To view/share as a webpage, click here [[link removed]]

[[link removed]]

How Federal Policy Shifts Could Reshape
Accountability, Court Access and Protections
Against Pesticide Related Harm

February 28, 2026: The third and final piece of this email series brings together what is happening in Congress, the courts, and the executive branch around pesticide liability and accountability. These issues are often discussed separately, but they are closely connected. At the center of this conversation is whether people harmed by chemical exposure retain the ability to seek redress through the courts, and whether states retain authority to act when federal protections fall behind emerging science.

The 2026 Farm Bill and liability protections: As mentioned in our previous email, the current House Farm Bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567 [link removed] [[link removed]] ), does not name glyphosate or any specific pesticide. Instead, it proposes structural changes that affect how liability and accountability function across all federally registered pesticides.

Certain provisions would restrict failure to warn claims when products carry EPA approved labels and would limit the ability of states and local governments to impose protections beyond federal standards. In practice, this shifts responsibility almost entirely to federal regulators, even though pesticide registrations are often based on industry submitted data and reviewed on long timelines.

The courts historical backstop in public health protection: For decades, when new evidence emerged showing harm, when warnings were inadequate, or when risks were not fully disclosed, courts allowed injured individuals to present evidence and seek accountability. This legal pathway has not replaced regulation, but it has supplemented it.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously affirmed this principle in cases such as Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, recognizing that federal pesticide registration does not automatically eliminate state law claims. That balance has allowed regulatory standards and scientific understanding to evolve rather than remain frozen at the moment of federal approval.

That balance is now under direct pressure. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether state failure to warn claims related to glyphosate are preempted by federal law in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell. A ruling that broadly favors federal preemption could significantly narrow the ability of individuals to bring claims, even when new science or undisclosed risks come to light.

If combined with Farm Bill provisions that further limit liability, this would mark a fundamental shift away from judicial oversight and toward exclusive federal control, with fewer avenues for accountability when harm occurs.

The Glyphosate Executive Order and liability concerns: The recent Executive Order signed by President Trump, Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate Based Herbicides ( [link removed] [[link removed]] ), invokes the Defense Production Act to prioritize domestic production.

While the order does not eliminate existing lawsuits, it does confer statutory protections for actions taken in compliance with federal directives issued under that authority. This raises legitimate concerns that routine production could be shielded from liability if framed as government directed activity, even without Congress explicitly granting immunity.

"No Immunity for Glyphosate Act" response: In light of these developments, Representative Thomas Massie introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (H.R. 7601 [link removed] [[link removed]] ). This bill seeks to clarify that the Defense Production Act cannot be used to shield glyphosate manufacturers from liability for harm caused by their products. The bill reflects concern not just about glyphosate, but about the precedent of using national defense authorities to insulate corporations from accountability.

AVFCA’s Approach: The concern is structural, not partisan and not limited to one chemical. When liability pathways are narrowed, courts are sidelined, or state authority is preempted, meaningful protections erode across the system, regardless of which chemical is involved. Accountability is essential to informed choice. Without transparency, legal recourse, and the ability to respond to new scientific evidence, public health protections weaken over time.

Taken together, the Farm Bill, the Executive Order, pending Supreme Court cases, and proposed legislation like the Massie bill represent a pivotal moment. Decisions made now will determine whether health protections remain adaptive and responsive, or whether they become fixed at a single federal standard with limited oversight.

AVFCA's role is to ensure the public understands how these pieces fit together, what is being proposed, and what the long term implications may be. AVFCA will continue to keep you informed as this evolves and will clearly flag when meaningful public action is appropriate.

A Voice for Choice Advocacy educates, advocates and empowers people to be fully informed about their health rights, including informed choice, transparency, and the short and long term health effects of what goes into our bodies, from food and water to air and consumer products.

If you found this information helpful and appreciate the work A Voice for Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.

[link removed]

Together we can make change happen!

C
Christina Hildebrand
President/Founder
A Voice for Choice Advocacy, Inc.
[email protected] [[email protected]]
www.AVoiceForChoiceAdvocacy.org [[link removed]]
www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org [www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org]
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed] ]
You are receiving this email because you have signed up on the AVFC or AVFCA website or on a sign up list in person. If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe: [link removed] .
A Voice for Choice Advocacy
530 Showers Drive, #7404
Mountain View, CA 94040
United States