• Take Action
• Inactive—VOTE IN U.S. HOUSE TO PROHIBIT FARMERS AND CONSUMERS FROM SUING CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS

Take Action

• EPA’s Ongoing Failures Go Beyond Pollinators

To skip below to the Action form, please click here or on the "Action links" (>>) included below! 

See action and sample letter to all members of Congress!

The Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee is voting tomorrow morning (July 15) on a bill that includes language that provides total pesticide immunity language that will block farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and block states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language. The language prohibits EPA from approving a pesticide product label or taking action inconsistent with a human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification previously approved by the EPA—freezing the EPA's position on a pesticide in place for decades, and eliminating the ability to hold the company accountable. (The language is found here. Search on Sec. 453.) The markup of the bill will be live-streamed and can be found on the Committee's website. The subcommittee list is below! *Status—Stay tuned for full committee markup in the near future!

>> We urge you to write to your member of the U.S. House of Representatives and ask for help in stopping this dangerous legislation by urging them to contact members of the subcommittee. Ask that the language in Sec. 453 be removed from the bill.

⬇️ Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee: 

The target for this Action is the U.S. House of Representatives, with special attention to the Interior and Environment Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. 

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The maximum comment limit is 4,000 characters. 

Letter to U.S. Representative [if not on the subcommittee]:

The Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee is voting on Tuesday, July 15, 2025, on legislation that strips farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and block states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA approved language. This is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace and has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. This federal legislation would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity—not only for the weedkiller Roundup (glyphosate), but for over 16,000 pesticide products regulated by the EPA.

Here are the facts:

**This isn’t about one product—it’s about the future of 16,000 chemicals.

From household weedkillers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by the EPA.

**The EPA doesn’t independently test these products — it relies on the companies.

Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data — as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.

**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules.

It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn't be held responsible.

**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants.

ChemChina — a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity — owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S. despite some of them being banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?

**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval.

If this bill passes, nothing would stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. They could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage.

That’s the danger here: once pesticide companies know they can’t be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it’s US farmers and families who will pay the price.

Please reach out to members of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and urge them to remove section 453 of the appropriations bill.

Thank you!

Letter to U.S. Representative [if on the subcommittee—see chart above]:

As you know, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee is voting on Tuesday, July 15, 2025, on legislation that strips farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and block states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA approved language. This is a basic right of people who have been harmed in the marketplace and has played a critical role in establishing accountability when people suffer adverse effects from pesticide exposure. This federal legislation would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity—not only for the weedkiller Roundup (glyphosate), but for over 16,000 pesticide products regulated by the EPA.

Here are the facts:

**This isn’t about one product — it’s about the future of 16,000 chemicals.

From household weedkillers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers—as long as their label was once approved by the EPA.

**The EPA doesn’t independently test these products — it relies on the companies.

Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data — as they’ve done in the past—this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.

**This legislation eliminates accountability—even when companies break the rules.

It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn't be held responsible.

**It gives total immunity to Chinese military-controlled pesticide giants.

ChemChina — a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity — owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S. despite some of them being banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?

**It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops—even when they lied to get EPA approval.

If this bill passes, nothing would stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. They could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs—not the companies who caused the damage.

That’s the danger here: once pesticide companies know they can’t be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it’s US farmers and families who will pay the price.

Please, as a member of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, remove section 453 of the appropriations bill.

Thank you!