AGRICULTURE AND PESTICIDE
POLICY REFORM
Pesticide Regulation in the United States:
As science advances our understanding of pesticide risks, policy must advance with it.
Outdated regulatory mandates can make it difficult for the EPA to incorporate new technologies and scientific insights into pesticide decisions. Many of today’s challenges stem from antiquated testing requirements, risk assessment methods, and decision criteria in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the nation’s primary pesticide law.
FIFRA was enacted by Congress in 1972. Although the law has been amended several times, various fundamental problems remain. FIFRA needs to be modernized to support the EPA in making more timely and effective regulatory actions. HHRA believes the time has come for a comprehensive review and update of the FIFRA statute. Work toward that goal is already underway, including our recent work on pesticide preemption.
May 26, 2026. “Assessment of the Oral Argument in the Supreme Court Case Durnell v. Monsanto” argued April 27, 2026. Dr. Charles Benbrook, HHRA Strategic Advisor
May 5, 2026. “Pesticide protections in the crosshairs.” Ken Cook is Having Another Episode podcast with Chuck Benbrook.
April 1, 2026. “Why HHRA’s Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in Opposition to Preemption?”HHRA Board Chair Tom Green.
April 1, 2026. Supreme Court of the United States. “HHRA Amicus Brief on Durnell v. Monsanto Appeal”. Jesse Buss, Counsel of Record, Brief written by Dr. Charles Benbrook, HHRA Strategic Advisor.
April 1, 2026. SCOTUS. “Amicus Brief of Senator Cory Booker on Behalf of Respondent.” Focus on past attempts to pass preemption legislation.
April 1, 2026. SCOTUS. “Amicus Brief of Former EPA Officials and the Environmental Protection Network on Behalf of Respondent.”
April 1, 2026. Access 14 other Amici Briefs in support of respondent via the SCOTUS website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/403336/20260331190556497_MDL%20Leadership%20merits%20amicus%20brief%20-%20Monsanto%20v.%20Durnell%20-%20No.%2024-1068.pdf
April 1, 2026. Supreme Court of the United States. “HHRA Amicus Brief on Durnell v. Monsanto Appeal“. Jesse Buss, Counsel of Record, Brief written by Dr. Charles Benbrook, HHRA Strategic Advisor and Consultant.
March 31, 2026, SCOTUS. Amicus Brief of the Roundup and Paraquat MDL Leadership in Support of Respondent.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/403336/20260331190556497_MDL%20Leadership%20merits%20amicus%20brief%20-%20Monsanto%20v.%20Durnell%20-%20No.%2024-1068.pdf
November 2025. “ORG-Tracker Comments to the NOSB November 2025 Meeting in Omaha, Nebraska Docket # AMS-NOP-25-0034,” Submitted by: Dr. Charles Benbrook ORG-Tracker Team and Benbrook Consulting Services and Dr. Brian Baker, ORG-Tracker Team and Belcairn Concerns LLC
August 2025. “Heartland Health Research Alliance Comments on Dicamba Applications on GE Soybeans and Cotton Submitted to EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0154,” Submitted By: Dr. Thomas Green on behalf of the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA).
March 2025. “Re: Petition Seeking Rulemaking to Modify Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices, Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0562,” Submitted by: Dr. Thomas Green, HHRA’s Board Chair, and Dr. Charles Benbrook, former ED of HHRA on behalf of the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA).
September 2024. “Comments on the Inert Ingredients in Organic Pesticide Products Proposal dated August 13, 2024,” submitted to the National Organic Standards Board on behalf of ORG-Tracker and Heartland Health Research Alliance.
September 2024. “Comments to the NOSB on the Risk-Based Certification Discussion Document Under Consideration During the October 2024 Meeting in Portland, Oregon,” submitted to the National Organic Standards Board on behalf of ORG-Tracker and Heartland Health Research Alliance.
September 2024. “Written Comments on the NOSB Discussion Document “Residue Testing for the Global Supply Chain,” submitted to the National Organic Standards Board on behalf of ORG-Tracker and Heartland Health Research Alliance.
April 2024. Comments on “Residue Testing for a Global Supply Chain” and “Inert Ingredients in Organic Pesticide Products,” submitted to the National Organic Standards Board.
April 2024. “Written Comments to the NOSB Associated with the April 29 – May 1, 2024 Meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” submitted to the National Organic Standards Board.
March 2023. “HHRA Comments on Sustainable Pest Management: Roadmap for California,” submitted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation in response to a call for public input on implementing the “Roadmap.”
December 2022: “Recommendations to the National Organic Program for the Assessment and Approval of Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products Approved for Use on Certified Organic Farms”, Heartland Health Research Alliance Comments Submitted to USDA Docket: AMS-NOP-21-0008.
October 2022: “Pesticide Registration Review: Dicamba Revised Human Health and Draft Ecological Risk Assessments”, Heartland Health Research Alliance Comments Submitted to EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0223-0026.
September 2022: “Petition to Revoke Tolerances and Cancel Registrations for Certain Organophosphate Uses”, Heartland Health Research Alliance Comments Submitted to EPA Docket: HQ-OPP-2022-0490.
Preemption and Immunity from Litigation
The pesticide industry has sought to reduce its liability by changing laws governing “failure to warn” claims in pesticide litigation. These efforts have intensified following thousands of successful lawsuits alleging that individuals’ exposure to certain pesticides caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or Parkinson’s disease.
HHRA has tracked efforts to change the role of states, and state law, in pesticide regulation and litigation for years. Drawing on our experiences, HHRA wrote and submitted an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as part of its consideration of the Durnell v. Monsanto case. Our May 1, 2026, brief, available here, explains the ambiguity in FIFRA that has contributed to the conflicting legal interpretations considered by the Court in this case.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto. This ruling further emphasizes the need for congress to revisit FIFRA and respond to evolving regulatory challenges and risk assessment science.
Modernizing FIFRA and Resolving Statutory Ambiguity
HHRA is undertaking a comprehensive review of the FIFRA statute. Many of today’s environmental and public health problems stemming from pesticide use were unimaginable in the 1970s and 1980s when the modern FIFRA statute was written.
There is good news.
Public health scientists are refining new ways to track the impacts of pesticide exposures among the general public via the diet and drinking water, and among those handling and spraying pesticides. To translate the new science into tangible risk reduction, new strategies and decision criteria need to be embedded in FIFRA . Risk reduction interventions need to be applied comprehensively in order to curtail the whack-a-mole dynamic that too often just triggers shifts in the pesticides causing problems.