In a significant victory for consumer and environmental advocates, US Democrats have successfully removed a contentious provision from a congressional funding bill that critics dubbed a "pesticide immunity shield." The measure, heavily lobbied for by agrochemical giant Bayer, would have made it harder to sue pesticide manufacturers and restricted state-level health warnings.
A Hard-Fought Legislative Battle
The controversial rider was stripped from the 2026 appropriations bill following intense pressure. Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine and ranking member of the House appropriations subcommittee for interior and environment, confirmed the move on Monday. She stated that Senate Republican leaders have agreed not to revisit the issue, making the decision final.
"I just drew a line in the sand and said this cannot stay in the bill," Pingree told the Guardian. "There has been intensive lobbying by Bayer. This has been quite a hard fight." Pingree had previously tried and failed to overturn the language in a July committee hearing.
What the 'Shield' Would Have Done
The deleted language was part of a broader industry effort to limit litigation. It would have blocked federal funds from being used to issue any guidance, policy, or labelling change inconsistent with an existing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) human health assessment.
Critics argued this would have had severe consequences:
- It would have impeded states and local governments from warning the public about pesticide risks, even in light of new scientific evidence, if those warnings conflicted with potentially outdated EPA assessments.
- The EPA itself would have been blocked from updating warnings without finalising a lengthy new assessment.
- Consumers would have found it extremely difficult to sue manufacturers for failing to warn of health risks if the EPA's assessment did not support such warnings.
"This provision would have handed pesticide manufacturers exactly what they’ve been lobbying for," Pingree said. "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."
Bayer's Ongoing Litigation Struggle
The push for the legislation is closely tied to Bayer's years-long struggle to manage thousands of lawsuits. Plaintiffs allege they developed cancer from using Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides sold by the company. Bayer inherited this litigation when it purchased Monsanto in 2018 and has paid out billions in settlements and verdicts, with several thousand cases still ongoing.
Bayer maintains its products are safe and do not cause cancer when used as directed. When asked for comment, the company stated no firm should have "blanket immunity" and disputed that the language would have prevented lawsuits. It said it supports such legislation because "the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation."
The successful removal of the rider was aided by the Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement. Activists, including Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America, spent months lobbying congressional members. "We are delighted that our elected officials listened to so many Americans who spoke up," Honeycutt said.
Despite this setback for the industry, Pingree warned the fight is not over. She expects continued efforts to insert industry-friendly language into future legislation, including the new Farm Bill. "Bayer has made this a high priority," she said. "I don’t think this is over."
