{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://pingree.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=6786", "Pingree, Huffman Demand Answers from Forest Service on Glyphosate Spraying in National Forests", "2026-06-09", "2026", "2026-06", "Democrat", "House", "ME", "Chellie Pingree", "P000597", "pingree.house.gov", "pingree", "https://pingree.house.gov/media-center/press-releases", "scraper", "Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and Congressman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) are demanding answers from the U.S. Forest Service about its current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands.\n\nTheir letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz follows a yearlong Mother Jones investigation that raised serious questions about the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, on public and private forestlands, particularly in areas recovering from wildfire in California. The reporting detailed plans for large-scale spraying in national forests, including areas near trails, campgrounds, waterways, and communities, while also highlighting concerns about the scientific basis and oversight behind the agency\u2019s continued use of the chemical.\n\n\u201cGiven the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use,\u201d Pingree and Huffman wrote.\n\nIn the letter, Pingree and Huffman request information on how frequently glyphosate is used on Forest Service land, what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs, which forests are treated, and how current acreage compares to five and ten years ago.\n\nThe lawmakers also ask whether the Forest Service has assessed glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and around treated areas; evaluated potential human health harms; established a publicly accessible database of herbicide use; and coordinated with state, tribal, local, and water officials before application.\n\nThe letter further presses the agency on worker safety and exposure risks, including protections for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, contractors, and others who may enter treated areas. Pingree and Huffman also ask whether there have been reported worker illnesses, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints tied to glyphosate applications.\n\nFinally, the lawmakers request details on whether the Forest Service has explored or piloted nonchemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications, what those findings showed, and what barriers may be limiting broader adoption.\n\nThe full letter is available here and is copied below.\n\nThe Mother Jones investigation found that the Forest Service is moving forward with major glyphosate spraying projects in California, including in post-fire recovery areas. It also highlighted that the Forest Service continues to rely on a 2011 risk assessment that cited a now-retracted study on glyphosate safety, which the journal withdrew after determining the named authors were not solely responsible for the paper and that it relied entirely on Monsanto data.\n\nDuring a House Agriculture Committee hearing on Thursday, Pingree raised this issue with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.\n\nThe inquiry comes as the Trump Administration has moved to bolster domestic glyphosate production and as Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, continues to seek legal protections from lawsuits brought by people alleging glyphosate exposure caused serious illness. Pingree and Congressman Thomas Massie have introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, legislation to block federal funds from being used to implement President Trump\u2019s executive order supporting glyphosate production and to affirm that glyphosate manufacturers are not immune from civil liability.\n\nIn April, Pingree successfully helped remove dangerous, industry-written language from the Farm Bill that would have pre-empted state rights to regulate pesticide usage or labeling and provide a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers.\n\n+++\n\nDear Chief Schultz,\n\nWe are writing to request information regarding the U.S. Forest Service\u2019s current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands. Recent reporting has raised questions about the scale, frequency, and oversight of glyphosate application on Forest Service land, as well as the scientific basis for its continued use on forest land. Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use.\n\nPlease provide the following information:\n\n1. Current Usage:\n\nHow frequently are glyphosate applications conducted on Forest Service land, and what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs?\n\nIs glyphosate used after seedlings are manually seeded or replanted or as a substitute for manual reforestation?\n\nIn post-fire applications, is glyphosate usage limited to areas where natural regeneration is likely, such as in low or moderate burn severity regions?\n\nIn post-fire applications of glyphosate, has the Forest Service analyzed the erosion impacts of glyphosate use and the corresponding reduction in soil stability?\n\nIn which forests is glyphosate used, and for what purpose?\n\nWhat is the current acreage treated annually with glyphosate on Forest Service lands, and how does that compare to five and ten years ago?\n\n2. Monitoring, Reporting, and Public Transparency\n\nHas the Forest Service conducted or commissioned assessments of glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and surrounding treated areas?\n\nHas the Forest Service evaluated potential human health harms associated with the use of glyphosate?\n\nDoes the Forest Service maintain a publicly accessible database of herbicide use, including quantities, locations, and application methods? If not, will the Forest Service establish such a database?\n\nWhat coordination occurs with state health and environmental departments, tribal governments, local governments, and water districts before glyphosate application?\n\n3. Public Health and Environmental Risk Evaluation and Worker Safety\n\nWhat steps does the agency take to protect workers, campgrounds or other public facilities, nearby communities, and sensitive ecosystems during and after herbicide application?\n\nWhat protections are in place for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, and others who may need to enter treated areas?\n\nHave there been any reported worker illness incidents, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints associated with glyphosate applications?\n\n4. Consideration of Alternatives\n\nHas the Forest Service explored or piloted non-chemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications? If so, what were the findings, and what barriers\u2014financial, operational, or regulatory\u2014limit broader adoption of these alternatives?\n\nGiven the public\u2019s deep interest in the stewardship of our federally forested land, clear information on these questions would help build trust and ensure that management decisions reflect the best available science.\n\nThank you for your attention to this inquiry. We look forward to better understanding how the Forest Service is evaluating glyphosate use and considering safer or more sustainable approaches to forest management.\n\nSincerely,\n\n###", 1, "2026-06-10T06:36:00Z", "2026-06-10T06:37:32Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://pingree.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=6786"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.05722201988101, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}