{"id":38694,"date":"2025-06-10T00:01:49","date_gmt":"2025-06-10T04:01:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=38694"},"modified":"2025-06-04T13:40:53","modified_gmt":"2025-06-04T17:40:53","slug":"industry-effort-to-quash-lawsuits-for-failure-to-disclose-hazards-defeated-in-9-states-eyes-on-north-carolina","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/06\/industry-effort-to-quash-lawsuits-for-failure-to-disclose-hazards-defeated-in-9-states-eyes-on-north-carolina\/","title":{"rendered":"Industry Effort to Quash Lawsuits for Failure to Disclose Hazards Defeated in 9 States, Eyes on North Carolina"},"content":{"rendered":"

(<\/span>Beyond Pesticides<\/span><\/i>, June 10, 2025) An industry-led campaign to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their \u201cfailure to warn\u201d about the hazards of their pesticide products has failed to move forward in nine state legislatures with significant GOP majorities (<\/span>Iowa<\/span><\/a>,\u202f<\/span>Missouri<\/span><\/a>,\u202f<\/span>Idaho<\/span><\/a>,\u202f<\/span>Florida<\/span><\/a>,\u202f<\/span>Tennessee<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Mississippi<\/span><\/a>,\u202f<\/span>Wyoming<\/span><\/a>,\u202f<\/span>Montana<\/span><\/a>, and\u202f<\/span>Oklahoma<\/span><\/a>). As the Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission released its first report to assess the root causes of childhood diseases and adverse health conditions, there continues to be an ongoing fight among forces within the Trump Administration on whether pesticides should even be mentioned. (See <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for <\/span>The New York Times <\/span><\/i>coverage.) <\/span><\/p>\n

As federal funding cuts make their way through the Budget Reconciliation process, communities around the country are calling on their elected officials to protect their right to sue pesticide manufacturers with failure-to-warn claims; in an era of deregulation and ongoing failure of our regulatory agencies to assess potential associated harms, advocates demand the preservation of this legal right.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Status Report on State-Level Legislation<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

The only state that has active legislation, as of today\u2019s writing, is North Carolina. The failure-to-warn language was inserted into the annual state Farm Bill package (<\/span>SB 639<\/span><\/a>) in Section 19, leading to public outcry in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 6. (See <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for additional context.)\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As the legislative session nears its end, it remains to be seen which direction this state legislature will proceed in at this stage. The bill was pushed forward without public comments in the Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled the following day due to anticipated backlash from concerned citizens, and then moved to the Rules Committee before it was scheduled for an official Senate-wide vote on May 15. Without any additional notice, the bill was withdrawn from the calendar and remains in the Senate Rules Committee, based on the legislative updates provided by the state legislature website. (See <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reporting from <\/span>North Carolina Newsline<\/span><\/i><\/a> on May 21 highlights advocacy led by Toxic Free North Carolina and other community leaders who have expressed concerns about the 11th-hour<\/span>\u00a0inclusion of this language into what is normally a standard piece of legislation that moves through the state legislature to support agricultural communities and the economy on an annual basis.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a direct attack on our community\u2019s right to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for the harm they cause,\u201d says Kendall Wimberley, policy manager at Toxic Free NC. \u201cThis is not something communities are asking for.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor any late-breaking developments, which will be updated on the <\/span>Bills to Track<\/span><\/a> section of the <\/span>Failure-to-Warn resource hub<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

MAHA community activists are speaking out against this legislation, including in a recent letter signed by nearly 300 \u201cMAHA\u201d advocates directed to the MAHA Commission expressing their \u201copposition to chemical liability shields.\u201d See <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for the letter. It remains to be seen what influence this may have on decision-makers, however it is important to note that in the same month that the MAHA Initial Assessment was released U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) moved forward to rescind its recordkeeping requirement for restricted-use pesticides. The agency provided no public comment period (see <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>), at the same time that it proposed <\/span>rescinding<\/span><\/a> organic standards rulemaking for pet food and mushroom products after a <\/span>delay<\/span><\/a> of the effective date published in the Federal Register. (See <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for previous <\/span>Daily News <\/span><\/i>and <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for an archive of a related Action of the Week.)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

See a recent\u202f<\/span>Daily News<\/span><\/i>,\u202f<\/span>Flying Through States, Industry Seeks To Stop Lawsuits Over Failure to Warn of Pesticide Dangers<\/span><\/a>, for a mid-session legislative update of where the bills stand as of the beginning of April. See <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for Beyond Pesticides\u2019 analysis of the MAHA report, and see <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for the associated Action of the Week.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Preemption and the Court System<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

Bayer is not giving up on the current U.S. Supreme Court as it seeks to overturn current law, established by previous court decisions, including\u202f<\/span>Bates v Dow (2005)<\/span><\/i><\/a>. However, that strategy is not succeeding, at least not yet. The string of Bayer losses includes a judication decision\u202fon February 5, 2024, when the decision by the\u202f<\/span>Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals<\/span><\/i><\/a>\u202fcame down in favor of the plaintiff in\u202f<\/span>Carson v. Monsanto<\/span><\/i><\/a>\u202fon Bayer\u2019s claim that the <\/span>Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act<\/span><\/i> (FIFRA) preempts a \u201cfailure-to-warn\u201d claim.\u202f(See\u202f<\/span>Daily News\u202f<\/span><\/i>here<\/span><\/a>\u202ffor further analysis.)\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For the third time in recent memory, Bayer submitted yet another <\/span>petition<\/span><\/a> for SCOTUS on April 4, 2025, to \u201climit legal claims\u201d on Roundup weedkiller linkages to cancer, according to reporting by <\/span>Reuters<\/span><\/i><\/a>. <\/span><\/i>The pesticide manufacturer has signaled optimism that the nation\u2019s highest court will move in a different direction, given that there is now a Federal Court Circuit split with the latest decision in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in <\/span>Schaffner v. Monsanto<\/span><\/i><\/a>. <\/span><\/i>As reported in <\/span>Progressive Farmer<\/span><\/i><\/a> in early May, twelve national agricultural groups filed an amicus brief in support of Bayer\u2019s petition. These groups represent the interests of industrial agriculture, including American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Cherry Marketing Institute, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, International Fresh Produce Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council of America, National Sorghum Producers, North American Blueberry Council and Western Growers. Legal issues continue to mount for the pesticide manufacturer as <\/span>the Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals<\/span> upheld a $611 million judgment against Bayer, as reported by <\/span>Missouri Independent<\/span><\/i><\/a> on May 28.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There were several other significant developments in 2024, including the\u202f<\/span>Oregon Court of Appeals<\/span><\/a>\u202fdecision on July 10, ruling that FIFRA does not preempt pesticide exposure victims\u2019 claims in state court against pesticide manufacturers, based on reporting from\u202f<\/span>The New Lede<\/span><\/i><\/a>. An Appellate court overturned a 2022 local court ruling and remanded the case (for a retrial) in part because the judge had failed to consider the expert witness testimony of Chuck Benbrook, PhD, a scientist specializing in agricultural economics with over 40 peer-reviewed articles, reports, and book chapters on pesticide regulation and risk assessment. (See\u202f<\/span>Daily News\u202f<\/span><\/i>here<\/span><\/a>.) \u202f<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Moving into 2025, Bayer has doubled down on the safety of its weedkiller, even though investors are\u202f<\/span>sounding the alarm<\/span><\/a> as the company\u202f<\/span>announced that it could pull Roundup from the U.S. market<\/span><\/a>\u202fdue to ongoing legal risks. For an in-depth history and related developments for Bayer-Monsanto litigation, see this tracker developed by the\u202f<\/span>Lawsuit Information Center<\/span><\/a>, as well as this informative analysis published in <\/span>Harvard Law Review<\/span><\/i><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

EPA Legal Petition<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

Meanwhile, in August 2024, the Republican Attorney General of North Dakota jointly filed a petition to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with 10 other Republican Attorneys General (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and South Dakota) requesting that the agency promulgate rulemaking to prevent states like California from adding additional warning labels to pesticide and chemical products that disclose more hazard information than is required on warning labels under federal pesticide law. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u202f<\/span>proposed petition<\/span><\/a>\u202fwould prompt the agency to \u201cmodify its requirements such that any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA\u2019s findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide\u2019s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm, [would] constitute misbranding.\u201d This rule would consider any add-on label requirement that considers scientific literature not recognized by EPA (such as the\u202f<\/span>2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designation<\/span><\/a>\u202fof glyphosate as a \u201cprobably carcinogenic to humans\u201d) in violation of FIFRA\u2019s misbranding clause. If finalized into regulations, this petition would preempt the ability of states like California to continue its add-on cancer warning label language for products under its state law, Proposition 65 (<\/span>Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986<\/span><\/i>).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

See the Action of the Week,\u202f<\/span>As Fed Cuts Protections, Petition Would Prohibit State Pesticide Warnings and Restrictions<\/span><\/a>, for an archive of the EPA public comment docket for the proposed petition. Beyond Pesticides will continue to provide updates as information becomes available.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Farm Bill and Congress<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

As of today\u2019s publication, there are no indications that federal preemption language was included in the GOP plan. If a comprehensive Farm Bill is considered by Congress, there is a higher likelihood that preemption language from the\u202f<\/span>Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act\u202f<\/span><\/i>or\u202f<\/span>EATS Act\u202f<\/span><\/i>(re-introduced as the\u202f<\/span>Food Security and Farm Protection Act<\/span><\/i><\/a>\u202fon April 8) will be included, given the current balance of the legislative branch. Pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer-Monsanto, have been ramping up their federal lobbying efforts after failing to pass state legislation in nine of the twelve states that give the pesticide industry immunity from failure-to-warn litigation filed by those who charge that manufacturers do not provide adequate disclosure of product hazards.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Language establishing chemical company immunity from \u201cfailure-to-warn\u201d litigation and local and state authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than EPA was included in the 2024 Republican Farm Bill draft, escalating the fight over federal preemption of state and local standards and protective authority of the courts. The Senate GOP framework alludes to preemption of state and local governance of pesticides, food systems and production, and public health in Title X, Horticulture title: \u201cRestates and reaffirms U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) obligation with respect to the federal and state regulatory process.\u201d Moreover, Title XII, Miscellaneous states: \u201cProtects the ability of livestock producers to raise and sell products into interstate commerce without interference from other states.\u201d More specifically, this language would have a two-fold impact:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n