Agricultural groups are asking Congress to reaffirm federal authority over pesticide labeling requirements by passing the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act.
In a letter sent to House and Senate leaders at the end of May, 365 groups laid out their growing concerns that “some states have begun to regulate pesticides in a manner contradicting decades of scientific guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) establishes EPA as the authority for making decisions on how pesticides should be labeled and used. As the letter noted, states are permitted to regulate the sale and use under FIFRA but are preempted from creating additional labeling requirements or requiring different labels and packaging.
“Nevertheless, in recent years, we have seen actions from states that directly and unjustifiably contradict EPA’s scientific findings on pesticide safety,” the groups wrote to lawmakers.
Those moves by states risk creating an “inconsistent patchwork of state pesticide labels” that can complicate sales and access to crop-protection tools. The labeling demands from states also risk jeopardizing public confidence in EPA’s authority and science-based regulations, the groups stated.
The letter added, “Growers and users need reaffirmation from Congress that while states have authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides within their jurisdiction, they cannot impose labeling or packaging requirements in addition or different from the scientific conclusions of the EPA.”
Petitioned EPA
Eleven attorneys general from Republican-led states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and South Carolina—petitioned EPA in January to amend FIFRA to prevent states from requiring labels inconsistent with EPA’s findings, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. The attorneys general said such labels by states should be considered as misbranding the product.
A lot of the complaints go back to California and the decision in 2017 to require warning labels for pesticides such as glyphosate. California listed glyphosate as a known carcinogen but faced immediate legal challenges. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2023 blocked California from enforcing the warning label.
Agricultural groups filed an amicus brief earlier in May asking the Supeme Court to hear a petition from Bayer/Monsanto in one of its cases tied to more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country suing Bayer for not warning people that glyphosate causes cancer. Bayer is appealing a ruling against it by a state court in Missouri. The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, was filed with the Supreme Court back in April. Beyond agricultural groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others have also weighed in so far, arguing that upholding such state-level claims would preempt federal authority.
Want clarity
Caleb Ragland, a Kentucky farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, said agricultural groups are taking an “all of the above” approach right now to bring some clarity to spelling out federal authority over pesticide labels and liability.
“Unless there is clarity, we’re worried manufacturers could exit the market and leave farmers without much-needed tools needed to protect crops and provide affordable food for consumers,” Ragland said.
Bayer executives have already suggested the company could stop manufacturing products such as Roundup without some relief from the litigation it faces.
States also have been debating bills that would seek to limit legal liability for cancer-related litigation and spell out that state law aligns with EPA requirements. North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (R) signed such a bill back in April and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed a similar law earlier this month.
Uncertainty for ag
Without action, Congress risks creating uncertainty for agriculture. “The ability of farmers, land managers, and other users to produce an abundant food, feed, and fiber supply, combat public health threats, implement important conservation practices, and maintain vital transportation and utility infrastructure will be significantly impaired.”
All of that could risk higher food prices, and the farm groups state, “Important infrastructure will fall into disrepair; our population will be increasingly vulnerable to vector-bone diseases; and our ability to combat climate change and other environmental challenges will be undermined.”
The Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act was introduced in 2023 by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD-At large) and Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA-21). The bill only had six other co-sponsors.
The agricultural groups stated, “Congressional action on this important matter will ensure our nation’s farmers and other users have reliable access to these vital tools in the years to come.”
It should be noted the letter from 365 farm and agribusiness groups comes less than a week after the Trump administration released its initial “Make America Healthy Again” report. As DTN reported, the report “calls out the potential hazards of glyphosate-based Roundup while saying a balanced approach is needed between improving pesticide safety in general and the needs of farmers.”
The National Association of Counties (NACO) in February urged its members to oppose the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act and prevent it from being added to the next farm bill, stating the bill would undermine local authority. NACO noted hundreds of counties across the country set standards for pesticides that go beyond FIFRA, “including restricting pesticide use around schools and parks, protecting drinking water supplies and implementing safety guidelines for workers.” — Chris Clayton, DTN ag policy editor
