Ag Policy Blog

The pesticide industry saw a lobbying setback on Monday when the U.S. House Appropriations Committee stripped out a provision in the bill that would have shielded pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits.

The provision, which had been listed as Section 453 of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies bill, would have blocked EPA, states and local governments from updating public warnings about pesticides and provided immunity to manufacturers because their products had been approved by EPA.

The provision became the center of a lobbying push and social media campaign since it was first added to the bill last summer. Section 453 drew heavy criticism from the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement, as well as traditional environmental groups.

Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, claimed credit for removing the provision from the bill, but also so did Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

"Great news! This bill has been consolidated with two other appropriations bills and SECTION 453 HAS BEEN REMOVED due to public feedback," Massie posted on X on Monday.

The group MAHA Action declared, "Big Chem is quietly pushing for pesticide immunity through Section 453 in a congressional spending bill. This would protect pesticide companies from accountability even when their products harm people."

Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 and has since faced one of the largest product liability legal battles in U.S. history over Roundup, its glyphosate product. The company has faced nearly 200,000 legal claims that Roundup causes cancer. Bayer has already paid out an estimated $11 billion in settlements and jury awards but continues to face litigation in both state and federal courts.

Bayer and others have since ramped up efforts at both the state and federal levels to restrict litigation against their herbicides and insecticides.

Bayer is now seeking a Supreme Court review that is backed by the Trump administration. Last month, the U.S. solicitor general said in a brief the U.S. Supreme Court should grant review to Bayer on a petition filed by the company that could bring product-liability lawsuits. The case is Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell. Bayer argued the Supreme Court should hear the case to resolve a split among lower courts on whether federal labeling laws preempt state labeling laws.

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who chairs the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said at a committee hearing last summer the provision was the subject of misinformation about what it actually would do. Simpson said the language of the of the provision would not stop states from barring a chemical from being sold in its borders, according to a report in the New Lede.

"I understand the confusion that is being spread," Simpson said at the time. "I know the MAHA moms have been calling ... I think we ought to make America healthy again ... but they're getting so much misinformation about what this does."

Pingree, who serves as ranking member of the subcommittee, said in a news release Monday she "has successfully stripped a provision in the FY2026 funding bill that would have shielded pesticide manufacturers like Bayer from lawsuits."

Pingree said she has been leading the effort to remove Section 453 from her subcommittee's funding bill since Republicans quietly included it in their draft bill earlier this summer.

"For too long, powerful chemical companies like Bayer have spent billions lobbying Congress to override the voices of states, towns, and families who are simply trying to protect their health. Despite their relentless efforts and thanks to immense public pressure, we successfully stripped the industry-backed pesticides preemption rider, Section 453, from the final Interior and Environment funding bill," Pingree said.

Pingree said the bill would have given pesticide manufacturers federal preemption to stop states and local governments from restricting the use of chemicals or require health warning labels.

"It would have meant that only the federal government gets a say -- even though we know federal reviews can take years, and are often subject to intense industry pressure," Pingree continued. "In Maine and across the country, communities have acted responsibly to limit pesticide use near schools, homes, farms, and waterways. They shouldn't be told by Washington -- or by chemical lobbyists -- that they no longer have the right to protect their children, their land, or their livelihoods. By removing this rider, we pushed back against Big Chemical, preserved local control, and made clear that public health comes before corporate profits. But this is not the end of the fight. We'll be watching closely to ensure that similar language is not included in a Farm Bill or another legislative vehicle."

Pesticides in the United States are regulated under a combination of federal, state, and local laws. The primary federal statute governing pesticide registration and use is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the sale, labeling, and use of pesticides nationwide. Under FIFRA, the term "pesticide" includes substances used to control insects, rodents, weeds, fungi, and other organisms designated as pests.

EPA is required to review each registered pesticide at least once every 15 years to determine whether it can continue to be used without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. While FIFRA establishes a federal baseline for pesticide regulation, it has long been interpreted to allow states and local governments to adopt additional protections to address health and environmental risks in their own communities.

Seven states -- Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland, Utah, Nevada, and Vermont -- do not preempt local governments from regulating pesticide use within their jurisdictions. In Maine alone, there are more than 30 state and local regulations related to pesticide use and warning requirements that could have been undermined or preempted under Section 453, Pingree's news release stated.

Also see, "US Solicitor General Backs Bayer's Supreme Court Bid to End 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.