New Pesticide Immunity Laws Put Public Health and Corporate Accountability at Risk

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 26, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm Wisner Baum LLP, nationally recognized for its groundbreaking legal victories against Monsanto regarding glyphosate-based herbicides, is sounding the alarm on new industry sponsored state and federal legislation that severely limits cancer victims' ability to hold pesticide manufacturers liable.

"This state legislation to shield pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits is a blow to corporate accountability. We need to keep asking why they are afraid of 'failure to warn' labels and other forms of transparency and accountability," questioned Michael Baum, managing partner at Wisner Baum and lead trial counsel in the Johnson case, referring to a spate of bills introduced to state legislatures.⁽¹⁾

In 2018, Wisner Baum's trial team represented Dewayne "Lee" Johnson, a California school groundskeeper diagnosed with terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma and secured the first-ever jury verdict linking Monsanto's Roundup weed-killer to cancer. The San Francisco jury awarded Johnson $289.2 million (later reduced to $20.5 million), finding Monsanto liable for failing to warn about the cancer risks of glyphosate.⁽²⁾

That case also unearthed the "Monsanto Papers"—internal corporate documents revealing ghostwritten studies, efforts to influence regulators, and attacks on independent scientists. ⁽³⁾ Johnson v. Monsanto became a watershed moment, sparking thousands of lawsuits, billions in settlements, and a worldwide reexamination of glyphosate safety.

New Threat: Liability Shield Laws

According to the Lawsuit Information Center, "Monsanto had settled nearly 100,000 Roundup lawsuits—paying about $11 billion—and an estimated 61,000 cases remain pending as of May 2025." ⁽⁴⁾ These figures give a glimpse of how many people have been affected by this pesticide exposure. 

Soon after the Johnson verdict, Brent Wisner, managing partner at Wisner Baum and lead trial counsel in the case said, "For the public at large, the lawsuit presented a question of corporate accountability. With enough money and influence, could a company endanger its customers, hide evidence, manipulate regulators, and get away with it all—for decades?" ⁽⁵⁾

With these new liability shield laws, that question resurfaces. According to Wisner, the new laws enacted in North Dakota and Georgia could have stopped Johnson's case before it began. These statutes bar state-law "failure-to-warn" claims if a pesticide is registered with and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), effectively giving manufacturers a pass if their label complies with federal rules—even if evidence suggests they withheld safety risks. 

In addition to state laws, Congress has introduced a pesticide immunity provision —Section 453 of the House Appropriations Bill—that would lock federal agencies and courts into outdated health assessments. Section 453 would effectively shield more than 57,000 currently registered products, and all future chemicals regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Earlier attempts to grant similar preemption to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appeared in the House Farm Bill (2024) and the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (2023). ⁽⁶⁾

"If these laws had been in place in 2018, Johnson's case would have been thrown out before the first witness took the stand," said Baum. "There would have been no verdict, no Monsanto Papers, and no public reckoning. Corporate misconduct would have stayed hidden."

Justice Denied by Design, What's at Risk Beyond the Courtroom

For pesticide corporations, the new state legislation is about money, but for those harmed by pesticides, legal actions are not just about compensation. "Juries serve as a check when regulators fail," said Wisner. "These new laws take that check away." Here's what else is at stake:

• No Day in Court: Under these laws, plaintiffs alleging pesticide-related cancers could see their cases dismissed outright if EPA-approved labels omit cancer warnings.
• Evidence Locked Away: Internal corporate communications—often the key to proving liability—might never be unsealed.
• Reduced Deterrence: Without the threat of punitive damages, there is less incentive for companies to disclose safety concerns.
• Public Health Impact: Johnson's verdict was a catalyst for policy changes and restrictions on glyphosate worldwide.

Wisner Baum is urging lawmakers, advocates, and the public to understand the stakes as more states consider similar legislation.

References 

1. Leggett, Vincent. "New Legislation Protects Pesticide Manufacturers from Legal Complaints of Harm." Food Tank, 29 May 2025, foodtank.com/news/2025/05/new-legislation-protects-pesticide-manufacturers-from-legal-complaints-of-harm/. 
2. Johnson v. Monsanto Co. Opinion. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, No.CGC16550128, 10 Aug. 2018; decision modified by Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, 20 July 2020, 52 Cal. App. 5^th 434.
3. Gillam, Carey. The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man's Search for Justice. Island Press, 2021.
4. Lawsuit Information Center. "Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit Update." Lawsuit Information Center, May 2025, Lawsuit-Information-Center.com.
5. Johnson v. Monsanto Co.: "Landmark Roundup Cancer Case." Wisner Baum, wisnerbaum.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/johnson-trial-2018-/.
6. Heflin, Jason O. Preemption in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Congressional Research Service, 2 May 2025, congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11304/LSB11304.1.pdf.