Food & Climate
A Democratic congresswoman succeeded in striking down a clause in a new bill that would made it harder for individuals to sue US pesticide manufacturers, a move many considered a major victory.
After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 appropriations process by Jan. 30 to avoid another government shutdown, according to a report seen by Food & Climate.
The provision, referred to as Section 435, would have made it harder for individuals to sue US pesticide manufacturers over alleged health harms.
Bayer, which for years has been battling lawsuits alleging its herbicide Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has lobbied for the provision, among other political and legal efforts to protect the corporation’s interests.
The provision of US pesticide manufacturers first appeared in the bill
When the provision that would made it harder for individuals to sue US pesticide manufacturers first appeared in the bill earlier this year, Pingree quickly introduced an amendment to remove it.
At that time, she wasn’t able to get enough votes to take it out. “It had fairly strong Republican support,” she told Civil Eats in an exclusive interview.
Pingree said she kept up the battle, and, over the last several months a number of other groups put pressure on Congress to remove the rider, including environmental organizations, organic advocates, and MAHA Action, the biggest organization supporting the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.
MAHA Action celebrated the development with a post on X that said, “WE DID IT!,” though they did not mention Pingree. Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA supporter who led efforts to lobby against the rider, thanked a group of Republicans on X for the end result.
Pingree said she’s happy to share the credit with advocates. “It was my fight, but nobody does this alone. There are advocates on the environment and organic side that have been at this for a long time. But Republicans got a lot of calls going into the markup, they knew there was a lot of interest on the MAHA side,” she said. “It’s important to have a win to show there is widespread bipartisan support for restricting these toxic chemicals in our food and our environment.”
Pingree said she’s been told the rider will likely come up again if the farm bill process restarts, and its supporters could also try to insert it in other legislation.
The funding bill also rejects deep cuts to the EPA budget that the Trump administration requested and instead proposes a small decrease of around 4 percent. And, like the agriculture appropriations bill passed in November, it includes language that restricts the ability of the EPA to reorganize or cut significant staff without notifying Congress.
Bayer replying
When asked for comment on Monday, Bayer said that no company should have “blanket immunity” and it disputed that the appropriations bill language would have prevented anyone from suing pesticide manufacturers. The company said it supports state and federal legislation “because the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA”.
The company additionally states on its website that without “legislative certainty”, lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup and other weed killers can impact its research and product development and other “important investments”.
In December, the Trump administration also sided with Bayer in a Supreme Court case that could deliver a similar level of legal immunity through the courts instead of legislation, according to The Guardian.