Pesticide industry ‘immunity shield’ stripped from US appropriations bill | Pesticides

In a setback for the pesticide industry, Democrats successfully removed a rider from a Congressional appropriations bill that would have helped protect pesticide makers from lawsuits and could have hampered state efforts to warn of pesticide risks.

Chellie Pingree, a Democratic Rep. from Maine and ranking member of the House Appropriations, Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, said Monday that the controversial measure pushed by agrochemical giant Bayer and its industry allies had been removed from the 2026 funding bill.

The decision is final, with Senate Republican leaders agreeing not to revisit the issue, Pingree said.

“I just drew a line in the sand and said this can’t stay in the bill,” Pingree told the Guardian. “Bayer lobbied hard. It was a pretty tough fight.”

The now-deleted language was part of a broader legislative effort that critics say is aimed at limiting litigation against pesticide industry leader Bayer, which sells the widely used Roundup herbicides.

An industry alliance established by Bayer has pushed for state and federal laws that would make it more difficult for consumers to sue over the risks that pesticides pose to human health and has so far successfully pushed for the passage of such laws in Georgia and North Dakota.

The proposed specific language added to the appropriations bill prevented federal funds from being used to “issue or adopt guidance or policies, take regulatory action, or approve any labeling or changes to such labeling,” which is inconsistent with the conclusion of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) human health assessment.

Critics said the language would have prevented states and local governments from warning of pesticide risks, even in the face of new scientific findings about health hazards, if such warnings were inconsistent with outdated EPA assessments. The EPA itself would not be able to update the warnings without finalizing a new assessment, critics said.

And because of the limits on warnings, critics of the addendum said, consumers would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to sue pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn them of health risks if EPA assessments did not support such warnings.

“This provision would have given pesticide manufacturers exactly what they lobbied for: a federal preemption that prevents state and local governments from restricting the use of harmful cancer-causing chemicals, adding health warnings, or holding companies accountable in court when people are harmed,” Pingree said in a statement. “This would have meant that only the federal government had any say – even though we know that federal reviews can take years and are often subject to intense industry pressure. »

Pingree tried but failed to overturn the language during an Appropriations Committee hearing in July.

Bayer, the main backer of the legislative efforts, has fought for years to end thousands of lawsuits filed by people who claim they developed cancer from their use of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weedkillers sold by Bayer. The company inherited the litigation when it bought Monsanto in 2018 and paid billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts, but still faces several thousand pending lawsuits. Bayer maintains that its glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer and are safe when used as directed.

When asked for comment Monday, Bayer said no company should be given “total immunity” and disputed that the language in the appropriations bill would have prevented anyone from suing pesticide makers. The company said it supports the state and federal legislation “because the future of American agriculture depends on reliable, science-based regulation of important crop protection products – which have been deemed safe for use by the EPA.”

The company further states on its website that without “legislative certainty,” lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup and other weedkillers may impact its product research and development as well as other “significant investments.”

Pingree said his efforts have been aided by members of the Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement who have spent the past several months meeting with members of Congress and their aides on this issue. She said her team had reached out to Maha leaders in recent days to put pressure on Republican lawmakers.

“This is the first time we’ve had a sizable advocacy group working on the Republican side,” she said.

Last week, Zen Honeycutt, Maha leader and founder of the group Moms Across America, issued a “call to action,” urging members to demand elected officials “stop the pesticide immunity shield.”

“A lot of people helped make this happen,” Honeycutt said. “Many health advocates have been vocal in their fervent demand to hold chemical companies accountable for their safety…We are pleased that our elected officials have listened to so many Americans who have spoken out and are restoring trust in the American political system.” »

Pingree said the problem is not dead. Bayer has “made this a high priority” and hopes to see continued efforts to insert industry-friendly language into legislation, including the new Farm Bill.

“I don’t think it’s over,” she said.

This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group