{"id":42095,"date":"2026-07-27T00:01:24","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T04:01:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=42095"},"modified":"2026-07-27T12:13:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T16:13:07","slug":"bipartisan-u-s-reps-seek-to-require-cancer-warning-on-pesticides-in-wake-of-scotus-upholding-secrecy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2026\/07\/bipartisan-u-s-reps-seek-to-require-cancer-warning-on-pesticides-in-wake-of-scotus-upholding-secrecy\/","title":{"rendered":"Bipartisan U.S. Reps Seek to Require Cancer Warning on Pesticides in Wake of SCOTUS Upholding Secrecy"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, July 27, 2026)\u00a0One thing that officials at Monsanto (Bayer) probably did not imagine is that their efforts in Congress and at the U.S. Supreme Court would spur a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to push back. Members across the political aisle last week introduced the Americans vs. Poisonous Pesticides Act, H.R. 9807<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, to overturn Monsanto v. Durnell<\/em> (June 2026) that protects chemical companies from failing to warn its product users of potential adverse effects, including cancer and other diseases. The bill was introduced on July 21 by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and joined by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Thomas Massie (R-KY).<\/p>\r\n

An action, released by Beyond Pesticides, is asking U.S. Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, to cosponsor the\u00a0Americans vs. Poisonous Pesticides Act<\/em>, H.R. 9807, to require that pesticide manufacturers warn users on product labels of potential adverse effects like cancer, which EPA does not require.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\r\n

Monsanto over two years ago launched a state and national campaign after it racked up billions of dollars in jury verdicts and settlements for failing to warn consumers that its glyphosate (RoundupTM<\/sup>) weed killer was potentially cancer causing. A bipartisan resistance to Monsanto and its allies began when: (i) first, state legislators across political parties rejected the company\u2019s state bills to establish immunity from failure-to-warn lawsuits, and; (ii) second, 73 Republicans voted with Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives in April to strip chemical industry provisions from the Farm Bill, including one prohibiting lawsuits against chemical companies for failing to warn the public about their products\u2019 hazards. Now, the question is whether environmental, public health, medical, and legal groups, coalescing with Make America Healthy Again groups, will be able to rally the same bipartisan support and move the legislation to a vote.<\/p>\r\n

Even before the ink was dry on the Supreme Court decision stripping away the right to sue for companies’ failure to warn,\u00a0industry lawyers<\/a>\u00a0began advocating to expand the reach of the Court’s interpretation of federal pesticide law to all other federal and state laws restricting hazardous chemical use. Industry lawyers are advising their clients to seek rulemaking to apply the Supreme Court’s logic to other sectors from ultra-processed foods to fossil fuels\u2014simply put, if the federal government does not require warning of a cancer or other disease risk, then manufacturers are not liable for nondisclosure of the potential harm that is known or should be known to them.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Bipartisan Legislation Overturns Court Ruling, Affirms Cancer Warning on Pesticide Labels\u00a0<\/strong>
\r\nNot so fast, say some members of Congress. U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), within days of the Supreme Court decision in\u00a0Monsanto v. Durnell<\/em><\/a>, introduced legislation to overturn the ruling and affirm the responsibility of chemical manufacturers to disclose product hazards like cancer on the label. A strengthened version of the original bill, the\u00a0Americans vs. Poisonous Pesticides Act<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, followed. The legislation upholds the basic understanding that the regulatory review process may not fully protect people from harm and therefore requires manufacturers to warn of potential harm not covered on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-required label. Under the federal law, the\u00a0Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act<\/em>\u00a0(FIFRA), the Court has found that the EPA registration and label approval process is \u201cadequate to protect health and the environment,\u201d and thus not misbranded, under the agency’s authority to define adequacy. \u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Chemical Companies Achieve Preemption of State Courts with Supreme Court Ruling<\/strong>\u00a0
\r\nThe chemical industry has wanted federal or state law to prohibit legal claims for their failure to warn, characterizing the pesticide registration process and the resulting label, as \u201cgold standard science\u201d that produces an unequivocal statement of safety or acceptable risk that establishes preemption, either expressed or implied, of a state law claim for insufficient warning. It has been said that laws like FIFRA are born out of the \u201cart of the possible,\u201d which is another way of saying statutory language is derived from a process of political compromise. Here, the law compromises individual and collective health as well as the health of families, allowing the registration of chemicals that have a cancer risk without requiring a warning. Given what is known and not known about the initiation and promotion of cancer and other debilitating and deadly diseases, a warning label provides people with the option of informed choice in the market. Public health advocates say this is especially needed until there are stronger laws that prevent the allowance of these pesticides or the market shifts to ecological and organic practices.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Court Breaks with Precedent, Denying Those Harmed but not Warned the Right to Sue<\/strong>\u00a0
\r\nThe Supreme Court majority strays from issues of safety to consider the business impact of the law on the chemical industry. The majority of justices raise the economic impact on chemical manufacturers, suggesting that warnings would impede the ability of manufacturers \u201cto sell a product throughout the country with a single label [which] can be important to maintaining an efficient nationwide market.\u201d This breaks with precedent and a previous Supreme Court decision in\u00a0Dow Chemical v. Bates<\/em><\/a>, in which the Court took the position that litigation gives the manufacturer \u201ca ‘strong incentive’ to change the label,\u201d while “this history emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.”\u00a0Clearly, accountability through legal action incentivizes manufacturers to develop safer products. It also creates a climate in which society would take a more serious look at the necessity to shift to organic practices and products that eliminate these cancer risks that harm our families and friends. Most importantly, it would depress industry influence in the writing of statutes and regulations that are not adequately protective.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

EPA-Approved Pesticide Label Is Not Conclusive Evidence of a Safe Product\u00a0<\/strong>
\r\nThe\u00a0legislation<\/a>\u00a0is straightforward and protective, stating that \u201cthe approval of the labeling of such pesticide by the Administrator, shall not be construed as a defense to any State law claim\u201d\u2014that, as the legislation reads, \u201cregistration of a pesticide and the approval of the labeling of such pesticide by the Administrator, shall be prima facie evidence (but not conclusive evidence) that the pesticide and its labeling comply with this Act.” In the minority opinion of the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the majority’s thinking that the EPA-approved pesticide label is prima facie evidence of safety sufficient to comply with the law, finding it falls short of \u201cconclusive evidence\u201d or incontrovertible proof of safety. Evidence of potential health effects beyond the registration review of pesticides cited in the legislation includes: a government report; an independent peer-reviewed study; data of the registrant; material obtained through legal discovery; a disclosure by a whistleblower; material from a congressional or other oversight investigation; and pesticide incident data under section 6(a)(2), which requires incident reporting by product manufacturers. The bill streamlines the process for manufacturer-initiated label changes that are more transparent of hazard risks than the EPA-approved label.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Bipartisan Support for Chemical Company Liability for Failure to Warn on Label<\/strong>s\u00a0
\r\nThis new legislation builds on the\u00a0bipartisan vote<\/a> in the House that stripped from the Farm Bill a pesticide manufacturers’ liability shield for failure to warn on product labels, federal preemption of state and local pesticide laws, and the weakening of bedrock environmental laws and their ability to regulate pesticides.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n