EWG
Twitter
Instagram
Proposed federal law would turn tables on Big Ag, establishing a right to sue for pesticide injuries
Taking specific aim at the global agrochemical companies Bayer and Syngenta, US Sen. Cory Booker on Thursday introduced legislation that would create a federal “right of action” allowing people to sue those pesticide makers and others for allegedly causing health harms such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease.
The Pesticide Injury Accountability Act would “ensure that pesticide manufacturers can be held responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products,” according to a summary of the bill. The legislation would be amended to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA).
If passed, the law would turn the tables on efforts by Bayer and a coalition of agricultural organizations as they push for state-by-state legislation blocking individuals from being able to file lawsuits in state courts accusing the companies of failing to warn of the risks of their products. Led by Bayer, the agricultural organizations have also been pushing for federal preemptive protections against litigation.
So far, two states – Georgia and North Dakota – have passed what critics call “liability shield” laws. The laws essentially declare that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has oversight of pesticide labeling and state laws cannot permit companies to be held liable for failing to go beyond what the EPA requires in warning customers of potential risks.
Booker’s proposed law would not invalidate the state laws, but would give individuals an alternative – the right to bring their injury claims in federal courts if they can’t bring them in state courts.
“Rather than providing a liability shield so that foreign corporations are allowed to poison the American people, Congress should instead pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to ensure that these chemical companies can be held accountable in federal court for the harm caused by their toxic products,” Senator Booker said in a statement accompanying the announcement of the bill.
“Unconscionable”
So far, 17 environmental, public health and consumer groups have endorsed the measure, including leaders in the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement.
Zen Honeycutt, founder of the Moms Across America group, which is supporting the Booker legislation, said it is “unconscionable that corporations are pushing our elected officials to manipulate laws that protect their profits over the health and safety of Americans.” She noted that many pesticides used widely in the US are banned in other countries because of their health risks.
George Kimbrell, co-executive director of the Center for Food Safety, another group supporting the legislation, said the right to hold companies accountable for health harms caused by pesticides should be a given.
“Obviously this wouldn’t be necessary but for the dogged efforts of the industry to eliminate people’s rights under state laws,” Kimbrell said. “This is trying to provide protections for them.”
The American Association for Justice (AAJ) is also “strongly supporting” the Booker action, said AAJ spokesperson Daniel Hinkle. “We must ensure that Bayer and [Syngenta] cannot continue to go state-to-state, attempting to strip farmers and their families of their rights to seek justice and accountability,” Hinkle said.
Thousands of lawsuits
The summary of the bill names both Germany-based Bayer and the Chinese-owned Syngenta as key targets and says they and others are seeking “liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused.”
Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 and inherited a mass of lawsuits involving close to 200,000 plaintiffs in the United States alone, all alleging that the company should have warned users that its glyphosate-based weed killing products, such as the popular Roundup brand, could cause cancer. The company has already paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury awards, but still faces tens of thousands of lawsuits.
Likewise, Syngenta is facing several thousand lawsuits from people alleging that its paraquat weed killing products cause Parkinson’s disease and that Syngenta should have warned users of evidence that chronic exposure could cause the incurable brain disease. The company has so far paid out well over $100 million to settle cases before they go to trial, and is attempting to solidify a broad settlement of the majority of the cases.
When asked about the proposed law, a Syngenta spokesman said that Booker’s bill “targets American food security” and that farmers do not deserve an “attack on the products they rely on.” The company said American agriculture is “highly regulated, productive and safe,” and that its paraquat products, specifically, have not been shown to cause Parkinson’s disease.
“Despite decades of investigation and more than 1,200 epidemiological and laboratory studies of paraquat, no scientist or doctor has ever concluded in a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease. Our view is endorsed in science-based reviews by regulatory authorities, such as in the US, Australia and Japan,” the spokesman said.
Bayer did not provide a comment directly about Booker’s bill, but said the “future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA.”
Bayer and the coalition of agricultural interests that have been lobbying for protections from further litigation have said that pesticide products, which are widely used in farming, are not only safe but are necessary for food production. Costly lawsuits jeopardize the availability of pesticides for agriculture, they say.
Bayer has asserted in its litigation defense that it should not be subject to failure-to-warn claims because such claims are preempted by federal law. The company says that if it did place cancer risk warnings on product labels it would conflict with provisions of FIFRA that give the EPA oversight of labeling language. The EPA says that glyphosate herbicides are “not likely” to be carcinogenic.
Most courts have ruled Bayer’s argument is not legally valid. Bayer has asked the US Supreme Court to weigh in, but the court in the past has declined to do so. The company has another request before the high court now.
Bayer said on Thursday that it wants to see federal legislation to “ensure that states and courts to not take a position or action regarding product labels at odds with congressional intent, federal law and established scientific research and federal authority.”
“Farmers and consumers need to not only be able to trust the regulation of the products they use but trust that the government has made decisions based on agreed-upon and established science, facts, and data,” Bayer said.
On Tuesday, congressional Republicans made a strong statement about their intent to support Bayer’s preemption position, putting forward a fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill that would bar the use of any funds that would be used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” inconsistent with or different from an assessment by the EPA.
The move is expected to be followed with provisions in the new Farm Bill that would add to the difficulty in bringing failure-to-warn claims against pesticide makers.
New report on paraquat misuse
Separately on Thursday, a new report looking at paraquat use in Pennsylvania found that users “mishandled” the chemical at least 18 times between 2018 and 2023, putting people at risk from exposure to the pesticide, according to state records.
The report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that the violations included applying paraquat without required permits, failing to provide safety equipment and training to workers, and frequent pesticide drift incidents.
Paraquat is a restricted-used pesticide with use limited to farmers and other professional applicators. In addition to its links to Parkinson’s disease and other health harm, it is highly acutely toxic and ingestion of even a small amount can kill a person quickly.
Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have introduced a bill that would ban paraquat use in the state.
(A version of this story is co-published with The Guardian.)
(Featured image from US Senate.)
