exposure to plastic, it’s a great thing.
Did you hear about that study where they found that even water in glass bottles had microplastics? Let’s say it had seventeen parts of microplastics in the water, but the water in a plastic bottle has thousands compared to the glass bottle. It’s nanoparticles. It’s not microplastics, but nanoplastics. Meaning, they’re easier to enter the bloodstream in the body. Do you think that’s right?
I don’t know. I saw that people were talking about that paper, and I was like, “At some moment, I need to read that paper carefully and see if this is true.” It’s pretty surprising that the glass-bottled drinks would have higher levels than the plastic drinks.
I don’t think it had higher levels, but it had surprising levels, which is what got people. The other thing is, I heard that it came from the cap.
I saw that. It’s possible. That’s why it’s so tricky. Everything is coated with something. What’s that coating made of? More importantly, is that coating leaching and releasing its chemicals into whatever your thing is? A lot of times, it’s so hard to answer that question without measuring something. Even the manufacturers who say that they’re being green, they’re taking all the precautions, but then they use a new chemical, for example, and they’re like, “This is safe. It’s a new chemical,” how much have you tested it?
Who has tested it? Is it that there’s no data that says that it’s dangerous? We also have to look out for these false claims about things being green, non-stick, or non-toxic. It’s hard for me to believe that it exists. It might be that they haven’t tested it yet, and that there’s no data yet. That is a dangerous deception that’s happening.
This is why the Wise Traditions lifestyle espouses so many things that are natural, including the fabric of the clothes that we wear and our cookware. We’re looking for what our ancestors used as much as possible. You’ll go crazy looking at every single little label and trying to keep your kid away from plastic. There’s plastic in clothing, too. I’m sure you know.
I know.
There are flame-retardant chemicals. I used to think I was a bad mom because my kids would sleep in my husband’s T-shirts. I didn’t have flame-retardant pajamas, but now I’m glad.
It’s good that you didn’t have flame-retardant pajamas. There are so many things we have to look out for. It can be so overwhelming for people when they start to see the landscape of toxins that are around and then want to implement things, especially when they’ve got young kids. You suddenly have to change certain routines and the way you’re doing things. That’s what I try to help with in my course for parents. You’re right. Focusing on simpler solutions in a lot of cases, like less processed things, because we still don’t always know what’s in something, is usually a good way to reduce a lot of exposure.

Going back to the big picture about this particular bill, we’re going to try to get this show out as quickly as possible because people can act. You can do things on the micro level in your home for your children and all the things we’re talking about, but also, it’s important to raise your voice on this macro level.
It’s so important. We’re at a moment where the piece of legislation that we are watching passed the Appropriations Committee in the House with Section 453 in it, which contains the immunity provision. They’re going on a break for the summer. They have a break until the beginning of September 2025, and then there’s a chance that it could be brought to the House for a vote. That could happen quickly, or it could take a couple of months. We don’t know. It’s important to start contacting your own representative and telling them that you do not support this provision, and that you want it completely removed from the Federal Interior Appropriations Bill.
We sometimes encourage people through Weston A. Price Foundation action alerts, like sending an email. If you just cut and paste, that gets less attention and has less pull with the legislator than if you make a personal call and use your own words about your concerns.
Exactly. It’s so great if you can write your own email from your heart, letting them know that you are genuinely concerned about this as a parent or as a constituent. Make it personal about your life. Why don’t you want this? Why are you close to it? It’s so that they know that they’re hearing directly from their own constituents that this is an important issue that they’re aware of, and they don’t want it. Ultimately, it might be a voting issue for these representatives during the next election.
One Simple Health Hack: The Power Of Clean Water
Speaking of personal, I want to ask you to maybe take off your molecular toxicology hat for a second and answer the question I love to pose at the end of every episode. I want to ask you this. If the reader could do one thing to improve their health, what would you recommend that they do? It could be any simple thing, like a lifestyle hack or a food hack that you would recommend. What’s one thing that might get them started in the right direction?
Focusing on having good water is critically important because we drink so much water every day. If you’re drinking tap water and you’ve never had it tested in your home, you might want to consider doing that and getting a filter for it. If you’re drinking bottled water from plastic containers all the time, then you might want to move away from that because it has a high microplastic exposure. Anything you can do to improve your water so that you know you’re drinking water that doesn’t have toxins in it all the time would be an important first step for people to take.

That’s wonderful. Water is life. On behalf of The Weston A. Price Foundation, thank you so much for this conversation.
Thank you so much. I’m so glad we got to talk.
Me, too.
‐‐‐
Our guest was Dr. Alexandra Muñoz. Visit her website, Toxicology Riverwyn Institute, for more information on her upcoming courses for parents. Here’s a simple reminder to join hands with us. If you are enjoying this show and you love the foundation and its mission of education, research, and activism, become a member. It’s only $30 for the entire year using the Code POD10.
Go to The Weston A. Price Foundation, click on the Become a Member or Why Join button, and join hands with us. After all, you can become a part of the Weston A. Price Foundation family. You’ll get a quarterly journal as a perk along with other things, in addition to the satisfaction of knowing that you’re making a difference for everyone’s health. Thank you so much for tuning in. Stay well, and remember to keep your feet on the ground and your face to the sun.
‐‐‐
The content on this show is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the advice provided by your doctor or other healthcare professional. It is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, healthcare or medical advice.
About Dr. Alexandra Muñoz
Dr. Alexandra Muñoz is a molecular toxicologist with expertise in the molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis. She holds a PhD and MS in Molecular Toxicology and Carcinogenesis from New York University and a BA from Harvard College. She is the author of numerous peer-reviewed papers and has extensive experience working in laboratory settings investigating the impact of toxins on cellular health. Currently, her work bridges science and advocacy, translating complex toxicological research into formats designed to educate legislators and the general public. Dr. Muñoz has provided expert testimony against the pesticide liability shield legislation at the state level and is currently advocating on behalf of the future generation in opposition to the federal provision that has been proposed. Dr. Muñoz also teaches her course, How to Think Like a Toxicologist for Parents, an empowering course designed to help families understand chemical risks in everyday life and make informed decisions to protect their children’s health and development. She strives to make toxicological principles accessible and implementable – so that families, and the future generations, can experience true health and fertility.
Important Links
- Dr. Alexandra Muñoz
- Members of the U.S. Congress
- The Weston A. Price Foundation (and use code pod10)
- The Damaging (& Insidious) Effects Of Glyphosate And What Bayer Is Doing To Avoid Liability With Kelly Ryerson
- Documenting Hope: The Reversal Of Autism Spectrum Disorder With Beth Lambert
🖨️ Print post
Leave a Reply