Pesticide Harm Accountability Act

This Act may be cited as the “Pesticide Harm Accountability Act”.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Environmental Protection Agency too often fails to successfully incorporate the current scientific understanding to protect human health and the environment from the harmful effects of pesticide products, as intentioned by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Consequently, the billions of pounds of pesticides approved for use annually are allowed under outdated science.

(2) The Environmental Protection Agency registers more than half, nearly 65 percent, of pesticides through conditional registrations, allowing their use before full safety data is reviewed.

(3) The Environmental Protection Agency permits the continued sale of pesticides remaining on store shelves, even after their registration has been voided, suspended, or canceled.

(4) The Environmental Protection Agency uses emergency exemptions to keep pesticides on the market for years without undergoing a comprehensive registration process or complete safety data that would ensure the safe use of pesticides.

(5) The Environmental Protection Agency is prohibited from requiring the disclosure of certain “inactive” ingredients, even while “inactive” ingredients can account for 99 percent of a pesticide product and include carcinogenic and toxic chemicals.

(6) Considering these regulatory shortcomings, State tort law serves as a critical check on the Environmental Protection Agency when their regulations fail to protect everyday Americans. Specifically, it allows individuals harmed by pesticide exposure to hold manufacturers accountable when the regulatory process has failed to do so.

(7) John Durnell was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma after decades of using the herbicide Roundup. Mr. Durnell sued Monsanto, the producer of Roundup, in Missouri State court and was awarded $1,250,000 for compensatory damages in recognition of the herbicide’s harmful effects.

(8) Monsanto appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, looking to overturn the outcome. On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act prevents the State from holding such companies accountable when the Environmental Protection Agency approved a pesticide label without requiring a cancer warning. This defeated the legal argument Mr. Durnell used to win his case in the Missouri State court and eliminated a common path for individuals to hold pesticide companies accountable for causing harm.

(9) State tort law offers a fundamental check on pesticide manufacturers, ensuring accountability when pesticide products cause harm. Restoring the ability of victims to pursue legitimate claims under State tort law, free from the hurdles of inappropriate Federal preemption, is a necessary precondition to protect public health and ensure that pesticide manufacturers remain accountable to the individuals and communities they affect.

(a) Misbranding.— Section 2(q) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(q)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(3) This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the placement on a pesticide or device of a warning required under the tort law of a State.”.

(b) Uniformity.— Section 24(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “The previous sentence shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit a claim related to the labeling or packaging of pesticides or devices under the tort law of any State.”.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report identifying any regulation, guidance document, or interpretive statement that limits or restricts a claim under State tort law relating to the labeling or packaging of a pesticide or device under section 24(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(b)), as amended by section 3(b) of this Act, along with any steps taken to bring such regulation, guidance document, or interpretive statement into compliance.

If any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the other provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provisions to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby.