Pull the Pesticide Manufacturer Liability Shield in North Carolina!
Our Stand: At-A-Glance
UPDATED July 28, 2025
- UPDATE: The House and Senate were on recess for the month of July, returning on Tuesday, July 29. The conference committee met with “farm” lobbyists during the break, and we expect them to continue their deliberations about whether to insert the pesticide provision back into S401 when they return. The good news is that many House members seem to have no appetite for the pesticide language, but we need to give them support since they are under pressure to pass this legislation.
- On June 25, S401 passed the House without the pesticide liability shield, and it went on to the Senate floor the next day. The Senate did not concur (agree) with the House version of the Farm Act so a Conference Committee was created for both houses to hash out the final language of the bill.
- The committee will decide the final language of the bill that will be voted on by the House and Senate to go to the governor.
- Email and call your legislators (who can influence the committee) to ensure the Pesticide Manufacturer Liability Shield stays out of the final Farm Act. Click here to see if your legislator is on the list of conference committee members.
- (Original CTA below, for those new to the issue)
- [NOTE: NC bills include or refer to existing law and how the proposed bill will change the law. Underlined language is what will be added, struck-thru language will be deleted. All plain text is existing law that will remain.]
- Following is the pesticide language that has currently been removed from the Farm Act. We are working to ensure that this section (or an amended version) is kept out. “LIMIT LIABILITY FOR FIFRA-COMPLIANT LABELING SECTION 19.(a) G.S. 99B-5 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
- “(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the duty of a manufacturer or seller of a pesticide to warn a consumer or the public about the risks associated with the pesticide shall be presumed to be satisfied if the pesticide bears the label approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.) and the pesticide is registered with the Pesticide Board pursuant to G.S. 143-442. This presumption may be rebutted only by a showing that the weight of the scientific evidence does not support the scientific basis on which the required warning is premised and that the manufacturer or seller knew or should have known at the time the pesticide was sold that the required warning was not supported by the weight of scientific evidence. At a minimum, evidence to rebut the presumption shall be academically peer reviewed, published in a recognized academic journal, capable of replication, and reflected by a reliable application of scientific principles and methods to the risks associated with the use of the product.“
-
- Despite what the lobbyists are saying, this language is not about farmers having access to “crop protection tools.” It’s not about preventing frivolous lawsuits. It’s not about the EPA refusing to let BAYER put cancer warnings on Roundup labels—BAYER has never asked for cancer warnings on the labels, disregarding all the published science and court cases revealing Roundup is carcinogenic.
- This language is about shielding all pesticide manufacturers, including those owned by China, from product liability lawsuits, allowing manufacturers and the EPA to evade accountability by violating North Carolinians’ constitutional “inviolable” right to a jury trial.
- EPA-approved labels should never be presumed to satisfy a pesticide manufacturer’s duty to warn in a products liability action, and peer reviewed, published science should not be required to rebut the presumption. Here’s why:
- The EPA does not require pesticide manufacturers to perform chronic toxicity studies with full product formulations. Testing requirements for full product formulations are limited to acute toxicity, such as oral, dermal, and inhalation studies (40 CFR Part 158).
- The EPA only requires active ingredients to be studied for chronic toxicity, such as for carcinogenicity, fertility issues, and neurotoxicity. If a product has more than one active ingredient, toxicity data must be submitted for each individually, but data on the synergistic effects of combined active ingredients, or the synergistic effects of the full formulation are not required.
- The EPA does not require manufacturers to submit their effectiveness data for the vast majority of pesticide products.
- Pesticide manufacturers perform their own efficacy and safety studies and they draft their own product labels, including updated labels. EPA checks to see if the submitted data complies with FIFRA, they don’t check to see if the manufacturer withheld or altered data.
- Decades elapse between the licensing of a pesticide and the first independent peer-reviewed published science showing harm. The discovery process in jury trials is the fastest and best way to uncover a manufacturer’s own scientific evidence that a pesticide can cause harm and that they covered it up.
- The significant gaps in EPA’s evaluation process means that important safety and effectiveness data may be missing from the label. Label reliability is further undermined by a history of criminal fraudulent behavior by pesticide manufacturers, documented efforts by EPA to delay risk reviews and soften regulations, and courts repeatedly revoking EPA’s chemical assessments—like those for dicamba and glyphosate—for failure to align with scientific evidence and statutory duties.
- BAYER recently removed glyphosate from their lawn & garden (L&G) Roundup products. On their website they state: “The vast majority of claims in the Roundup litigation have come from residential L&G users, so this step largely eliminates the primary source of future claims.”
- BAYER replaced glyphosate in those L&G Roundup products with four active ingredients: fluazifop-P-butyl, triclopyr TEA salt, diquat dibromide, and imazapic ammonium. Each has known serious health risks. Diquat dibromide is so toxic, it has been banned in the EU, UK, and Hungary. Apply points 1-4 above, along with BAYER’s 2028 target date for the release of a new patented glyphosate replacement, and BAYER’s massive push to quickly pass state and federal liability shield bills becomes more clear.
References:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-158
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17185266/
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/Toxic_concoctions.pdf
https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150-0002/content.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/pesticide-registration-manual-chapter-1-overview-requirements-pesticide
https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36926962/
https://www.amazon.com/Poison-Spring-Secret-History-Pollution/dp/1608199142
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/federal-court-halts-spraying-of-monsantos-dicamba-pesticide-across-millions-of-acres-of-cotton-soybeans-2024-02-06/
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6659/federal-court-rejects-glyphosate-registration-decision-because-epa-ignored-cancer-risks-endangered-species-risks
https://www.bayer.com/en/managing-the-roundup-litigation
https://www.agbolt.com/post/bayer-develops-alternative-to-glyphosate-herbicide