As the new year unfolds, state legislatures across the United States are gearing up for the 2025 session, with Missouri at the forefront of a contentious debate over pesticide liability. A recently introduced bill in the Show-Me State seeks to establish that federal registration of a pesticide by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would suffice to meet any state requirements for warning labels regarding potential cancer risks. This proposal echoes a trend that emerged during the 2024 legislative session, where similar bills were introduced in Missouri and other states, although none succeeded in becoming law.
The backdrop of this legislative push is a growing wave of lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers, particularly targeting glyphosate, a widely used herbicide. Over the past decade, thousands of individuals have claimed that exposure to glyphosate has led to the development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These lawsuits often hinge on “failure to warn” claims, where plaintiffs argue that manufacturers did not adequately inform consumers about the health risks associated with their products. The crux of these claims lies in proving that the manufacturer was aware or should have been aware of the risks based on the prevailing scientific knowledge at the time of the product’s distribution.
Manufacturers like Bayer, the producer of glyphosate, contend that these state-level claims should be dismissed due to federal preemption. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA oversees pesticide labeling, and it prohibits states from imposing additional or differing requirements. Bayer argues that if states were allowed to mandate cancer warnings on glyphosate products, it would conflict with the federally approved label, which does not include such warnings, as the EPA has not classified glyphosate as a carcinogen.
This legal landscape is further complicated by a split among federal circuit courts regarding whether these failure to warn claims are preempted by FIFRA. While the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that such claims are not preempted, the Third Circuit has found otherwise. This divergence has heightened the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually weigh in on the matter, potentially setting a nationwide precedent.
As the 2025 legislative session progresses, the implications of these bills for the agricultural industry are significant. If passed, the Missouri bill could pave the way for similar legislation in other states, limiting the liability of pesticide manufacturers and potentially affecting the ability of plaintiffs to seek redress for alleged injuries. Such changes could embolden manufacturers, allowing them to operate with greater legal protections, while simultaneously raising concerns among public health advocates about the risks posed by pesticides that lack adequate warning labels.
In 2024, various states, including Florida, Idaho, and Iowa, also considered similar pesticide liability limitation bills. These proposals aimed to provide legal defenses for manufacturers whose products carried federally registered labels. While the Missouri bill is more narrowly focused on cancer warnings, its introduction signals a broader trend toward legislative efforts that could alter the landscape of pesticide liability.
The agricultural industry, which relies heavily on pesticide use, is watching these developments closely. The potential for reduced liability may encourage greater reliance on certain chemical products, but it also raises questions about consumer safety and the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks. As states continue to deliberate on these issues, the intersection of agriculture, law, and public health will remain a critical area of focus in the coming months.