The quiet push to shield pesticide makers from lawsuits

In April 2026, California farmer Terri McCall addressed a crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court during a protest rally against pesticide use. She recounted the tragic story of her husband and dog, both of whom succumbed to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a condition she attributes to pesticide exposure. Her husband, Jack, had applied Roundup on their 20-acre farm for over 30 years before his death from cancer in 2016.

Currently, more than 57,000 pesticide products are registered for use across the United States. These products range from robust chemicals employed in conventional farming to everyday insect repellents safe for children. Growing scientific evidence links some of these substances to various illnesses, including cancer and Parkinson’s disease.

Starting in 2024, a formidable alliance of chemical manufacturers and industry groups initiated a nationwide push to enact “immunity laws.” These bills aim to protect companies from legal claims related to the adverse effects of their pesticide products. Over the past three years, industry lobbyists have attempted to pass pesticide immunity legislation in 15 states.

The battle over ‘failure to warn’

Central to the lobbying effort is the legal question of whether pesticide companies are obligated to inform users and consumers about potential health risks. In many states, individuals can file “failure to warn” lawsuits if they believe a company concealed information about the dangers of a pesticide.

Chemical manufacturers advocating for pesticide immunity argue that companies should be shielded from lawsuits if they use labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, critics argue this standard is insufficiently protective.

There is ongoing concern about the EPA’s process for reviewing pesticides. For example, despite growing evidence that glyphosate may cause cancer, the official EPA labels still lack a cancer warning, even though organizations like the World Health Organization consider it “probably carcinogenic.”

“The science is pretty clear,” said Daniel Hinkle, senior counsel for policy and state affairs at the American Association for Justice. “The evidence continues to grow, and pesticide companies continue to face losses in court.”

Additionally, a growing body of research links widespread pesticide use to numerous health issues, such as neurodevelopmental disorders, respiratory problems, reduced IQ in children, and conditions like liver and metabolic diseases, as well as cancer.

The pesticide lobbyist’s playbook

Several high-profile court cases have held chemical manufacturers accountable for illnesses such as cancers and neurological diseases, resulting in billions of dollars in payouts. Bayer alone has paid over $11 billion in cancer-related settlements. As a reaction, the chemical industry has invested millions in lobbying for pesticide immunity laws across state and federal levels and in the courts. “This is clearly a coordinated effort by the industry to escape legal responsibility for health damages caused by these chemicals,” Hinkle stated.

In the past three years, advocates have opposed immunity bills in 15 states. While these bills were defeated in 12 states, they were passed in Georgia, North Dakota, and Kentucky. “The states passing these bills have some of the highest cancer rates in the country,” said Joy Reeves, director of policy and strategic development at the Rachel Carson Council. “Now, if you’re a farmer and you get sick, you have fewer avenues to hold pesticide companies accountable.”

Environmental and legal advocates describe the campaign for pesticide immunity laws as both sophisticated and well-funded. Hinkle identifies the Modern Ag Alliance (MAA) as a key force behind this push. The MAA, founded by Bayer in 2024, serves as a lobbying and public relations group.

While tracking lobbying expenditures can be challenging in many states, available data shows substantial spending on pesticide immunity legislation. Public records reveal that MAA spent approximately $1.6 million lobbying in Tennessee in 2025. The Idaho Sun reported that MAA was the largest external spender in Idaho politics that same year.

What pesticide immunity could mean for families

As industry groups advocate for legal protection from pesticide-related injuries, concerns are growing about the implications for public health, accountability, and local input.

In 2012, on a warm July day in Iowa, organic farmer Rob Faux was in his poultry yard when an airplane flew overhead, releasing droplets that covered him, his chickens, and turkeys with fungicides and insecticides. A crop duster had kept the sprayer on while flying over Faux’s farm twice. Subsequently, Faux was diagnosed with cancer. Recent data indicates that Iowa, which had 53 million pounds of pesticides used in 2025, has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation.

Faux now serves as the communications manager and farm expert for the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN). He warns that many everyday products, from ant bait to mosquito repellent, could be affected by the new immunity laws. “If these laws pass, and a mosquito repellent for children makes them sick, these immunity bills could eliminate ways for families to hold manufacturers accountable,” he said.

Faux also highlights the erosion of local control as a major concern. “If I live in a town where drinking water comes from a local lake, and pesticide applicators are using chemicals that contaminate the water, the community should have the power to protect its residents,” he said. Many proposed immunity bills would prevent this, as local or state governments would be barred from enacting pesticide regulations stricter than federal standards.

A pivotal moment in the pesticide immunity fight

These issues have united a diverse coalition of left-leaning environmental advocates and members of the Make America Healthy Again network. Protestors gathered outside the Supreme Court for a rally in the last week of April as justices inside began hearing opening arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell. This closely-watched case could redefine the future of pesticide litigation nationwide.

The case examines whether federal pesticide labeling laws and EPA labels take precedence over state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits. A ruling in favor of Monsanto could significantly restrict legal recourse for those claiming harm from pesticide exposure. “This case is largely about states’ rights,” said Reeves. “It will impact states’ ability to regulate pesticides.”

Just days later, federal lawmakers decisively rejected an attempt to insert pesticide immunity language into the Farm Bill. Seventy-three Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the immunity provision.

“It was a remarkable defeat,” said Max Sano, a senior policy and coalitions associate with Beyond Pesticides. His organization is a national coalition of farmers, farmworkers, scientists, and advocacy groups. “But these bills are still surfacing at the state level, so we can’t let up.” His group is currently tracking new pesticide immunity legislation in 10 states.

The rise of a new pesticide reform movement

As resistance to pesticide immunity laws grows, Reeves likened the current moment to “today’s Silent Spring movement,” referencing Rachel Carson’s influential 1962 book that sparked the modern environmental movement. “Today, the pesticide reform movement is diverse,” Reeves remarked. “It’s cross-partisan. It’s far-reaching.”

Advocates like Reeves, Sano, and Hinkle are employing a multifaceted approach to combat pesticide immunity laws: organizing national coalition calls, educating lawmakers, tracking bills across states, mobilizing grassroots campaigns, and coordinating legal and public awareness initiatives.

Hinkle emphasized the potential impact of individual actions. “It’s crucial to communicate with your lawmaker,” he said. “Every call or email counts. Concerned constituents and grassroots organizing have been pivotal in resisting this wave.”

Reeves echoed his sentiments, stating, “If you care about your family and community, you should get involved in this issue. It concerns us all.”

The Rachel Carson Council (RCC), founded in 1965, is the national environmental organization envisioned by Rachel Carson to continue her work after her passing. We advocate for Carson’s ecological philosophy, which combines scientific concern for the environment and human health with an appreciation and respect for all forms of life, to foster a more sustainable, just, and peaceful future. The Rachel Carson Council is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.