Press Release
Amicus Brief Highlights “Unintended Consequents” If the Court Rules in Favor of Bayer/Monsanto and the Pesticide Industry
HHRA warned the Supreme Court that “the effectiveness of FIFRA [federal pesticide law] rises and falls on the fluidity and coherence of state plus federal contributions to labeling” in an Amicus Brief submitted today.
The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments April 27th on a controversial pesticide preemption case that could make it harder for citizens to sue pesticide manufacturers when one of their products does not work as claimed, or triggers an adverse health outcome.
Preemption would also dramatically reduce the role states are currently playing in pesticide regulation, while placing new burdens on EPA at a time the agency is dealing with steep budget cuts. “Something has to give, and here in Iowa, we fear it will be public health and environmental quality,” warned Audrey Tran Lam, an HHRA Board member and Director of the Pesticides and Public Health Working Group at the University of Northern Iowa.
If the Court rules in favor of Bayer/Monsanto, pesticide registrants and the EPA will determine what risks are acceptable and how pesticides can be used in farming and non-agricultural settings. “Pesticides are invaluable tools for managing pest risks to agriculture and public health,” reports Dr. Thomas Green, chair of HHRA’s Board of Directors. “Pesticide use can also generate risks. I’ve spent my career working with all sectors to reduce pest management risks and optimize benefits. Tremendous progress has and continues to be made. However, history is littered with examples of where manufacturers developed products and regulators approved uses that later were discovered to carry unacceptable risks. At times like today when the pesticide industry has so much clout at EPA, shielding the industry from legal action, a key disincentive for overlooking risks, does not bode well for farmers, people who handle and apply pesticides as part of their jobs, the public or the environment.”
For years the pesticide industry has sought changes in pesticide law to shield registrants from liability and litigation when a product fails to work as advertised or makes someone sick. The Department of Justice has joined the pesticide industry in arguing before SCOTUS that as long as an applicator follows the instructions on an EPA-approved label, the manufacturer should not be liable for a failure to warn about adverse effects or economic losses.
“If the Court accepts the industry’s argument, all registrants will have to do is gain EPA approval of bare-bone labels that lack needed warnings and requirements,” explained Dr. Charles Benbrook, HHRA founder and strategic advisor, and author of the Brief.
HHRA points out to the Court the two major reasons why the industry is so determined to put a liability shield in place. First, advances in science are connecting the dots between pesticide exposures and disease outcomes. And second, since the 1990s, the pesticide industry has become increasingly able to influence how senior officials in the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) “balance” pesticide risks and benefits.
The Brief’s “Summary of Argument” section closes by stating:
“The Court should not solve Bayer/Monsanto’s near-term, litigation-driven fiscal crisis via expanding the scope of preemption, thereby creating more consequential problems that will plague U.S. farmers and pest managers, the general public, and regulatory officials for many years, if not decades.”
For More
- Additional materials on preemption are on HHRA’s website, including March 2025 HHRA comments to EPA on a preemption petition submitted to the agency by 11 Attorneys General.
- To schedule an interview with Dr. Thomas Green or Dr. Benbrook, email Tami Gilbertson at tami.gilbertson@hh-ra.org or call 612-599-9546.