21
Jul
Congress Asked To Stop Provision in Approps Bill Blocking Pesticide Lawsuits on Farmer and Consumer Harm
(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2025) Beyond Pesticides is asking every member of the U.S. Representatives to voice their opposition in advance of a vote as early as Tuesday, July 22 on a provision before the House Appropriations Committee—in the Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill—that shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by those harmed from pesticide product use and limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides. This is a fight to protect farmers’ and consumers’ right to sue pesticide manufacturers for misbranding products and their failure to warn product users. The language before the Committee is in Section 453 of the bill passed last week by the subcommittee on a straight party-line vote, with Republicans supporting the bill language. Beyond Pesticides is also asking Congress members to remove section 507, which prohibits EPA action on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), including fluorinated pesticides.
Update from July 21, 2025, at 4 PM: ⏰ Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1) is moving forward with amendments to strike sections 453 and 507 of the FY26 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill, which is a provision that provides immunity for pesticide manufacturers from farmer and consumer lawsuits seeking compensation from product harm.
Creates immunity from lawsuits on chemical companies’ failure to warn about their products’ hazards.
Pushed by Bayer/Monsanto and the chemical industry, the bill provides total pesticide immunity from lawsuits that challenge chemical manufacturers who withhold information on the harm that their products can cause. Chemical companies have successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law 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. Meanwhile, under current law, juries have found that Bayer/Monsanto, in the case of glyphosate (Roundup), 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. This language would in the future prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundup), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The provision would also prevent states from requiring label warnings and standards more stringent than the federal government. [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).”
Act now: Full Committee Markup—when the committee can make changes to the bill, including removing provisions of the bill—could happen as early as Tuesday, July 22).
Beyond Pesticides is asking the public to: Ask their member of the U.S. House of Representatives for help in stopping this dangerous legislation by urging them to contact members of the committee. Ask that the language in Sections 453 and 507 be removed from the bill. *If your elected representative is on the Appropriations Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.
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, 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. The language also 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.
Ask your member of the U.S. House of Representatives for help in stopping this dangerous legislation by urging them to contact members of the Appropriations Committee. Ask that the language in Sections 453 and 507 be removed from the bill. *If your elected representative is on the Appropriations Committee, the letter you submit will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.
Letter to Congress
Please voice your opposition in advance of a vote as early as Tuesday, July 22 to a provision before the House Appropriations Committee in the Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill—which strips farmers and consumers of the right to sue chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and blocking states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA approved language. This is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace and has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. This federal legislation would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity—not only for the weed killer Roundup (glyphosate), but for over 16,000 pesticide products regulated by the EPA. In addition, please seek to remove section 507, which prohibits EPA action on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), including fluorinated pesticides.
Here are the facts:
**This isn’t about one product—it’s 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 doesn’t 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’s the danger here: once pesticide companies know they can’t be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it’s US farmers and families who will pay the price.
In addition, Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”).
Please help to remove sections 453 and 507 from the appropriations bill.
Thank you.
__________________
Please see the members of the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee listed below with phone numbers if you would also like to call! Members of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee are marked with an asterisk [*]; Rep. Tom Cole and Rep. Rosa DeLauro are ex-officio members.
|
Full Name |
Party |
Phone Number |
|
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL-4) |
Republican |
(202) 225-4876 |
|
Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO-4) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2876 |
|
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV-2) |
Republican |
(202) 225-6155 |
|
Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-OK-5) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2132 |
|
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA-41) |
Republican |
(202) 225-1986 |
|
Rep. John Carter (R-TX-31) |
Republican |
(202) 225-3864 |
|
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-6) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2542 |
|
Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA-6) |
Republican |
(202) 225-5431 |
|
*Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX-27) |
Republican |
(202) 225-7742 |
|
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA-9) |
Republican |
(202) 225-9893 |
|
*Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK-4) |
Republican |
(202) 225-6165 |
|
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL-26) |
Republican |
(202) 225-4211 |
|
Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC-11) |
Republican |
(202) 225-6401 |
|
*Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX-6) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2002 |
|
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN-3) |
Republican |
(202) 225-3271 |
|
Rep. Scott Franklin (R-FL-18) |
Republican |
(202) 225-1252 |
|
Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX-23) |
Republican |
(202) 225-4511 |
|
Rep. Michael Guest (R-MS-3) |
Republican |
(202) 225-5031 |
|
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD-1) |
Republican |
(202) 225-5311 |
|
Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA-2) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2911 |
|
Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH-14) |
Republican |
(202) 225-5731 |
|
Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY-1) |
Republican |
(202) 225-3826 |
|
Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA-5) |
Republican |
(202) 225-8490 |
|
*Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT-2) |
Republican |
(202) 225-9730 |
|
Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI-2) |
Republican |
(202) 225-3561 |
|
Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV-2) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2711 |
|
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA-4) |
Republican |
(202) 225-5816 |
|
*Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA-14) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2065 |
|
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-5) |
Republican |
(202) 225-4601 |
|
Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL-5) |
Republican |
(202) 225-2501 |
|
*Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID-2) |
Republican |
(202) 225-5531 |
|
Rep. Dale Strong (R-AL-5) |
Republican |
(202) 225-4801 |
|
Rep. David Valadao (R-CA-22) |
Republican |
(202) 225-4695 |
|
Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR-3) |
Republican |
(202) 225-4301 |
|
*Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT-1) |
Republican |
(202) 225-5628 |
|
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA-33) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3201 |
|
Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D-GA-2) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3631 |
|
Rep. Ed Case (D-HI-1) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-2726 |
|
*Rep. James “Jim” Clyburn (D-SC-6) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3315 |
|
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ-12) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-5801 |
|
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-1640 |
|
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA-4) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-4731 |
|
*Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3661 |
|
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX-16) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-4831 |
|
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY-13) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-4365 |
|
Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL-22) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-9890 |
|
*Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA-9) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-4540 |
|
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD-5) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-4131 |
|
Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD-4) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-8699 |
|
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-4146 |
|
Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV-3) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3252 |
|
Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA-49) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3906 |
|
Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY-6) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-2601 |
|
*Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN-4) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-6631 |
|
Rep. Joseph D. Morelle (D-NY-25) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3615 |
|
Rep. Frank J. Mrvan (D-IN-1) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-2461 |
|
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA-3) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-3536 |
|
*Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-6116 |
|
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI-2) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-2906 |
|
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-25) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-7931 |
|
Rep. Norma J. Torres (D-CA-35) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-6161 |
|
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL-5) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-4061 |
|
Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL-14) |
Democrat |
(202) 225-2976 |
For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Failure-to-Warn and Pesticide Immunity Bills resource hub!
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
