23
Mar
Bipartisan Bill Challenges Trump Giving Bayer/Monsanto Liability Immunity for Glyphosate Harm
(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2026) After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill.
With the EO’s declaration that contains no supporting documentation or findings, the U.S. government is granting Bayer/Monsanto immunity from lawsuits for adverse health effects or damage associated with the production, transportation, use, and disposal of the weed killer glyphosate.
The executive order proclaims: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity. Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”
This proclamation was issued despite the availability of alternative, productive and profitable, practices and products that are not dependent on the weed killer glyphosate. Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector have proven that the unsupported EO statement is false. However, the EO comes at the same time that Bayer/Monsanto is pushing to secure immunity from liability tied to its failure to warn glyphosate users of the potential for exposure to cause cancer and undercut litigation that has so far resulted in over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements. Bayer is also seeking immunity from verdicts through a provision in the Farm Bill that has passed the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, state legislation, and a pending Supreme Court case that is attempting to overturn current liability law. Glyphosate exposure has been tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects.
Nothing in the President’s Executive Order appears to meet the intent of the Defense Production Act and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .”
Meanwhile, in an analysis of public records, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit newsroom and public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers. Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” The conclusions of this study emerge as fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are mobilizing to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.
The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are detected in air, water, soil, and food, which results in multiple pathways for exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient (the ingredient in a pesticide formulation that the manufacturer claims is included to target the labeled pest), and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically to be glyphosate-tolerant.
But glyphosate is not the whole story. The executive order also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphates that are fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has numerous environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters, evicting wildlife from their natural habitats, and producing hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary for plant nutrients and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life.
The campaign to “Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor HR 7601, the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” moves forward.
Letter to U.S. Representative:
Showing a lack of concern for the effects of residues of the weed killer glyphosate, classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, routinely found in food products, President Trump’s February 18, 2026 Executive Order “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” (EO) grants immunity from lawsuits for glyphosate and phosphorus producers. In response, Representatives Thomas Massey (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) have introduced the bipartisan No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the EO.
Nothing in the EO meets the intent of the statute. Without any support, the EO states: “Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would criticall y jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity …[and] result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector are proof that this statement is unsupported.
Jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure have told the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto to pay over $10 billion to plaintiffs harmed by glyphosate. Tens of thousands of cases are still pending, and robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.
Researchers have found that the rollout of genetically engineered (GM) corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years,” suggesting “the introduction of GM seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are trying to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.
Ubiquitous glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms come from widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite are detected in air, water, soil, and food, resulting in multiple pathways of exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans.
But glyphosate is not the whole story. The EO also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphate fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has many environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters and produces hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary to support healthy plants and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life.
The success of organic farming shows this attempt to bolster chemical-intensive farming to be unnecessary ad unsustainable. Please cosponsor the No Immunity from Glyphosate Act.
Thank you.
Letter to U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) [Sponsors]:
Showing a lack of concern for the effects of residues of the weed killer glyphosate, classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, routinely found in food products, President Trump’s February 18, 2026 Executive Order “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” (EO) grants immunity from lawsuits for glyphosate and phosphorus producers. Thank you for introducing the bipartisan No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the EO!
Nothing in the EO meets the intent of the statute. Without any support, the EO states: “Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity …[and] result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector are proof that this statement is unsupported.
Jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure have told the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto to pay over $10 billion to plaintiffs harmed by glyphosate. Tens of thousands of cases are still pending, and robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.
Researchers have found that the rollout of genetically engineered (GM) corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years,” suggesting “the introduction of GM seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are trying to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.
Ubiquitous glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms come from widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite are detected in air, water, soil, and food, resulting in multiple pathways of exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans.
But, as you know, glyphosate is not the whole story. The EO also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphate fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has many environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters and produces hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary to support healthy plants and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life.
The success of organic farming shows this attempt to bolster chemical-intensive farming to be unnecessary and unsustainable. Again, appreciate your leadership on this issue!
