23
Jul
Senate Approps Cmte Considers House Bill Provision that Strips People of Right to Sue for Pesticide Harm—July 24
(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2025) Attention turns to the U.S. Senate on legislation that (i) shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by those harmed from pesticide product use, (ii) limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides, and (iii) prevents EPA from regulating PFAS—after passage in the House Appropriations Committee on July 22. The Senate Appropriations Committee meets tomorrow, July 24, to vote on language that has not yet been released to the public. Efforts by Democrats failed to strike sections 453, the shield provision, and 507, the PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) language, from the FY26 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill. The same provisions could show up in the Senate Appropriations Bill.
Beyond Pesticides is: Asking U.S. Senators to help stop Appropriations Bill provisions that strip farmers and consumers from suing for pesticide harm, ensuring that language in House Appropriations Bill, Sections 453 and 507, not be included in the Senate bill. *If Senator is on the Appropriations Committee, the letter submitted will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.
The Need for Court Action in the Face of EPA Dismantling
With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, the appropriations bill provision limits court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. The language would in the future prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundup), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of accountability for compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether. Therefore, it slows the critically necessary shift to less- and non-toxic land and building management practices to protect health and the environment. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.
Immunity from lawsuits on chemical companies’ failure to warn about their products’ hazards.
With Bayer/Monsanto leading the charge, the chemical industry has successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and then try to hide behind the law when sued for damages, telling the courts that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff. However, under the legislation before the Appropriations Committee, the only permitted EPA-approved label language must be consistent with a human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification previously approved by EPA—freezing in place EPA’s position on a pesticide for possibly decades, and eliminating the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for damages. [The bill language is found here. Search on Section 453.]
Prohibits EPA from restricting PFAS.
In addition, the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS chemicals. Section 507 of the bill says, “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the draft risk assessment titled ‘Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)’ published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on January 15, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 3859).”
Stay tuned for a vote on the House Floor soon after members return for the current summer recess.
The underlying problem with Section 453 is the vesting of all power in EPA over the label, without exception—prohibiting language (which includes packaging) that is “inconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion” that EPA derives from its health assessments. While not explicit, the language will release companies from liability for their “failure to warn,” allowing them to point to a law that prevents them from seeking label disclosures that go beyond EPA findings. Additionally, it would preclude states like California from requiring a cancer warning label, which it currently does.
Strangely, under this language, EPA itself could not update its label—even when the manufacturer requests a change on a more restrictive label. “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action…” without conducting an entirely new assessment—which takes “no less than four years, and sometimes over 12,” according to EPA. Meanwhile, the courts have historically held that a company can always ask EPA to update the label to reflect risks (like non-Hodgkin lymphoma with Roundup). If the agency chose to act, this statutory language would prevent label changes without a long process—if at all. Therefore, responsibility for misbranding would fall to EPA, which would shield chemical companies from paying out damage claims—a goal of the pesticides industry since its failed attempts at Supreme Court review to reverse jury verdicts in the Bayer/Monsanto cases and earlier in Dow v. Bates, a case where farmers sued the company for crop damage associated with the use of their product.
Although future interpretations of the language are unclear, the law is clear now, so opening the door to new interpretations with new language threatens the rights of victims.
__________
Here are the facts:
**This is not about one product—it is about the future of 16,000 chemicals.
From household weed killers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by EPA.
**The EPA does not independently test these products — it relies on their manufacturers.
Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data—as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.
**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules.
It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible.
**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants.
ChemChina—a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity—owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S., some of them banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?
**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval.
If this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. It could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage.
That is the danger here: once pesticide companies know they cannot be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it is U.S. farmers and families who will pay the price.
Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).
_____________
U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee
⬇️ Please see the members of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee listed below with their website link if you would also like to call!
Republican members:
-
Senator Susan Collins (Republican – Maine) Official Website » Chair; Majority
-
Senator Mitch McConnell (Republican – Kentucky) Official Website »
-
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican – Alaska) Official Website »
-
Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican – South Carolina) Official Website »
-
Senator Jerry Moran (Republican – Kansas) Official Website »
-
Senator John Hoeven (Republican – North Dakota) Official Website »
-
Senator John Boozman (Republican – Arkansas) Official Website »
-
Senator Shelley Moore Capito (Republican – West Virginia) Official Website »
-
Senator John Kennedy (Republican – Louisiana) Official Website »
-
Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (Republican – Mississippi) Official Website »
-
Senator Bill Hagerty (Republican – Tennessee) Official Website »
-
Senator Katie Britt (Republican – Alabama) Official Website »
-
Senator Markwayne Mullin (Republican – Oklahoma) Official Website »
-
Senator Deb Fischer (Republican – Nebraska) Official Website »
-
Senator Mike Rounds (Republican – South Dakota) Official Website »
Democratic members:
-
Senator Patty Murray (Democrat – Washington) Official Website » Vice Chair; Minority
-
Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat – Illinois) Official Website »
-
Senator Jack Reed (Democrat – Rhode Island) Official Website »
-
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (Democrat – New Hampshire) Official Website »
-
Senator Jeff Merkley (Democrat – Oregon) Official Website »
-
Senator Christopher Coons (Democrat – Delaware) Official Website »
-
Senator Brian Schatz (Democrat – Hawaii) Official Website »
-
Senator Tammy Baldwin (Democrat – Wisconsin) Official Website »
-
Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat – Connecticut) Official Website »
-
Senator Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Democrat – Maryland) Official Website »
-
Senator Martin Heinrich (Democrat – New Mexico) Official Website »
-
Senator Gary Peters (Democrat – Michigan) Official Website »
-
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Democrat – New York) Official Website »
-
Senator Jon Ossoff (Democrat – Georgia) Official Website »
Letter to U.S. Senators not on the Appropriations Committee:
Please voice your opposition to any language in the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill that (i) shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed from pesticide product use, (ii) limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides, and (iii) prevents EPA from regulating PFAS (“forever chemicals”). The Senate Appropriations Committee meets tomorrow, July 24, to vote on language that has not yet been released to the public at 9:30 AM ET.
It is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace to seek compensatory and punitive damages. This has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. Language in the House Appropriations Bill, Section 453, would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity, and Section 507 would restrict EPA from issuing protections from PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These sections should not be included in the Senate Appropriations Bill.
Here are the facts:
**This is not about one product—it is about the future of 16,000 chemicals. From household weed killers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by EPA.
**The EPA does not independently test these products — it relies on their manufacturers. Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data—as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.
**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules. It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible.
**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants. ChemChina—a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity—owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S., some of them banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?
**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval. If this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. It could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage.
That is the danger here: once pesticide companies know they cannot be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it is U.S. farmers and families who will pay the price.
Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).
Please insist that sections 453 and 507 in the House Appropriations Bill not be included in the Senate bill.
Thank you!
Letter to U.S. Senators on the Appropriations Committee:
Please voice your opposition to any language in the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill that (i) shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed from pesticide product use, (ii) limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides, and (iii) prevents EPA from regulating PFAS (“forever chemicals”). As you are probably aware, the Senate Appropriations Committee meets tomorrow, July 24, to vote on language that has not yet been released to the public at 9:30 AM ET.
It is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace to seek compensatory and punitive damages. This has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. Language in the House Appropriations Bill, Section 453, would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity, and Section 507 would restrict EPA from issuing protections from PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These sections should not be included in the Senate Appropriations Bill.
Here are the facts:
**This is not about one product—it is about the future of 16,000 chemicals. From household weed killers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by EPA.
**The EPA does not independently test these products — it relies on their manufacturers. Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry-submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data—as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.
**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules. It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible.
**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants. ChemChina—a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity—owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA-regulated pesticides in the U.S., some of them banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?
**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval. If this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. It could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage.
That is the danger here: once pesticide companies know they cannot be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it is U.S. farmers and families who will pay the price.
Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, please insist that sections 453 and 507 in the House Appropriations Bill not be included in the Senate bill.
Thank you!
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
