Pesticide Liability Shields: A Battle Between Corporate Interests and Earth's Health

Pesticide liability shields are threatening the vitality of our people and environment. This can be considered a pivotal moment in our civilization's story. Read on to see what's going on, why it matters, and what you can do about it.

Pesticides are used in the United States and around the world to deter insects, control weeds, and prevent the infiltration of several other pests into both large-scale agricultural crops and residential gardens. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States alone uses 1 billion pounds of pesticides each year, making these chemicals a common staple in crop management (Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Water Science Center, 2017). 

However, aside from pesticides’ ability to control insect infestation, studies have consistently linked pesticide use to long-term health conditions that negatively impact thousands of Americans everyday (Ahmad et. al, 2024). Due to these risks, members of the public have reserved the right to sue pesticide companies if they failed to provide an accurate warning of their product’s health risks and get sick as a result—until now.

On July 22, 2025, the House Appropriations Committee released and approved their 2026 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill, which, among other things, severely degrades the EPA’s regulatory strength in regards to setting labelling standards for pesticide companies. Prefacing the bill with a $2.1 billion—over 23%– cut to the EPA’s budget, the Appropriations Committee claims the bill “bolsters U.S. national security and border protections by ensuring chemical and pesticide manufacturers are not overburdened with requirements that would drive businesses overseas and threaten competitiveness” (House Committee on Appropriations, 2025). In other words, pesticide companies are getting a break. 

More specifically, section 453 stipulates that if the EPA has determined no health risk associated with the pesticide and therefore no warning label is deemed necessary to be put on the product’s packaging, individuals can no longer sue on the grounds of “failure to warn”—the most common claim filed by a plaintiff in a pesticide lawsuit (Ryerson, 2025). The resulting outcome is a liability shield that protects pesticide manufacturers, rather than the health of U.S. citizens. In reality, this new proposal leaves an unregulated gap between what the EPA deems as “safe” from a labelling perspective, and real advice from medical professionals. 

For example, in a 2019 lawsuit against agricultural conglomerate Monsanto, one couple won over $2 billion in damages after claiming consistent use of the company’s pesticide Roundup contributed to both of them developing Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The active chemical in Roundup, glyphosate, has been identified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization, yet is classified by the EPA as posing no serious risk to human health (Ryerson, 2025). Under this new bill, that same couple would no longer be eligible to sue under failure to warn, despite all of the medical evidence in their favor. 

And glyphosate is just one chemical in a long list of pesticides used in the U.S. identified with human health risks. Paraquat, a pesticide that has been outright banned in 50 other countries, is still regularly used in the U.S. despite an increasing number of studies linking the pesticide to chronic health conditions like Parkinson’s Disease. In fact, findings of nine case control studies showed Paraquat exposure to increase instances of Parkinson's disease by 25% (Ahmad et. al, 2024). While the EPA has classified Paraquat as a “restricted use pesticide”, the agency has denied the legitimacy of medical research supporting a correlation with PD. Once again, EPA health and safety guidelines contradict medical research, compromising the full accuracy of pesticide warning labels.

While the current appropriations bills solely address the federal budget, at least nine states have produced their own liability limitation bills, making suing on failure to warn impossible for many communities regardless of upcoming congressional decisions (Rollins, 2025).  In the future, even if this specific version of the interior budget fails to be confirmed by the Senate, more and more states may continue to quietly adopt their own failure to warn limitations, making liability shields a widespread assault on personal liberties. Not only is this concerning for those who live and work near areas of high pesticide use and could potentially face health risks, but this phenomenon reflects a shift in our broader societal priorities—valuing corporations over health and safety standards. If action is not taken, liability shields are one stepping stone on the path to corporations dictating Americans’ wellbeing and facing zero consequences for their actions. 

So, what now? Well, the greatest asset to liability shields is oblivion within the general public about what is going on. These new standards have been able to slide by with little to no public attention. Moving forward, it is vital to stay educated about how failure to warn laws might affect your own region, or if these statutes have already been put in place. 

Status Summary for 2025 Lawsuit Immunity Bills

For the FY 2026 budget, the House and Senate have until September 30th to pass their respective appropriations bills and agree on a final funding bill to be sent to the president. Until then, there is still time to contact your state representatives, share informative content such as this article to others, and tell friends and family to do the same. In “ensuring chemical and pesticide manufacturers are not overburdened with requirements”, this bill simultaneously ensures that millions of Americans are stripped of their legal autonomy against corporations. As more and more evidence supports a correlation between pesticides and chronic disease, now is not the time to lower standards and cut corners. Instead, we must advocate for due diligence on behalf of the representatives and legal systems put in place for our protection. 

Written by: Flannery Streiff

Edited by: Henry Passerini

Flannery Streiff is a writer and youth program developer for Restored Lands. Originally from Boise, Idaho, and currently based in Michigan pursuing a degree in Environmental Studies and Energy Science from the University of Michigan. Growing up in Idaho, Flannery gained a deep appreciation for all that the outdoors has to offer, which is what brought her to pursue a career in sustainability.

References 

Ahmad, M. F., Ahmad, F. A., Alsayegh, A. A., Zeyaullah, Md., AlShahrani, A. M., Muzammil, K., Saati, A. A., Wahab, S., Elbendary, E. Y., Kambal, N., Abdelrahman, M. H., & Hussain, S. (2024). Pesticides impacts on human health and the environment with their mechanisms of action and possible countermeasures. Heliyon, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29128  

House Committee on Appropriations. (2025, July 21). Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2026 Summary. Appropriations.house.gov. https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/fy26-interior,-environment,-and-related-agencies-bill-sumnmary-subcommittee.pdf  

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Water Science Center. (2017). Pesticides. USGS. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ohio-kentucky-indiana-water-science-center/science/pesticides 

Rollins, B. (2025). Update on State Pesticide Liability Limitation Bills. National Agricultural Law Center. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/update-on-state-pesticide-liability-limitation-bills/   

Ryerson, H. (2025, August 7). The Pesticide Liability Shield is a public health crisis. The Michigan Daily. https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/columns/the-pesticide-liability-shield-is-a-public-health-crisis/