The newly proposed, Republican-led farm bill includes a range of provisions opponents say constitute a “pesticide industry wishlist” that would kill protections for humans, the environment, wildlife and endangered species, while also shielding industry from legal liability.
Among other measures, they said the bill would delay safety reviews, give industry a prominent role in determining endangered species’ protections and grant the US Department of Agriculture new veto power over health safeguards for children, farm workers and the public.
On the legal side, the legislation would give chemical manufacturers immunity from state-level lawsuits claiming they failed to warn people about their products’ health risks, especially cancer.
The latter change would apply to nearly 60,000 chemicals covered by the country’s pesticide laws, including ingredients in common household products, like disinfectant wipes, spray cleaners or flea-control collars for pets.
A coalition of public health, consumer protection and farm advocacy groups from across the political spectrum are mobilizing against the bill. It is “a grotesque, record-breaking giveaway to the pesticide industry”, said Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, which is lobbying against the provisions.
Hartl added: “If Congress passes this monstrosity, it will speed our march toward the dawn of a very real silent spring, a day without fluttering butterflies, chirping frogs or the chorus of birds at sunrise.”
The farm bill is an omnibus package that sets national policy for agriculture, nutrition and conservation every five years. The pesticide provisions included in this year’s bill represent the latest salvo in an industry blitz aimed at dramatically weakening pesticide regulations and eliminating legal liability.
The intensifying operation coincided in part with the election of Donald Trump, who has appointed pesticide and chemical industry lobbyists to his administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It comes just as the president issued a controversial executive order that aims to grant immunity to pesticide makers from liability for the harms of glyphosate, a widely used weedkiller linked to cancer.
One provision in the farm bill would give new authority to the US Department of Agriculture’s pest management office to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguard put in place by the EPA, Hartl said.
That could include measures to protect children – the Food Quality Protection Act gives the EPA authority to implement safety thresholds 10 times higher than those in place for adults. The USDA could also veto or change drift and handling restriction requirements intended to keep farm workers safe.
The proposed bill would also create a “private sector work group” that helps shape pesticide policy, strategy, work plans or pilot programs related to protecting wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. The measure amounts to a “de facto veto”, Hartl said, and “undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act in an unprecedented manner”.
Advocates are especially focused on provisions that provide liability shields from state-level lawsuits alleging pesticide companies failed to provide warning about their products’ health risks.
Industry has long sought to kill these laws. Industry lobbyists are waging a campaign in Congress that is sowing confusion about what the farm bill provision would do, said Alexandra Muñoz, an independent toxicologist and Make America Healthy Again advocate who has met with legislators’ staff members.
The EPA does not require the cancer warning on labels as some states do, because it has found that some pesticide ingredients, like glyphosate, do not cause cancer. Advocates say the EPA uses a flawed assessment that was subjected to industry influenceand they view state laws as the best line of defense against the substances’ dangers. Pesticide giants, like Bayer, have argued that states should not be able to require cancer warnings on labels because different labels cause confusion and lawsuits should be invalidated.
Language in the legislation states that labeling requirements “shall be applied to require uniformity in pesticide labeling nationwide”.
That is causing significant confusion about the provision, Muñoz said. Some appear to believe the bill does not provide a legal shield to industry, but merely requires uniformity in pesticide labeling nationwide.
“This provision makes whatever label the EPA last approved – even if that label was based on fraudulent data – a liability shield for a poison,” Muñoz said. “What’s really happening is companies are liable because they’re failing to warn people that their product causes cancer.”
Industry has also claimed ingredients like glyphosate will no longer be available if the immunity provision is not passed. That has raised fear among farmers that they won’t be able to access the products, which is creating political pressure, advocates say.
Republican representative John Rose, who receives significant agribusiness political donations, summed up some lawmakers’ positions in his statement of support for the provision: “Pesticide labeling uniformity is not a liability shield; it is about making sure these products remain on the shelves for farmers who rely on this provision.”
Angela Huffman, director of Farm Action, a farm worker advocacy group, said of the provision: “In practical terms, this makes it harder for farm workers and farmers to seek compensation when products cause health harm or crop damage.”
Huffman continued: “When companies can’t be held accountable beyond federal labeling requirements, the costs of failure fall on rural communities instead of manufacturers.”
The supreme court in April will hear arguments in a case covering whether EPA labels pre-empt state laws.
The bill would also delay for another five years human health and safety reviews for hundreds of pesticides and ingredients. Federal law requires the EPA to review pesticides for safety every 15 years, taking into account new science. The agency missed its 2022 deadline and was granted an extension by Congress. Industry is seeking another extension.
“No one voted for Republicans to allow foreign-owned pesticide conglomerates to dominate the policies that impact the safety of the food every American eats,” Hartl said. “But this bill leaves no doubt that’s exactly who is calling all the shots.”
