Ag Policy Blog

As the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about EPA and state authorities over pesticides, a group of lawmakers engaged in a heated argument over whether the House version of the farm bill gives pesticide manufacturers liability protection against state lawsuits.

The House Rules Committee on Monday began debating the rules for floor debate on the farm bill and more than 300 amendments that were submitted for consideration to the bill.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., ranking member of the Rules committee, also is a member of the Agriculture committee and pushed House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa., about the impact of the pesticide provision, which he described as a "liability shield for pesticide companies." McGovern asked Thompson if he believed glyphosate is safe.

"My opinion is not important," Thompson said before McGovern interrupted his answer. Thompson added, "So I pointed to the EPA, which has found glyphosate is probably the most studied chemical or agricultural tool in the country, if not the world."

McGovern noted there were people in the audience at the hearing representing people and groups opposed to Congress granting immunity to chemical companies.

Thompson said the provision in the bill is not a liability shield, but does clarify that the EPA has exclusive oversight over labeling provisions for pesticides. He said the pesticide provision would not halt lawsuits related to fraud or negligence. On glyphosate safety, Thompson added, "I do believe it's safe if it is utilized according to the label."

The Supreme Court case is tied to claims alleging the failure to warn people that glyphosate could cause cancer under Missouri state law. Thompson said those claims should not apply to products that have met EPA regulatory standards.

McGovern noted, "Why do we need this language if everything is so wonderful for glyphosate?" He added, "It seems to me this is protecting Monsanto from losing a lot of money because they keep losing lawsuits after lawsuits."

Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, said even if a company violated EPA's rules for submitting false data on a pesticide application, the EPA will settle with companies without requiring an admission of fault. As a result, the language in the bill could take away the ability of people to have their day in court if the company hides details about the risks of its products, Craig said.

Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., pointed to Bayer's $7.25 billion fund to pay for glyphosate litigation. Neguse also said Bayer spent $2 million lobbying on the provision. Neguse pointed to comments from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who suggested state courts and juries should have the opportunity to sound alarms if the federal government gets a regulatory decision wrong.

"That's the point here," Neguse said.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, expressed his own concerns about the pesticide provision, saying he doesn't like that a state such as Texas would have to go through the EPA to address any problems that could arise from pesticide applications.

"I've got grave concerns of big ag making decisions in the corporate interest that aren't necessarily in the interest of every consumer and the health and well-being of every American," Roy said.

When pressed on whether House members will get to vote on an amendment to remove the provision, Thompson countered, "This is about providing what our farmers are asking for, what the farmers need, and quite frankly that's why the provisions are in there."

Thompson added, "I hope there's enough (lawmakers) that believe in science is all I hope," Thompson said.

Craig also continued to raise the issue of $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer. Craig said the farm bill "locks in" those cuts, though she suggested people could face even further cuts to the program.

"Now we're hearing reports that the majority may be coming back for more SNAP cuts in a future reconciliation bill. Are you kidding me? That's anything but a bipartisan process."

House Rules Committee members then began to hear from groups of lawmakers pressing their own various amendments to the farm bill.

SNAP was a big part of the debate as some lawmakers want to ban any soda purchases yet others want to allow SNAP recipients access to products such as rotisserie chicken.

Also among the pending amendments are multiple provisions that would also codify allowing year-round E15.

Also see, "US Supreme Court Justices Appear Split Over Bayer's Bid to Kill Roundup Lawsuits,"

https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.