Pesticide giants want to make it impossible for you to sue

Pesticide exposure has been linked to a number of health issues, including neurological disorders, gastrointestinal complications, reproductive issues, and birth defects. Though Faux would much rather be out working in the fields, he is also the communications manager at Pesticide Action Network, and has dedicated much of the last couple years to advocating against a state bill that would shield pesticide companies from liability lawsuits related to their products. The bill failed to pass in the Iowa Senate this spring — a huge win for the some 89 percent of Iowans who opposed the bill. Similar bills were introduced in eight states, and passed in North Dakota and Georgia, respectively. Now, faced with billions in legal fees, pesticide giants such as Bayer (which acquired Monsanto, the creator of RoundUp, in 2018) are pushing for similar legislation to be passed at the federal level, a frustrating and terrifying prospect for those whose lives have already been impacted by pesticides.

“There are legislators who don’t want to hear expert knowledge on topics. They would rather just simply run with what they want to do, rather than understand how it’s going to affect people,” Faux said of the proposed federal legislation.

The industry is trying “everything they can”

Over the past year, the pesticide industry has been pouring millions into lobbying efforts to pass legislation that would codify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the sole authority on pesticide labeling. That means if a person was diagnosed with cancer, and they suspected their illness could be linked to a pesticide, they could not sue the company for failing to warn of the health risks of their product, as long as its label follows the EPA’s guidelines.

In July, the House Appropriations Committee voted to approve an appropriations bill inclusive of a rider that would prevent the EPA from improving the rules for warning labels on pesticides. More specifically, it would prevent federal funds from being 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 the EPA’s health risk assessment on various pesticides. It’s just a partial win for the industry, but indicative of Congress’s priorities, said Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst at Food and Water Watch.

“This rider makes it very clear that Congress is doing the bidding for the Trump deregulatory agenda by passing this language that blocks the EPA from updating their labeling for harmful pesticides,” Wolf said. “This is part of a suite of strategies to get at the heart of promoting pesticides, whether it’s making sure that EPA doesn’t have to update their labels, or doesn’t update their labels and regulations, or making sure that companies don’t actually have to warn people about the risk of pesticide use.”

Opponents of the bill say this is a carefully crafted narrative designed by corporations to protect themselves from further litigation. “They’re trying to fearmonger that protecting health is going to come at the expense of increasing food costs, and we know that isn’t really true,” Horsfield said. In fact the majority of pesticide-intensive crops, such as corn, are not grown for human consumption, but rather for animal feed and ethanol. A number of other chemicals would also be exempt from failure-to-warn lawsuits should the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act pass, including paraquat, a chemical manufactured by the Chinese-owned company Syngenta. Its use has been linked to Parkinson’s disease and is banned in more than 70 countries, including China.

“This is a foreign chemical company that has no problem banning it [paraquat] in their own country, but will happily produce it and then sell it to American farmers,” Horsfield said. And while the pesticide industry claims these bills will protect farmers, those working on farms are one of the populations most at risk for pesticide-related illnesses, Horsfield added. A 2024 study found that people exposed to pesticides for a prolonged time period, particularly agricultural workers, were more likely to experience long-term health effects.

Faux, who has worked in the fields for more than 20 years, will always wonder whether he got cancer simply because he chose to farm. “Did I poison myself?” he regularly ponders, despite having never used pesticides himself. It’s a question to which neither he nor his fellow Iowans will ever have a clear answer. But Faux remains adamant that legal action is one of the most important tools the farmers have; without the ability to sue, their health is almost entirely at the whim of corporate power.

“When you take away these opportunities to sue … you are actually targeting the very people that the whole litigation system was made for,” Faux said. “You are not targeting frivolous suits. You’re targeting people who are truly injured and truly suffering.”

Protecting the right to sue

On July 17, Senator Cory Booker responded to the pesticide industry’s lobbying efforts by introducing the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act, which would ensure individuals have the right to sue companies for harm caused by agricultural products. It’s an incredibly important piece of legislation, advocates say, but whether it will pass in this political climate remains unseen.

Jay Felden, the executive director of Beyond Pesticides, said the courts are more important than ever in holding corporations accountable as the Trump administration seeks to weaken, or even dismantle, federal agencies under the guise of deregulation.

“The courts have been an important backstop when it comes to weak federal law that is associated with harm to those either using the product or others exposed to the pesticide,” he said. “Corporate accountability and compensation, that’s all we’re after here. To undermine protection at any level — statutory, regulatory, judicial — is to undermine the health of the country, the health of people, and the environment.”