Two U.S. states have already enacted industry-backed laws while federal legislation advances, creating unprecedented corporate shields against legal accountability.
This summer, a little-known provision in federal spending legislation quietly advanced through the House Appropriations Committee. If it becomes law, it will fundamentally change how pesticide companies can be held accountable for dangerous products.
Section 453 of the FY26 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill has the potential to eliminate cases similar to those we began pursuing almost a decade ago; cases that exposed Monsanto's deceptive practices and later resulted in billions in verdicts and settlements for Roundup cancer victims. The federal push for pesticide immunity comes as two states have already enacted similar protections, setting a troubling precedent that could spread nationwide if Congress fails to act.
The mass tort attorneys at Wisner Baum have always championed transparency and corporate accountability. As attorneys who worked to de-designate and publish the Monsanto Papers, we are concerned about emerging pesticide legislation designed to strip people of their right to pursue legal action if and when the agrochemical industry sells harmful products.
What Section 453 Would Do to Pesticide Lawsuits
Section 453 creates what we believe is a “pesticide immunity shield.” The provision would effectively end lawsuits against Bayer because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen (even though the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer lists glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen”). If Section 453 became law, courts could dismiss pesticide claims because adding risks to the warning labels would be impossible. Toxic tort lawyers call it an “impossibility preemption” because it would be legally impossible for companies to update warning labels without lengthy EPA reassessment processes, which would shield them from state-level liability claims.
Under current law, companies like Bayer (formerly Monsanto) can be taken to court for failing to adequately warn consumers about cancer risks associated with products like Roundup. Several of these "failure to warn" lawsuits against Bayer have resulted in massive jury verdicts and settlements, including the landmark cases that Wisner Baum won at the beginning of the Roundup cancer litigation.
“The proposed legislation fundamentally breaks how the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is intended to function,” says Wisner Baum senior partner, Michael Baum. “Courts in Roundup cancer cases found it relevant that Monsanto never asked EPA for cancer warnings despite mounting evidence. Section 453 would make such inquiries irrelevant by blocking EPA funding to even consider such requests.”
North Dakota and Georgia Lead the Way in Pesticide Immunity
Section 453 echoes troubling developments at the state level. Earlier this year, North Dakota became the first state to pass pesticide immunity legislation when Governor Kelly Armstrong signed HB 1318 into law. Just weeks later, in May 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp quietly signed similar legislation (SB 144), making Georgia the second state to shield pesticide manufacturers from liability. Both laws take effect in early 2026.
The Georgia law is particularly concerning given recent litigation victories in that state. Just two months before Governor Kemp signed SB 144, a Georgia jury awarded $2.1 billion to a plaintiff in a Roundup cancer case. Similar pending lawsuits in Georgia could become much more difficult to pursue once the immunity law takes full effect.
The timing of these state laws is no coincidence. Bayer founded the "Modern Ag Alliance" after similar legislation failed in multiple states in 2024. The lobbying group spent over $300,000 on Facebook ads in 2025 alone, promoting glyphosate safety and pushing for immunity legislation.
In Iowa, Bayer has already paid lobbyists $123,250 this year. Between 2021 and 2023, well before pesticide labeling legislation was introduced, the agrochemical company spent between $20,000 and $30,000 annually on its lobbying efforts.
In Idaho, Bayer spent approximately $600,000 trying to pass similar industry-friendly pesticide legislation, but the bill was defeated when legislators recognized it for what it truly was: corporate immunity from accountability.
“I don’t care what party you are in, if you get poisoned by a pesticide manufacturer, you want to be able to sue. You need to be able to sue,” said Wisner Baum managing partner R. Brent Wisner in a recent interview. “For you to think otherwise, you have to assume that the EPA is infallible and that our federal government’s regulators are top-notch. Bayer is paying millions of dollars to get these laws passed because it’s cheaper than it is to pay people they’ve given cancer to.”
‘You Can’t Have it Both Ways’
A critical flaw in Section 453 lies in how pesticide safety assessments work. The EPA does not independently test pesticide products – it relies heavily on studies submitted by the manufacturers themselves. This creates a conflict of interest where companies that profit from selling these chemicals also control much of the data used to evaluate them.
The Monsanto Papers demonstrate how this system can be manipulated. Internal Monsanto documents revealed the company's efforts to influence EPA decision-making, ghostwrite favorable studies, and attack independent scientists whose research suggested Roundup's carcinogenic potential. When companies can manipulate or withhold critical safety data – as documented in the Monsanto litigation – Section 453 would protect them from liability as long as the EPA approved the labels.
“The Ninth Circuit found EPA’s risk assessment methodology inconsistent with the agency’s own guidelines and highlighted internal inconsistencies in EPA's reasoning about glyphosate and the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,” says Michael Baum. “The evaluation of pesticide safety should not be put in the hands of a captured agency.”
It is important to remember that EPA assessments can take “no less than four years, and sometimes over 12 years” to complete. During this lengthy process, outdated labels would remain in place, potentially exposing consumers to undisclosed health risks, and all the while, manufacturers would be immune to legal challenges.
Furthermore, the science underpinning pesticide safety can change over time. The EPA has approved over 70 pesticides – accounting for more than 300 million pounds of pesticides used annually in the United States – that have been banned by the European Union for safety reasons.
North Dakota State Senator Tim Mathern, who opposed his state's immunity law, warned that Section 453 and other protections are particularly dangerous given ongoing attacks on the EPA's regulatory capacity. “You can't have it both ways,” Mathern explained. “You can't say, 'we'll be fine because we have the EPA,' and at the same time want the federal government gutted.”
If Roundup is Safe, Why the Liability Shield?
Bayer has long held the position that glyphosate-based products like Roundup are safe. CEO Bill Anderson has referred to glyphosate as "safe" and "essential" for farming. Bayer’s website says “worldwide regulatory assessments … continue to support Roundup's safety.”
“If Roundup is as safe as the company says, why are they fighting so hard for a liability shield?” asks Wisner. Wisner Baum was one of the first firms in the Roundup litigation. Between 2018 and 2019, Wisner and colleagues won more than $2.3 billion in jury verdicts against Monsanto (now Bayer) in Roundup cancer trials. These verdicts paved the way for a 2020 settlement worth nearly $11 billion.
“The courts have long provided farmers, gardeners, workers, and consumers with the opportunity to seek accountability when corporations put profit ahead of people,” says Michael Baum. “If these laws had been in place back when we started litigating, these cases would have been thrown out. There would have been no verdicts, no Monsanto Papers, and no public reckoning. Corporate misconduct would have stayed hidden.”
