06
Jul
Mobilization Begun To Mandate Health Warning Labels on Pesticides, Reversing Supreme Court Ruling
(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2026) In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June preventing lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers for their failure to display a cancer (and other chronic effects) warning on their products, two members of Congress moved quickly last week with a bill to reverse the decision. U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the People Over Poison Act. The legislation, H.R. 9528, is intended to restore the right of consumers to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn about the full range of potential harm associated with their products. Beyond Pesticides has joined with other environmental, health, farm, and farmworker groups to mobilize a nationwide effort to educate on the legislation, which may be subject to clarifying amendments. The mobilization is asking Congressional Representatives to cosponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act.
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. “In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.
The ability to sue pesticide manufacturers for their failure to warn product users of the potential risks associated with their products has been identified by former EPA officials as an important right to protection. Beyond Pesticides has called the warning especially important with staff cutbacks and an overall reported reduction in science-driven safety standards at EPA.
A June 2025 Declaration of Dissent sent from EPA employees to the EPA administrator said, “EPA employees join in solidarity with employees across the federal government in opposing this administration’s policies, including those that undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment. Since the Agency’s founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished this mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise.
Since January 2025, federal workers across the country have been denigrated and dismissed based on false claims of waste, fraud, and abuse. Meanwhile, Americans have witnessed the unraveling of public health and environmental protections in the pursuit of political advantage.” Within days, it was reported that EPA fired or had taken disciplinary action against the 270 signatories to the letter.
Last week, on June 30, 2026, 22 Democratic Senators, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), sent a letter to the EPA administrator, stating: “In light of recent evidence showing a violation of constitutional and whistleblower rights, we demand that you reverse the firings and disciplinary actions imposed on employees for signing a “Declaration of Dissent” in defense of scientific integrity, whistleblower rights, and constitutional protections.”
The current weakened state of EPA—on top of what numerous reports have cited as inadequate pesticide regulatory review under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—makes the loss of a judicial remedy for forcing an honest disclosure of hazards especially troubling for safety advocates.
In an amicus brief submitted in Monsanto v. Durnell by former EPA officials, they wrote, “Under FIFRA and EPA’s procedures, mere one-time acceptance of labeling confers no defense to liability for misbranding. To avoid such liability, the manufacturer must keep both EPA and the product labeling up to date with necessary safety information. . . Pesticides registered by EPA may carry risks that are not adequately addressed by the registration of the EPA-accepted labeling.” With this, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson and Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the EPA approved label, which the majority refers to as “prima facie evidence” of safety is not “conclusive evidence” of safety.
In the case, Monsanto (bought by Bayer), the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, sold as RoundupTM, claimed immunity from litigation by a cancer patient, John Durnell, with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who was awarded $1.25 million in 2023 because the product label information provided no warning. Mr. Durnell helped manage his local park in St. Louis. For about 20 years he used the weed killer RoundupTM (glyphosate). The decision nullifies billions of dollars in jury verdicts against Monsanto that are still in the appeals process.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision shields manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticides’ adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. The court establishes liability immunity under federal pesticide law, finding that FIFRA “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.”
State tort law has served as a critical backstop when federal regulators fail to fully protect the public from dangerous products. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to upend that balance by removing the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through state failure-to-warn claims.
The implications extend far beyond RoundupTM and glyphosate. The ruling will affect future claims involving other pesticides and chemical products, including cases where farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and consumers allege they were not adequately warned about serious health risks.
As stated by Rep. Pingree in introducing the bill, “The Supreme Court just handed Big Chemical the legal immunity its lobbyists and millions of dollars couldn’t buy in Congress. Federal pesticide law was never supposed to be a liability waiver for corporations, and not a permission slip to hide behind insufficient labels while people get sick. For all the Trump Administration’s talk about ‘Making America Healthy Again,’ it keeps siding with chemical companies in court, dragging its feet on long-overdue safety reviews, and even boosting glyphosate production. Enough with the empty slogans and broken promises. If this Administration won’t put people’s health over corporate profits, Congress must. The right to seek justice in court is one of our most foundational freedoms, ensuring that every American has a fair chance to be heard and hold powerful interests accountable.”
Mobilization action: Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act.
Letter to supporters of Luna amendment to Farm Bill stripping out manufacturer protection from liability
In view of your vote to remove sections 10205-10207 of the Farm Bill (Luna amendment), I am requesting that you co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act, introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY)—legislation intended to restore the right of Americans to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell says that current federal law bars those harmed by pesticides from suing manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits.
The Court’s decision allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. The decision nullifies billions of dollars in jury verdicts against Monsanto that are still under appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision shields manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticides’ adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses—including thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their Roundup product label. The court establishes liability immunity under federal pesticide law, finding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.”
The People Over Poison Act is intended to reverse the Monsanto v. Durnell ruling by explicitly stating that FIFRA does not block or limit state tort claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging—preserving the right of people harmed by pesticides to seek accountability in court.
State tort law has served as a critical backstop when federal regulators fail to fully protect the public from dangerous products. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to upend that balance by removing the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through state failure-to-warn claims.
The implications extend far beyond Roundup and glyphosate. The ruling could affect future claims involving other pesticides and chemical products, including cases where farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and consumers allege they were not adequately warned about serious health risks.
As stated by Rep. Pingree in introducing the bill, “The Supreme Court just handed Big Chemical the legal immunity its lobbyists and millions of dollars couldn’t buy in Congress. Federal pesticide law was never supposed to be a liability waiver for corporations, and not a permission slip to hide behind insufficient labels while people get sick. . . The right to seek justice in court is one of our most foundational freedoms, ensuring that every American has a fair chance to be heard and hold powerful interests accountable.”
Please co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act.
Thank you.
Letter to all other Congressional Representatives
The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell says that current federal law bars those harmed by pesticides from suing manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits. I am requesting that you co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act, t, introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY)—legislation intended to restore the right of Americans to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products.
The Court’s decision allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. The decision nullifies billions of dollars in jury verdicts against Monsanto that are still under appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision shields manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticides’ adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses—including thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their Roundup product label. The court establishes liability immunity under federal pesticide law, finding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.”
The People Over Poison Act is intended to reverse the Monsanto v. Durnell ruling by explicitly stating that FIFRA does not block or limit state tort claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging—preserving the right of people harmed by pesticides to seek accountability in court.
State tort law has served as a critical backstop when federal regulators fail to fully protect the public from dangerous products. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to upend that balance by removing the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through state failure-to-warn claims.
The implications extend far beyond Roundup and glyphosate. The ruling could affect future claims involving other pesticides and chemical products, including cases where farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and consumers allege they were not adequately warned about serious health risks.
As stated by Rep. Pingree in introducing the bill, “The Supreme Court just handed Big Chemical the legal immunity its lobbyists and millions of dollars couldn’t buy in Congress. Federal pesticide law was never supposed to be a liability waiver for corporations, and not a permission slip to hide behind insufficient labels while people get sick. . . The right to seek justice in court is one of our most foundational freedoms, ensuring that every American has a fair chance to be heard and hold powerful interests accountable.”
Please co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act.
Thank you.
Letter to Representatives Pingree and Massie:
Thank you for introducing H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act, legislation intended to restore the right of Americans to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products.
The Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily.
The Court’s decision is a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities: warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily.
Thank you for your leadership in protecting public and environmental health.
