Login
A controversial provision intended to block lawsuits against pesticide makers today was cut from a government funding bill set to be voted on in the next few weeks.
The provision, which evoked a fierce response from consumer advocates and the MAHA movement, was tucked into the U.S. Department of the Interior’s congressional appropriations bill.
Under the proposal, no government funds could be used to create new rules or require stronger warnings than those already approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
That would have meant that labels for pesticides like glyphosate-based Roundup couldn’t be updated to include new warnings — even if new evidence showed risks — unless the EPA conducted a new full review of the chemical under FIFRA, or made a new carcinogenicity classification, a process that takes years.
FIFRA, or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the U.S.
Critics said the language contained in the provision would have stopped states and local governments from warning about the risks of pesticides if those warnings weren’t consistent with outdated EPA assessments.
That would make it nearly impossible to sue pesticide makers for failing to warn them about health risks, because the chemical companies could claim they legally weren’t able to warn consumers of the dangers.
Food safety advocates celebrated the news — but warned the battle isn’t over
“This outcome proves the strength of the bipartisan MAHA movement,” prominent food-safety and regenerative agriculture advocate Elizabeth Kucinich, who has been organizing against the provision, told The Defender.
She added:
“When leaders and activists reach across the aisle and build real power together, they can stop harmful corporate giveaways before they become law.”
“Whether people call it Pro-Life Agriculture or regenerative organic agriculture, the goal is the same: accountability, health, and integrity in our food system. This was an important win, but there are larger battles ahead, especially in the Farm Bill.”
The effort to strip the liability shield brought together lawmakers, organic farmers, public health experts and grassroots organizers from across the political spectrum.
Kucinich said the representatives negotiating the bill made it clear that “the presence of a strong, mobilized coalition” helped force the removal of the provision. She said legislators were aware “there was a powerful wave of activists ready to engage, and able to influence the midterm elections.”
Organic farmer and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) played a key role in building the “left-right coalition that made this possible,” Kucinich said.
Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America, which also worked to quash the provision, told The Defender:
“Our moms and many others have been emailing and calling feverishly since New Year’s Day. Rumors had it that, consequently, representatives saw this section as a ‘poison pill,’ meaning it would kill the chance of the bill passing.
“That’s not all that a pesticide immunity shield would kill — it would kill our soil viability, our water quality and potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans from cancer, chronic disease and miscarriages. We are grateful to the citizens of America and the elected officials who had the courage to speak up.”
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland said the provision “would have de facto granted a liability shield to the pesticide industry for thousands of existing and future products.”
Holland added:
“We know from the pharmaceutical realm, liability shields harm people. They create disincentives for safety. The withdrawal of this provision is a big win for human health, and especially for children.”
However, the win isn’t final, Holland said, because the issue is also under review at the U.S. Supreme Court. CHD has been actively fighting the effort to make chemical companies immune from liability for harm caused by their products.
Bayer looks to U.S. Supreme Court for protection from consumer lawsuits
The U.S. Department of the Interior appropriations subcommittee initially approved the appropriations bill in July with a voice vote, making it unclear which members supported the pesticides provision, Dr. Meryl Nass told The Defender.
Nass said the provision may have been stricken today from the funding bill because congressional members didn’t want to pay the high political cost of voting to grant immunity to pesticide companies.
She said leadership may feel confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Bayer in a possible upcoming Supreme Court case — and if it does, the ruling will provide pesticide makers the same liability shield they sought through the provision in the funding bill.
Bayer is waiting to hear if the Supreme Court will rule on a case the chemical giant lost in a lower court. The case asks the court to find that if the EPA doesn’t require a safety warning on a pesticide label, then states cannot require similar warnings — and consumers then can’t sue pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn them of potential health hazards.
The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to hear the case. The court will decide on Jan. 9 if it will take the case.
Legislative battle continues in state legislatures and in Farm Bill
In 2018, German pharmaceutical giant Bayer acquired Monsanto, producer of the controversial pesticide Roundup, in a $63 billion all-cash deal described at the time as an “important milestone toward the vision of creating a leading agricultural company.”
Since then, a series of lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer led to high-dollar judgments against Bayer. The company began pursuing strategies — like provision 453 — to shield it from future lawsuits and to nullify at least some of the 61,000 active claims against it.
Kucinich warned that similar protections are likely to be added to the Farm Bill, which will be considered this legislative session.
Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, has said protecting pesticide companies from lawsuits is a top priority for the Farm Bill.
Thompson received more than $600,000 in campaign contributions from the crop production and agricultural processing industries, according to Open Secrets.
Bayer is also lobbying state legislatures to pass laws that critics say give agrochemical companies a “liability shield.”
At least 12 and as many as 21 states are proposing industry-drafted bills to grant agrochemical companies immunity from liability for harms from their products if those products are licensed by the EPA, according to Moms Across America.
Modern Ag Alliance, the industry lobbying group behind the laws, did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment on the stricken provision.
Bayer said, “We support state and federal legislation alongside more than 360 agricultural organizations because the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products — determined safe for use by the EPA.”
So far, Georgia and North Dakota have passed liability shield laws that declare the EPA has oversight of pesticide labeling and that state laws can’t hold the companies liable for failing to warn about anything not required by the EPA.
Both proposals stem, in part, from the ongoing battles over glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the country and the key ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup weedkiller.
Extensive scientific research has identified glyphosate as a carcinogen and linked it to many additional health concerns, including autism and decreased birth weight for babies.
In 2018, the World Health Organization determined that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Under President Donald Trump’s first administration, the EPA determined that “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” However, a federal appeals court rejected that determination in June 2022. In September 2022, the EPA withdrew its decision but still maintains that no cancer risk to humans is present. That decision is still under review.
Last month, a landmark paper published in 2000 that claimed to “set the record straight” and establish that glyphosate posed no risk to human health was retracted by the journal that published it after documents uncovered in lawsuits showed that it was written by Monsanto scientists with no disclosure about conflicts of interest.
Related articles in The Defender
- MAHA Must Push Republicans to Prioritize Americans’ Health Over Pesticide Maker Profits
- Just Like Pharma? Bayer Lobbies for Liability Shield After Juries Side With People Harmed by Pesticides
- Booker Launches Bill That Gives Citizens Right to Sue Pesticide Makers as House Pushes Measure to Protect Big Chemical
- 9 States Say No to Laws That Would Protect Pesticide Makers From Lawsuits
- Which States Are Rushing to Pass Laws to Protect Big Chemical From Pesticide Lawsuits?
- Industry-friendly Laws Could Mean More Chemicals in Food Production — and Trouble for the MAHA Agenda
