(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2026) On April 27, 2026, advocates—including Beyond Pesticides—from across the political spectrum came together in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to speak out against the chemical industry campaign, led by Bayer/Monsanto, the Trump administration, and Republican lawmakers, to shield chemical manufacturers from liability for failing to warn people who have been harmed by their pesticides. Their multi-pronged strategy targets the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Congress, and state legislatures. The question of the public’s right to sue chemical manufacturers that do not warn of product hazards was heard before the Supreme Court, as Monsanto argued that people who have been diagnosed with cancer after using the weed killer glyphosate should be prohibited from suing the company for failing to warn on the product label. The chemical manufacturer argued in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal registration of a pesticide preempts legal rights afforded to people under state law under U.S. federalism. The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Highlighted Quotes […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2026) In advance of opening U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief filed yesterday and led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which challenges Bayer/Monsanto’s position that it should not be held liable for failing to warn consumers that the use of their pesticide products could cause cancer. The chemical company giant, along with the broader chemical and agribusiness industry, argues that they should be given immunity from litigation because their products are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a claim that is disputed in detail in the amicus brief. Groups joining the brief include Consumer Federation of America, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Rural Coalition, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch.  Click to access the 17 additional amicus briefs filed in support of the respondents: Stand for Health Freedom; The American Association for Justice and Public Justice; Children’s Health Defense; 36 State Legislators; The Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and International Municipal Lawyers Association; Former EPA Officials and Environmental Protection Network; Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, Lianne Sheppard, PhD, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2026) A statement decrying chemical company secrecy was released today by over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners. The statement, released before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow reaches the final deadline for submission of amicus briefs in a case in which Bayer/Monsanto argues, with support of the Trump administration, that it should not be required to disclose on its product labels the potential hazards of its pesticide products. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June. Decades of law have upheld the legal argument that chemical companies are liable for their failure to warn users of their pesticides about the harm that they could cause. Bayer/Monsanto is attempting to reverse years of case law and billions of dollars in jury verdicts and future cases in which the company has been held liable for causing cancer but not warning product users. See statement, Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards. Chemical Industry State Campaign The chemical industry last year launched a multi-pronged campaign to establish immunity from litigation by those who have […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2026) The Monsanto Company, founded in 1901 and acquired by the multinational corporation Bayer AG in 2018, submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) last month, seeking liability immunity from lawsuits filed by product users who have been harmed but not warned about potential product hazards. The question before SCOTUS is: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where EPA has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431, which upheld EPA and state registration of pesticides as a floor of protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to warn for potential harm that is not required by EPA. Pesticide manufacturers propose the text for their product labels and EPA ensures compliance with its minimum requirements, which does not preclude them from disclosing potential adverse effects they know of or should have known. The Missouri case before the Supreme Court, Durnell v. Monsanto, on the cancer causing effects of the weed killer glyphosate (RoundupTM) resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million and the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2026) Residues of the weed killer glyphosate, which has been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have been routinely found in food products, and a recent state survey in Florida confirmed previous findings. The findings are well within the legal standards for allowable residues. So, why is the Trump administration, in invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950 by Executive Order and its immunity-from-lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, concerned about glyphosate residues in food and other nondietary exposure? Could it have something to do with the over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure against the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto, with tens of thousands of cases pending, and the robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings that link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a host of other adverse health effects? Nothing in the President’s executive order appears to meet the intent of the statute 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 . . .” Without […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2026) As pesticides’ adverse effects on human and ecosystem health stack up in the scientific literature, health and environmental groups are focused on striking an entire section of the Republican Farm Bill that will eliminate protections, which have been written into law for generations. The section is Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1 on “Regulatory Reform.” Threatened are policies intended to protect against the diseases and illnesses touching families and communities, including brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, immune and endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, among others. Wildlife, including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil, are adversely affected with reproductive, neurological, endocrine-disruptive, and developmental anomalies, and cancers. (See Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.) With the urgent threat of a markup of the legislation scheduled to begin on March 3, attention shifted to a newly released Executive Order (EO) that could provide blanket legal protection for the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto. By activating the Defense Production Act of 1950 and its immunity from lawsuits provision for glyphosate manufacturers, the administration could mandate production of glyphosate as a “national security” concern and provide […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2026) In a press release published on December 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the creation of “a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to help American farmers adopt practices that improve soil health, enhance water quality, and boost long-term productivity, all while strengthening America’s food and fiber supply.” The agency specifically ties the program to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), diverting resources that could be used to support organic transition and phase out pesticides that are clearly defined as prohibited by USDA’s National Organic Program under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), but allowed in regenerative agriculture programs. Regenerative agriculture, embraced by major food companies, has been identified by Beyond Pesticides and many organizations as greenwashing because it typically allows wide use of weed killers and other petrochemical pesticides and is not defined as a transition to organic practices and compatible products. (See here.) Public health and environmental advocates, farmers, and businesses fear that pouring funding into a loosely defined “regenerative agriculture” program will not only undermine existing efforts to transition farming and communities to more sustainable and truly regenerative systems but also contribute to greenwashing, where corporations that are enabling the climate, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2026) Chemical manufacturers may have suffered a short-lived setback in their quest for statutory immunity from lawsuits due to their failure to warn those harmed by their products, but their campaign in Congress, state legislatures across the country, and the U.S. Supreme Court is continuing. On Monday, January 6, it was announced that a provision denying people the right to sue chemical companies for nondisclosure of product hazards had been dropped from the FY2026 funding bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. This summer, a provision passed by the House Appropriations Committee would have denied farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, gardeners, and consumers generally the right to sue companies that do not disclose on their product labels and in marketing information potential hazards associated with their products’ use. “With the announcement that appropriations legislation moving through Congress does not contain a provision that would shield chemical manufacturers from lawsuits for their failure to warn those harmed by their products, we stress that the industry’s campaign to escape accountability is proceeding with a fierce determination,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. The chemical industry, spearheaded by the chemical giant Bayer/Monsanto, in the last year has waged an […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2025) In an amicus brief published on December 1, 2025, the Office of the Solicitor General (SG) and the White House are calling on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to grant certiorari on Bayer’s petition to shield chemical companies that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their pesticide products. The U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer (former Solicitor General of Missouri, home to Bayer-Monsanto’s U.S. headquarters), in siding with the Germany-based, multinational pesticide corporation, calls for SCOTUS to take on the case, which could lead to a prohibition on state-level failure-to-warn claims based on the arguments laid out in the amicus brief. This move sets the stage for SCOTUS to undermine the main legal argument used to hold pesticide corporations accountable for their harmful products, sending Bayer’s stock price to skyrocket 12 percentage points between December 2 and December 3 after the decision was made public. As of May 2025, Bayer has already paid at least 10 billion dollars in jury verdicts and settlements to cancer victims who have attributed their diagnoses to the use of Bayer/Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer products, according to Lawsuit Information Center. Two previous petitions […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2025) The pesticide manufacturer Syngenta has settled several lawsuits in federal courts in Pennsylvania and Illinois in recent months and is seeking a global settlement with over 6,000 litigants in order to avoid nationwide trials linking their weed killer paraquat to Parkinson’s Disease, according to reporting by The New Lede and The Guardian, respectively. Internal Syngenta documents released by these news outlets in a report dubbed The Paraquat Papers indicate that the company was aware of scientific evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson’s and attempted to quash research efforts to disclose the evidence.   These lawsuits were filed on behalf of former farmers and agricultural workers who went on to be diagnosed with neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s Disease, after using paraquat-based herbicide products for long periods of time. This litigation comes at a time when pesticide manufacturers across the board are facing increased scrutiny and subsequent financial repercussions. Simultaneously, their allies in Congress are revamping their efforts to shield chemical manufacturers from “failure to warn” lawsuits and establish federal preemption of local state governments’ ability to regulate pesticides more stringently than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Many of the paraquat lawsuits in federal courts, known as multidistrict […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2025) Ever since the Clean Water Act (CWA) became law in 1972, to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” the definition of the “Nation’s waters,” aka “waters of the U.S.” or “WOTUS,” has been cloaked in controversy. This controversy is coming to a head again as the Trump administration revises regulations in which the Biden administration attempted to interpret the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is consistent with the goals of CWA.  The declaration of goals and policy in CWA begins:  The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act—  (1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;  (2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;  (3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2025) With the shutting down of key federal government programs, Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to speak out, especially on issues that preserve state and local authority to protect public health and safety in the absence of adequate federal standards. In this context, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a petition with a proposed policy that would, if adopted, prohibit states from issuing warnings of pesticide hazards, like cancer, on product labels. EPA is taking public comment through February 20, 2025, on the petition, filed by the Republican attorneys general (AGs) of 11* states.  The petition asks EPA to prohibit “any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.” [*The 11 states filing the petition include: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota.] According to Beyond Pesticides: “The only conclusion that can be derived from this petition is that the AGs do not care if the people, including farmers, of their states are harmed by pesticides, and they should not be able […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 2, 2024) In a recent study published in Science, a team from the University of Massachusetts and Yale University provides quantitative insight into the significant effects of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the nation’s water quality. This research highlights the essential role of ephemeral streams—water sources that flow temporarily after rainfall—in transporting pollutants, including pesticides, sediments, and nutrients from land to larger water bodies.  This comprehensive study underscores the devastating risk to U.S. water quality, stemming from the May 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which dramatically limits the agency’s ability to protect ephemeral streams as well as critical wetland ecosystems under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  As a May 2024 report by Clean Water for All Coalition notes, “The [Sackett] decision has endangered the drinking water sources of at least 117 million Americans by stripping protections from over half of the nation’s wetlands, as well as up to nearly 5 million miles of rain-dependent and seasonal streams that feed into rivers, lakes, and estuaries.” At a time when an immediate response to the climate crisis and chemical pollution is more urgent than ever, the U.S. Supreme Court’s judicial decisions are seen […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2024) On July 10, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt pesticide exposure victims’ state law claims against pesticide manufacturers, based on reporting from The New Lede. This decision builds on years of judicial precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that protects individuals’ right to use failure-to-warn claims against producers of toxic pesticides, including Bayer-Monsanto. The importance of judicial review is critical to protecting the public against public health impacts of toxic pesticide use in the context of last month’s SCOTUS decision ending Chevron Doctrine, and with it the end of deferring to federal regulatory agencies on ambiguities in statutory mandates. A growing coalition of environmental and public health advocates, organic farmers, trial attorneys, farmworkers, and physicians are united in pushing back against a concerted effort by industry and its allies to attack victims’ ability to sue under “failure-to-warn” through the Farm Bill, state legislatures, and the proposed federal budget for Fiscal Year 2025. Oregon Court of Appeals In 2022, a local trial court in Oregon ruled in favor of Monsanto on a lawsuit initiated by Jackson County residents Larry and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 4, 2024) In reflecting on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that reduce federal government powers to restrict hazardous chemicals, including pesticides (see Clean Water Act decision and federal restrictions of toxic hazards under the reversal of Chevron decision), two remaining authorities in state and local governments and in the courts have become the next battleground to protect health and the environment. What is at stake are two major backstops to weak federal controls and chemical company disregard for safety: the critical importance of state and local governments’ exercise of authority to restrict toxic chemicals, and the ability of people to sue corporations for their failure to warn about their products’ hazards.  The attack on state and local authority in the Farm Bill The Farm Bill in the U.S. House of Representatives: Prohibits the rights of states and local governments to restrict pesticides and protect public health and the environment. The language says the Farm Bill will “prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof… from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements with respect to, labeling or packaging that is in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2023) The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction dramatically limits the EPA’s ability to protect critical wetland ecosystems. On May 25, in a 5-4 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA has authority to protect only “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.” Wetlands must appear “indistinguishable” from larger waterways at a surface-level perspective. Wetlands next to a large waterway are no longer protected if they are separated by a manmade or terrestrial barrier. Water flows underground from upstream to downstream sources and exits the confines of its customary boundaries during periods of flooding, so to declare waterways distinct based merely on a surface-level perspective defies scientific understanding of ecosystem health.  Critical Nature of Wetland Ecology  The conservation of wetland ecology is critical to the health of our environment. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) states, “Wetlands are among the most productive habitats on earth” given their role in flood resilience, improvement in water quality, and coastal erosion control. Wetlands are essential nursery grounds for many species of fish and oases for […]