Farmers at Risk? Bayer-Founded Group Pushes for Liability Shields in Pesticide Lawsuits

Are farmers at risk of losing their right to seek justice against pesticide manufacturers? A concerning trend is emerging across the United States, where a Bayer-backed group is actively lobbying for legislation that would shield pesticide companies from liability in personal injury lawsuits. This move raises critical questions about corporate accountability, farmer safety, and the future of agricultural practices. With over 177,000 lawsuits filed against Bayer over its Roundup product, and billions already paid out in settlements, the stakes are incredibly high.

The Push for Liability Shields: What’s Happening?

In recent years, Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, has faced a barrage of lawsuits alleging that its Roundup herbicide, containing glyphosate, causes cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Juries have repeatedly sided with the plaintiffs, awarding significant damages. In response, Bayer and allied agricultural organizations are lobbying state and federal lawmakers to enact laws that would limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn them about potential health risks.

These proposed laws, dubbed “liability shields” by critics, aim to protect pesticide companies from “failure to warn” lawsuits, provided their product labels comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. This means that if a pesticide label is approved by the EPA, the manufacturer would be immune from lawsuits, even if evidence suggests the product caused harm.

CropLife America’s Role

CropLife America, a trade association representing pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer, plays a central role in advocating for these liability shields. The organization lobbies extensively at both state and federal levels, arguing that science-based risk assessment should be the foundation for regulatory decisions, not what it deems “incorrect” applications of the precautionary principle. CropLife America’s mission is to ensure growers and consumers have the technologies they need to protect crops, communities, and ecosystems from pests, weeds, and diseases in an environmentally sound, safe, and sustainable way.

CropLife America spends millions each year to influence pesticide policy. In 2023, their revenue was $18 million, and their expenses were $18.5 million. They actively engage in advocacy, education, and research to promote sustainable practices in crop protection and pesticide policy.

State-Level Battles: Where are Liability Shields Being Considered?

The battle over pesticide liability is particularly fierce in several states with significant agricultural sectors. As of late 2025, laws have been introduced in at least eight states, and drafts are circulating in more than 20.

Georgia and North Dakota: These states have already enacted legislation that limits liability for pesticide manufacturers in failure-to-warn lawsuits.
Iowa: The fight is intense, with opponents calling the proposed law the “Cancer Gag Act” due to high cancer levels in the state, potentially linked to pesticide use.
Other States: Similar bills have been considered in Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

Arguments For and Against Liability Shields

Proponents of liability shields, including Bayer and several farm groups, argue that these measures are necessary to:

Ensure farmers retain access to essential pesticides that help control weeds and pests, boosting crop yields and maintaining affordable food production.
Prevent “frivolous” lawsuits driven by opportunistic lawyers exploiting public fears, even when scientific evidence is lacking.
Align state regulations with federal standards, creating a uniform and predictable legal landscape for pesticide manufacturers.

Opponents, including farmer unions, environmental groups, and personal injury advocates, contend that liability shields:

Undermine the rights of farmers and others harmed by pesticides to seek justice in court.
Protect pesticide companies from accountability, even when their products cause serious health problems.
Disregard independent research linking pesticides to cancer and other diseases, prioritizing corporate profits over public health.

The “Failure to Warn” Argument

A central issue in the debate is the “failure to warn” claim. Plaintiffs argue that pesticide manufacturers have a legal duty to warn users about the potential health risks associated with their products. Liability shield laws would protect companies from such claims as long as their product labels are EPA-approved.

However, opponents argue that the EPA’s approval process is not infallible and that companies should still be held responsible if they knew or should have known about risks not adequately addressed on the label.

Federal Intervention: A Proposed “Right to Sue”

In response to the growing number of state-level liability shields, Senator Cory Booker introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act. This bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to create a federal “right of action,” allowing individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers in federal court for health harms allegedly caused by their products, such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease.

Booker’s bill aims to provide an alternative avenue for legal recourse in states where liability shields have been enacted, ensuring that victims of pesticide exposure have a chance to hold companies accountable.

The Future of Pesticide Litigation: What’s at Stake?

The outcome of this legal and political battle will have far-reaching consequences for farmers, pesticide manufacturers, and the agricultural industry. If liability shields become widespread, it could significantly limit the ability of individuals harmed by pesticides to seek compensation and justice. Conversely, if Senator Booker’s bill gains traction or if courts continue to side with plaintiffs in Roundup cases, pesticide companies could face increasing financial pressure and potential restrictions on their products.

What Can Farmers Do?

Farmers concerned about the potential health risks of pesticides and the erosion of their legal rights can take several steps:

Stay Informed: Keep abreast of the latest developments in pesticide research, regulations, and litigation.
Advocate for Change: Contact your state and federal representatives to express your concerns about liability shields and support policies that protect farmer safety and access to justice.
Explore Alternatives: Consider adopting integrated pest management (IPM) strategies and exploring alternative, less toxic pest control methods.
Seek Legal Advice: If you believe you have been harmed by pesticide exposure, consult with an attorney experienced in environmental and personal injury litigation.

Conclusion

The push for liability shields in pesticide lawsuits represents a significant challenge to farmer safety and corporate accountability. As Bayer and other pesticide manufacturers seek to limit their legal exposure, it is crucial for farmers, policymakers, and the public to engage in informed discussions about the risks and benefits of pesticides, the importance of access to justice, and the future of sustainable agriculture.

If you or a loved one has been exposed to pesticides and suffered adverse health effects, it is essential to understand your legal rights. Contact our firm today for a free consultation to discuss your options.