05
May
Groups Ask States To Reject Immunity from Lawsuits when Chemical Companies Fail to Warn of Product Hazards
(Beyond Pesticides, May 5, 2025) With North Dakota on April 24 being the first state to enact chemical industry legislation that blocks poisoning victims from suing manufacturers for their failure to warn about their products’ hazards, a national fight over accountability and compensation has escalated. Legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products is being pushed through state legislatures. Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center. The litigation is also an important check on the chemical industry in a national climate of deregulation and the Trump Administration’s dismantling of environmental and public health programs. “Failure-to-warn” is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff’s injury,” says Ms. Rollins.
[See below for action steps advocated by Beyond Pesticides and local state-based organizations.]
Attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims are taking place in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by Roundup(TM) glyphosate and the company’s failure to have its case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts. The latest numbers indicate that Bayer-Monsanto alone has had to settle $11 billion for glyphosate use and exposure, prompting the industry to attack the right of those harmed to sue for the company’s failure to warn them about the product’s hazards.
Pesticide exposure contributes to heightened risk of severe health conditions, including, but not limited to, various cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, immunological disorders, and obesity.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,777,566 new cancer cases were reported in 2021 (the latest year of available incidence data). Not all cancer cases are directly related to pesticides; however, the National Cancer Institute notes, “[a]pproximately 40.5% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes (based on 2017–2019 data).” Given that up to 93% of cancer diagnoses can be attributed to non-hereditary, environmental factors (National Institutes of Health), we must raise the question of the long-term viability of pesticide dependence given the availability of organic land management and safer structural practices. A 2022 study commissioned by the Parkinson’s Foundation found there was a 50% increase in expected annual diagnoses for Parkinson’s Disease, with 90,000 new individuals diagnosed each year. Data from the CDC-led National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2021-2023) indicates that approximately four in ten Americans are obese.
Amidst the corresponding surges in chronic illnesses and severe health diagnoses of the past decades, alongside the unprecedented increases in pesticide use around the nation, the long-term viability of pesticide dependence must be questioned.
State legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers who fail to warn users about the hazards of their pesticide products is moving forward in the state legislatures of Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina, having just been passed in North Dakota. After six bills failed to pass in Idaho, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee, and Wyoming, one bill is awaiting signature into law by the Governor’s Office (Georgia). Meanwhile, Beyond Pesticides, working with a broad coalition, is pushing back.
If adopted, the legislation would set a dangerous precedent granting “immunity from litigation” for state common law claims against any manufacturers of products with toxic ingredients. Currently, pesticide labels under federal and state law generally warn of acute effects, such as rashes, headaches, stinging eyes, but do not warn of potential chronic effects, including cancer, reproductive effects, infertility, birth defects, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and cardiovascular damage. See the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.
After years of large jury awards, preemptive settlements, and lost appeals in cases involving exposure to the weedkiller glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto is trying to stop the company’s financial hemorrhaging with a state-by-state strategy to deny victims access to the courts. To accomplish this, Bayer has founded, along with agribusiness groups including State Farm Bureaus, a coalition to stop “failure-to-warn” lawsuits with state legislation. Bayer’s coalition, Modern Ag Alliance, says it is fighting what they describe as “scientifically unsound lawsuits” on the weedkiller glyphosate. The alliance says, “If we don’t act, the future of glyphosate and other valuable crop protection tools and critical innovations may be at stake.” As has been reported widely, Bayer/Monsanto has lost numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits because of its “failure to warn” of its product’s hazards to those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal. With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away the people’s (including farmers’) ability to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products.
Despite decades of lobbying by the agrichemical industry to ensure an extremely weak and unprotective federal pesticide registration law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the industry argues that federal law should preempt people’s right to sue and communities’ right to restrict pesticides more stringently than the ineffective federal and state laws that the industry has a hand in writing. So far, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bates et al. v Dow Agrosciences (544 U.S. 431, 2005) has found that citizens damaged by pesticides have the right to sue producers of toxic products, saying that federal pesticide law does not offer adequate protection from “manufacturers of poisonous substances.” Importantly, “failure-to-warn” claims serve as the de facto legal backstop to hold pesticide companies accountable, given the limitations of the federal and state regulatory systems. Litigation not only holds chemical manufacturers accountable but also incentivizes more responsible corporate behavior across the board, resulting in safer products.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld the right of communities to restrict pesticides more stringently than the federal government in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier (501 U.S. 597, 1991), but that victory for local democratic process to protect residents’ and ecosystems’ health has been thwarted by laws in at least 44 states that preempt the authority of their local municipalities. The question now is whether the chemical industry playbook will yield a similar result and preempt people’s right to sue in cases of “failure-to-warn.”
In the U.S. Congress, pesticide immunity language has been included in previous Farm Bill language and the Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriations bill (see Daily News here), as well as in ongoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking, advanced by 11 Republican Attorneys General. Although the public hearing comment period ended on March 24, see the Action of the Week here for more background. So, the industry campaign is aggressively playing out at the state and federal levels.
Public opinion does not support the chemical industry. Accountable Iowa conducted a survey of 875 Iowa voters in the 2024 election cycle on their views on the pesticide immunity bill, and the results do not support the industry’s position. Across all surveyed voters, regardless of political affiliation or demographic makeup, the public overwhelmingly distrusts chemical corporations and opposes giving them legal shields from lawsuits. This opposition is built upon shared concerns about the corrupt entanglements and history of EPA and Bayer/Monsanto. Voters also shared a preference to hold chemical companies accountable for causing serious health issues. In quantitative terms, 89% of Iowans, including 87% of registered Republican respondents, oppose giving chemical companies like Bayer-Monsanto immunity from lawsuits. 94% of those surveyed agreed that it is very concerning that the EPA relies on industry-funded data to carry out safety studies.
Beyond Pesticides, in collaboration with local state-based organizations, is urging the following action:
Tell your state legislators not to allow chemical companies to exempt themselves from responsibility.
If you are a resident of the following states, follow these links to take urgent action! State bills to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers who fail to warn users about the hazards of their pesticide products are moving forward in Florida, Georgia (a bill is pending the Governor’s signature after passing the legislature), Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina. If you are a resident of any other state, including North Dakota, click here or link below (>>) to take action!
If you are a resident of any other state, including North Dakota, please move to the Action form!
- If you are not a resident of the above states or North Dakota, the form below will allow you to send your state legislators a message opposing “failure-to-warn” legislation.
- If you live in North Dakota, the form below will allow you to express your disappointment to your state legislators (and the governor!) and ask them to rescind the legislation.
Letter to state legislators and the governor of states without active “failure-to-warn” legislation:
Legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their failure to warn about the hazards of their pesticide products is being pushed through state legislatures. Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade. “Failure-to-warn” is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using the product has been the basis for almost all pesticide injury lawsuits.
Attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims are taking place in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by RoundupTM glyphosate and the company’s failure to have its case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts. The latest numbers indicate that Bayer-Monsanto alone has had to settle $11 billion for glyphosate use and exposure, prompting the industry to attack the right of those harmed to sue for the company’s failure to warn them about the product’s hazards.
After years of large jury awards, preemptive settlements, and lost appeals in cases involving exposure to the weedkiller glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto is trying to stop the company’s financial hemorrhaging with a state-by-state strategy to deny victims access to the courts. To accomplish this, Bayer has created a coalition to stop “failure-to-warn” lawsuits with state legislation. Bayer’s coalition, Modern Ag Alliance, says it is fighting what they describe as “scientifically unsound lawsuits” on the weedkiller glyphosate. The alliance says, “If we don’t act, the future of glyphosate and other valuable crop protection tools and critical innovations may be at stake.” As has been reported widely, Bayer/Monsanto has lost numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits because of its “failure to warn” of its product’s hazard by those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal. With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away the ability of people (including farmers) to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products.
Pesticide exposure contributes to heightened risk of severe health conditions, including but not limited to, various cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, immunological disorders, and obesity, none of which are mentioned on pesticide labels. When pesticide manufacturers hold back information about severe harms, they must be held accountable.
Please reject efforts of the pesticide industry to deny people the right to compensation.
Thank you.
Letter to North Dakota state legislators and governor:
I was very disappointed to learn of the passage and signing of HB 1318, “A BILL for an Act to create and enact as new section to chapter 28-01.3 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to pesticide labeling,” that shields pesticide manufacturers from being sued by people who have been harmed by their products.
Legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their failure to warn about the hazards of their pesticide products is being pushed through state legislatures. Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade. “Failure-to-warn” is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using the product has been the basis for almost all pesticide injury lawsuits.
Attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims are taking place in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by Roundup(TM) glyphosate and the company’s failure to have its case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts. The latest numbers indicate that Bayer-Monsanto alone has had to settle $11 billion for glyphosate use and exposure, prompting the industry to attack the right of those harmed to sue for the company’s failure to warn them about the product’s hazards.
After years of large jury awards, preemptive settlements, and lost appeals in cases involving exposure to the weedkiller glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto is trying to stop the company’s financial hemorrhaging with a state-by-state strategy to deny victims access to the courts. To accomplish this, Bayer has created a coalition to stop “failure-to-warn” lawsuits with state legislation. Bayer’s coalition, Modern Ag Alliance, says it is fighting what they describe as “scientifically unsound lawsuits” on the weedkiller glyphosate. The alliance says, “If we don’t act, the future of glyphosate and other valuable crop protection tools and critical innovations may be at stake.” As has been reported widely, Bayer/Monsanto has lost numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits because of its “failure to warn” of its product’s hazard by those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal. With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away the ability of people (including farmers) to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products.
Pesticide exposure contributes to heightened risk of severe health conditions, including but not limited to, various cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, immunological disorders, and obesity, none of which are mentioned on pesticide labels. When pesticide manufacturers hold back information about severe harms, they must be held accountable.
Please reject efforts of the pesticide industry to deny people the right to compensation. Reverse this legislation in the coming session.
Thank you.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
