The newly proposed Republican-led farm bill includes a series of provisions that opponents say constitute the “pesticide industry’s wish list” that would protect the industry from legal liability while gutting protections for humans, the environment, wildlife and endangered species.
Among other measures, the bill would slow safety reviews, give industry a more prominent role in determining protections for endangered species, and give the U.S. Department of Agriculture new veto powers over health protections for children, farm workers and the public, the agency said.
On the legal side, the bill would give chemical manufacturers immunity from state-level lawsuits for failing to warn people about the health risks of their products, particularly cancer.
The latter change applies to about 60,000 chemicals covered by the country’s pesticide laws, including ingredients found in common household products such as disinfectant wipes, spray cleaners and pet flea collars.
A coalition of public health, consumer protection, and agricultural advocacy groups from across the political spectrum are rallying against the bill. Brett Hartle, government relations director for the Center for Biological Diversity, which is lobbying against the provision, said it was “a grotesque, record-breaking contribution to the pesticide industry.”
Hartl added, “If Congress passes this monster, it will accelerate our march toward a truly tranquil dawn of spring, a day without the fluttering of butterflies, the chirping of frogs, or the chorus of birds at sunrise.”
The Farm Bill is an omnibus package that sets national policy on agriculture, nutrition, and conservation every five years. The pesticide provisions in this year’s bill are the latest salvo in an industry campaign aimed at dramatically weakening pesticide regulations and eliminating legal liability.
The increased operations coincided in part with the election of Donald Trump, who appointed pesticide and chemical industry lobbyists to his administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This came just as the president issued a controversial executive order aimed at absolving pesticide manufacturers from liability for the harm caused by glyphosate, a widely used herbicide linked to cancer.
Hartl said one of the provisions in the farm bill would give the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pest Management Service new authority to review and potentially veto environmental and human health safeguards put in place by the EPA.
This may include measures to protect children. The Food Quality Protection Act authorizes the EPA to enforce safety standards that are 10 times higher than those for adults. USDA also could veto or change drift and handling restriction requirements intended to ensure farm worker safety.
The proposed bill would also create a “private sector working group” to assist in developing pesticide policies, strategies, work plans, or pilot programs related to wildlife protection under the Endangered Species Act. The measure amounts to a “de facto veto” and “undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act in an unprecedented way,” Hartl said.
Advocates are particularly focused on a provision that shields pesticide companies from liability from state-level lawsuits that claim they failed to warn about the health risks of their products.
Industry has long sought to repeal these laws. Alexandra Muñoz, an independent toxicologist and Make America Healthy Again advocate who met with Congressional staffers, said industry lobbyists are waging a campaign in Congress that is creating confusion about what the farm bill’s provisions will do.
The EPA does not require cancer warnings on labels, as some states do, because some pesticide ingredients, such as glyphosate, have been found not to cause cancer. Supporters say the EPA is using flawed assessments influenced by industry and believes state laws are the best line of defense against a substance’s dangers. Pesticide giants like Bayer argue that states should not be able to require cancer warnings on labels because different labels would cause confusion and lawsuits should be invalid.
The language of the law states that the labeling requirements “shall be applied to require uniformity of pesticide labeling nationwide.”
That’s causing a lot of confusion about this provision, Muñoz said. Some believe that the bill does not provide a legal shield to industry, but merely requires uniform labeling of pesticides nationwide.
“This provision provides a liability shield for all toxic substances with the last EPA-approved label, even if that label is based on fraudulent data,” Muñoz said. “What’s really happening is that companies are being held accountable for not warning people that their products cause cancer.”
Industry also argues that ingredients such as glyphosate will not be available unless immunity passes. Supporters say this has heightened fears among farmers that they will lose access to their produce and created political pressure.
Republican Rep. John Rhodes, who receives significant political donations from agribusiness, summed up the position of some members of Congress in a statement of support for the provision: “Uniformity in pesticide labeling is not a liability shield. What’s important is to make sure these products are on the shelves for the farmers who rely on this provision.”
“Practically speaking, this makes it harder for farmworkers and farmers to seek compensation if their products cause health problems or crop damage,” said Angela Huffman, director of farm worker advocacy group Farm Action.
Huffman continued, “If companies cannot be held accountable beyond federal labeling requirements, the cost of failure will fall on rural communities, not manufacturers.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in April in a case over whether the EPA’s labels preempt state laws.
The bill would also delay human health and safety reviews of hundreds of pesticides and ingredients for an additional five years. Federal law requires the EPA to review the safety of pesticides every 15 years, taking into account new science. The agency missed its 2022 deadline, but Congress granted an extension. The industry is looking for further expansion.
“No one voted for a Republican that would allow foreign-owned agrochemical conglomerates to dominate policies that affect the safety of the food that all Americans eat,” Hartl said. “But with this bill, there’s no question that he’s really the one making all the decisions.”
