{"id":39051,"date":"2025-07-23T14:15:42","date_gmt":"2025-07-23T18:15:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=39051"},"modified":"2025-07-31T10:34:39","modified_gmt":"2025-07-31T14:34:39","slug":"senate-approps-cmte-considers-house-bill-provision-that-strips-people-of-right-to-sue-for-pesticide-harm-july-24","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/07\/senate-approps-cmte-considers-house-bill-provision-that-strips-people-of-right-to-sue-for-pesticide-harm-july-24\/","title":{"rendered":"Senate Approps Cmte Considers House Bill Provision that Strips People of Right to Sue for Pesticide Harm\u2014July 24"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, July 23, 2025) Attention turns to the U.S. Senate on legislation that (i) shields pesticide companies from lawsuits by those harmed from pesticide product use, (ii) limits states\u2019 authority to regulate pesticides, and (iii) prevents EPA from regulating PFAS\u2014after passage in the House Appropriations Committee on July 22. The Senate Appropriations Committee meets tomorrow, July 24, to vote on language that has not yet been released to the public.<\/strong> Efforts by Democrats failed to strike sections 453, the shield provision, and 507, the PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) language, from the FY26 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill. The same provisions could show up in the Senate Appropriations Bill.<\/p>\r\n

Beyond Pesticides is: Asking U.S. Senators to help stop Appropriations Bill provisions that strip farmers and consumers from suing for pesticide harm, ensuring that language in House Appropriations Bill, Sections 453 and 507, not be included in the Senate bill.<\/strong><\/a>\u202f*If\u00a0 Senator is on the Appropriations Committee, the letter submitted will automatically adjust the language by recognizing their Committee membership.<\/em><\/p>\r\n

The Need for Court Action in the Face of EPA Dismantling
\r\n<\/strong>With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, the appropriations bill provision limits court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. The language would in the future prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundup), who have\u00a0won large jury verdicts<\/a>\u00a0and compensation. The language 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.\u00a0Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.<\/p>\r\n

Immunity from lawsuits on chemical companies\u2019 failure to warn about their products\u2019 hazards.
\r\n<\/strong>With Bayer\/Monsanto leading the charge, the chemical industry has successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act<\/em>) 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. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers 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\u2014freezing in place EPA\u2019s position on a pesticide for possibly decades, and eliminating the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for damages.\u202f [The bill language is found here<\/a>. Search on Section 453.]<\/p>\r\n

Prohibits EPA from restricting PFAS.<\/strong>\u00a0
\r\nIn addition, the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS chemicals. Section 507 of the bill says, \u201cNone 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 \u2018Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)\u2019\u202fpublished by the Environmental Protection Agency in the\u202fFederal Register on January 15, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 3859).\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Stay tuned for a vote on the House Floor soon after members return<\/strong> from\u00a0the current summer recess.
\r\n<\/strong>The underlying problem with Section 453 is the vesting of all power in EPA over the label, without exception\u2014prohibiting language (which includes packaging) that is \u201cinconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion\u201d that EPA derives from its health assessments. While not explicit, the language will release companies from liability for their \u201cfailure to warn,\u201d 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 label, which it currently does.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Strangely, under this language, EPA itself could not update its label\u2014even when the manufacturer requests a change on a more restrictive label. \u201cNone 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\u2026\u201d without conducting an entirely new assessment\u2014which takes \u201cno less than four years<\/a>, and sometimes over 12,\u201d 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).\u00a0 If the agency chose to act, this statutory language would prevent label changes without a long process\u2014if at all. Therefore, responsibility for misbranding would fall to EPA, which would shield chemical companies from paying out damage claims\u2014a 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\u00a0Dow v. Bates<\/a><\/em>, a case where farmers sued the company for crop damage associated with the use of their product.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

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.
\r\n__________<\/p>\r\n

Here are the facts:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\r\n

**This is not about one product\u2014it is about the future of 16,000 chemicals.\u00a0
\r\n<\/strong>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\u2014as long as their label was once approved by EPA.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

**The EPA does not independently test these products \u2014 it relies on their manufacturers.\u00a0
\r\n<\/strong>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\u2014as they\u2019ve done in the past\u2014this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

**This legislation eliminates accountability\u2014even when companies break the rules.\u00a0
\r\n<\/strong>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\u2019s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn\u2019t be held responsible.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants.\u00a0
\r\n<\/strong>ChemChina\u2014a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity\u2014owns 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?\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

**It protects companies that destroy farmers\u2019 crops\u2014even when they lied to get EPA approval.\u00a0<\/strong>
\r\nIf this bill passes, nothing will stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know\u202fis 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\u2014not the companies who caused the damage.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

That is the danger here: once pesticide companies know they cannot be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it is U.S. farmers and families who will pay the price.<\/p>\r\n

Section 507 of the bill removes funding for eliminating hazards associated with PFAS (aka \u201cforever chemicals\u201d).
\r\n_____________<\/p>\r\n

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee<\/strong><\/p>\r\n

⬇️\u00a0Please see the members of the\u00a0U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee<\/a>\u00a0listed below with their website link\u00a0if you would also like\u00a0to call!\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\r\n

Republican members:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n