{"id":40966,"date":"2026-02-17T00:01:36","date_gmt":"2026-02-17T05:01:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=40966"},"modified":"2026-02-17T00:19:53","modified_gmt":"2026-02-17T05:19:53","slug":"lawsuits-against-chemical-companies-local-pesticide-limits-and-ecosystem-safety-quashed-in-gop-farm-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2026\/02\/lawsuits-against-chemical-companies-local-pesticide-limits-and-ecosystem-safety-quashed-in-gop-farm-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawsuits Against Chemical Companies, Local Pesticide Limits, and Ecosystem Safety Quashed in GOP Farm Bill"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, February 17, 2026) The Ranking Member of the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), issued a swift rebuke to the GOP 2026 Farm Bill text unveiled last Friday, saying it would be \u201c\u2019very difficult, if not impossible’ for her to back a GOP-led farm bill because it contains ‘poison pills’ and doesn\u2019t do enough to aid struggling farmers,\u201d according to Politico<\/a><\/em>. She did not specifically point to the key controversial provisions that eliminate three core safeguards that are seen as critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment\u2014judicial review of chemical manufacturers\u2019 failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and local site-specific action to ensure the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides.<\/p>\r\n

Beyond Pesticides responded with a nationwide action to\u00a0Tell members of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop provisions in the Farm Bill that shield chemical companies from liability for the harm caused by their products, intrude on local communities\u2019 democratic right to restrict pesticides, and eliminate pesticide restrictions governing clean water, environmental impacts, and endangered species; with a request to support the transition to organic agricultural practices.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\r\n

In January, Politico<\/em> reported that, \u201cCraig and other House Ag Democrats are hoping that Senate Agriculture Chair\u00a0John Boozman\u00a0(R-Ark.) will put forward a more bipartisan bill in his chamber. Boozman has\u00a0already said he\u2019s likely to leave out some controversial provisions<\/a>\u2014including the labeling preemption for pesticide makers \u2014 in order to reach the Senate\u2019s 60-vote threshold.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The chair of the Agriculture Committee, in releasing the Republican Farm Bill\u00a0text<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0in three separate sections: (i) prohibits lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed by pesticides for which manufacturers failed to provide complete safety warnings (Section 10205<\/strong><\/a>); (ii) takes away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use (Section 10206<\/strong><\/a>), and; (iii) repeals requirements in numerous federal statutes to protect against local pesticide contamination that could affect waterways, drinking water, federal projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and toxic waste\u00a0<\/em>(Section 10207<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\r\n

Expected to be put to a committee vote as early as February 23, the basic right to sue chemical manufacturers for the harm caused by their toxic products and their failure to warn about those hazards is being threatened\u00a0(Section 10205<\/strong><\/a>). Litigation has always been a tool for holding manufacturers accountable for the damages they\u00a0cause, providing\u00a0an important\u00a0check\u00a0on the marketing of products beyond baseline regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While\u00a0this\u00a0has\u00a0always been of fundamental importance, environmental and public health advocates say it is especially\u00a0critical\u00a0with the current dismantling of EPA and deregulation of the chemical industry.\u00a0\u201cInstead of destroying\u00a0incentives to\u00a0ensure corporate responsibility, Congress through the Farm Bill should be\u00a0facilitating\u00a0the transition to ecological-based practices, like federally defined organic methods, that address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate issues of our time,\u201d said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Beyond revoking\u00a0this basic right to be warned of\u00a0product hazards, the legislation preempts the authority of local governments to protect their residents from pesticide exposure, as determined\u00a0by\u00a0state governments (reversing a\u00a01991 U.S. Supreme Court decision in\u00a0Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier | 501 U.S. 597, 1991<\/strong><\/a>)\u00a0(Section 10206<\/strong><\/a>).\u00a0Furthermore,\u00a0the bill exempts\u00a0registered\u00a0pesticides from\u00a0further\u00a0\u201cpermitting or approval requirements,\u201d\u00a0which could include permits to\u00a0restrict\u00a0pesticides under the\u00a0Clean Water Act<\/em>,\u00a0requirements for an environmental impact statement under\u00a0the\u00a0National Environmental Policy\u00a0Act<\/em>, or\u00a0meet review\u00a0standards under the\u00a0Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act,\u00a0<\/em>and other statutes affecting pesticide storage, transportation, and toxic waste\u00a0<\/em>(Section 10207<\/strong><\/a>).\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Chemical manufacturers, led by Bayer\/Monsanto, have been moving across the U.S. with state legislation to shield manufacturers from lawsuits by consumers and farmers who have been damaged by pesticides and not warned of hazards, like cancer. Now, they are moving their chemical company immunity campaign to the U.S. Congress, and then the Supreme Court. This follows years of successful litigation against Monsanto and over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements on adverse effects of the weed killer glyphosate\/Roundup.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Chemical-intensive agriculture is a significant contributor to\u00a0human illness<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0environmental pollution<\/strong><\/a>, loss of\u00a0biodiversity<\/strong><\/a>, and global\u00a0climate change<\/strong><\/a>\u2014principally through its dependence on chemical pesticides and fertilizers. These negative impacts\u2014as well as property and crop damage to neighbors caused by drift\u2014are known as \u201cexternalities\u201d because their costs are not borne by those who profit from the practices that cause them. Certified organic agriculture, on the other hand, is specifically required by the\u00a0Organic Foods Production Act<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(OFPA) to eliminate those adverse effects.\u00a0Thus, organic farmers internalize the costs of providing food without harm to people and the planet.<\/p>\r\n

With the Farm Bill under consideration,\u00a0the industry is engaged in a multi-pronged attack on long-standing protections.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Liability and Failure to Warn\u00a0(Reject Section 10205)\u00a0<\/strong>
\r\nThe courts have ruled on\u00a0the\u00a0liability principle over the history of pesticide regulation. A 2005 Supreme Court decision, in\u00a0Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC | 544 U.S. 431 (2005)<\/strong><\/a>, upheld the right of farmers in Texas, who followed the pesticide label and experienced crop loss, to sue for damages. The manufacturer argued unsuccessfully that because it registered its product with EPA, the farmers were preempted from suing them. The principle supporting opposition to industry efforts to legislate immunity for manufacturers\u2019 failure to warn is similar. Those who suffer harm through no fault of their own must be able to sue for manufacturers\u2019 failure to provide a warning on the product label. Earlier this year, it was reported in\u00a0Politico<\/em>\u00a0that Agriculture Committee chair, Rep. Glenn \u201cGT\u201d Thompson (R-PA), was \u201cpushing to pass a bill that would create federal preemption for pesticide labeling\u201d so that manufacturers will not be held liable for hiding adverse effects information. He further said that the bill will be a critical opportunity to include the pesticide and agriculture industry-based measure.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Preemption of State and Local Authority\u00a0(Reject Section 10206)\u00a0<\/strong>
\r\nIn an attempt\u00a0to\u00a0consolidate\u00a0authority in the federal government, where the chemical industry wields\u00a0tremendous\u00a0influence, amendments to the Farm Bill will preempt local and state authority to allow more stringent standards governing\u00a0pesticide use.\u00a0Local restrictions on pesticide use in the face of ongoing poisoning and contamination have shown that effective land management does not\u00a0require\u00a0toxic pesticide use. Historically, localities have exercised their democratic right to protect public health and\u00a0safety\u00a0where state and federal standards are not adequately protective of their residents. Local governments have exercised this right in many areas affecting the health of people and the environment, such\u00a0as with\u00a0smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Exemption of\u00a0Pesticides\u00a0from\u00a0Reviews to\u00a0Protect\u00a0Water,\u00a0Ecosystems, and\u00a0Endangered Species\u00a0(Reject Section 10207)\u00a0<\/strong>
\r\nWith broad language, the bill exempts\u00a0pesticides registered by EPA from all other permitting and\u00a0approval requirements under other statutes intended to\u00a0ensure protection of\u00a0waterways, federal lands and\u00a0related\u00a0projects, endangered species, migratory birds, and pesticide storage, transportation, and toxic waste.\u00a0Permitting and approval\u00a0processes that could be affected include\u00a0permits\u00a0required\u00a0to restrict pesticide discharges into waterways, environmental impacts statements\u00a0to\u00a0establish\u00a0safer practices\u00a0for federal\u00a0lands and\u00a0projects, and\u00a0additional\u00a0and higher standards of review to protect endangered species\u00a0and biodiversity.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Transition to Organic\u00a0<\/strong>
\r\nWhile\u00a0seeking\u00a0to\u00a0retain\u00a0these authorities\u00a0and ensure accountability of harm and the right to protect communities from weak federal\u00a0restrictions, there are opportunities in the Farm Bill to\u00a0support the transition to organic\u00a0land management.\u00a0Important measures to incorporate in the Farm Bill include:\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\r\n