House Republicans Face Immense Criticism For Proposed Farm Bill That Provides Liability Shield For Pesticide Manufacturers

Go to Article

Environmental activists blasted a House Republican version of the 2026 farm bill that includes a provision shielding pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits alleging they failed to adequately warn about potential harms of their products beyond EPA standards.

“It even prevents state Ag Commissioners from regulating misleading labels on pesticides in their own state. It is complete immunity from lawsuits. Our Republican officials are doing the bidding of primarily foreign chemical companies to protect their profits. This is not MAHA,” Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycutt said.

“The chair of the Agriculture Committee, in releasing the Republican Farm Bill text in three separate sections: (i) prohibits lawsuits by farmers and consumers harmed by pesticides for which manufacturers failed to provide complete safety warnings (Section 10205); (ii) takes away the authority of local governments to protect residents and the local environment from pesticide use (Section 10206), 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 (Section 10207),” Beyond Pesticides wrote.

“The Federal Farm Bill was released yesterday and it does contain a provision designed to give pesticide manufacturers de facto immunity, Section 10205. As always, the lawyers behind these provisions have drafted the language in a manner which obfuscates its true meaning and impact,” toxicologist and advocate Dr. Alexandra Muñoz commented.

“Legislators are being told it’s a provision for uniform labeling for pesticides – but pesticides already have uniform labels. So then what is the true intention of the provision? De facto immunity,” she continued.

Beyond Pesticides explained further:

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 (Section 10205). Litigation has always been a tool for holding manufacturers accountable for the damages they cause, providing an important check on the marketing of products beyond baseline regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While this has always been of fundamental importance, environmental and public health advocates say it is especially critical with the current dismantling of EPA and deregulation of the chemical industry. “Instead of destroying incentives to ensure corporate responsibility, Congress through the Farm Bill should be facilitating the transition to ecological-based practices, like federally defined organic methods, that address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate issues of our time,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Beyond revoking this basic right to be warned of product hazards, the legislation preempts the authority of local governments to protect their residents from pesticide exposure, as determined by state governments (reversing a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier | 501 U.S. 597, 1991) (Section 10206). Furthermore, the bill exempts registered pesticides from further “permitting or approval requirements,” which could include permits to restrict pesticides under the Clean Water Act, requirements for an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, or meet review standards under the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, and other statutes affecting pesticide storage, transportation, and toxic waste (Section 10207).

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.

According to The Center Square, the Center for Biological Diversity called the bill a “monstrosity” that would “allow foreign-owned pesticide conglomerates to dominate the policies that impact the safety of the food every American eats.”

“This Republican Farm Bill proposal is a grotesque, record-breaking giveaway to the pesticide industry that will free Big Ag to accelerate the flow of dangerous poisons into our nation’s food supply and waterways,” Brett Hartl, the organization’s government affairs director, told the outlet.

“This bill would block people suffering from pesticide-linked cancers from suing pesticide makers, eviscerate the EPA’s ability to protect rivers and streams from direct pesticide pollution, and give the pesticide industry an unprecedented veto over extinction-preventing safeguards for our nation’s most endangered wildlife,” he added.

“It is unbelievable that 800-page bills just appear with representatives who have clearly not read or understood them. We have a government passing legislation written by Big Ag and chemical companies with no regard for public health or safety. People all across the political spectrum have made clear they oppose pesticide immunity or any weirdly worded sections basically allowing it, but industry keeps sneaking it into massive bills,” one X user commented.

More from The Center Square:

Supporters argue the measure will boost the competitiveness of America’s agricultural sector, provide regulatory certainty, and shield corporations from “frivolous” lawsuits.

CropLife America, which represents the nation’s pesticide industry, did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment in time for publication but did release a statement supporting the farm bill draft.

“Farmers need continued access to pesticides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency through its rigorous, science-based regulatory process, to protect crops from weeds, pests, and diseases and to remain globally competitive, and we support the inclusion of several important provisions in this bill which support that goal,” CLA President Alexandra Dunn said in a press release.

“We look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle to advance this legislation and secure its passage in 2026 to strengthen and support U.S. agriculture.”

Democratic lawmakers have condemned other parts of the farm bill as well, such as a restriction on federal funding of solar projects located on forest or prime farmland.

The legislation also transfers authority to administrate the Food for Peace program from the U.S. Agency for International Development to the USDA, a move Democrats and other critics say could endanger the program’s efficiency and effectiveness.

With partisanship running high in Congress, it is unclear if enough Democrats will support the 802-page bill, which authorizes funds for crop insurance, disaster assistance, risk management, farm loans, rural energy grants, forest management, and hundreds of other critical bipartisan initiatives.

House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angi Craig, D-Minn., described the legislation as “a shell of a farm bill with poison pills that complicates if not derails chances of getting anything done.”

Read the full 802-page proposed bill HERE (Section 10205 – Section 10207 starts on page 685).



Comment on this Article Via Your Disqus Account