Legislation Looks to Limit Crop Protection Lawsuits

In recent years, a growing number of states, including Iowa, have introduced legislation aimed at limiting litigation against crop protection manufacturers. This movement is a response to an increasing number of lawsuits targeting widely used herbicides, such as glyphosate, which have raised concerns about the future availability and affordability of essential agricultural tools.

Lawsuits center primarily around the allegation that glyphosate (the primary active ingredient in Roundup) causes cancer, and that Bayer failed to adequately warn users of potential health risks. These charges stem largely from a finding from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), despite the EPA and other global entities stating that glyphosate is not carcinogenic when used as directed.

Iowa’s Legislative Effort

Iowa’s Senate File 394, introduced earlier this year, seeks to provide liability protection for pesticide manufacturers by reinforcing that federal labeling, as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is the ultimate authority. The bill is similar to legislative efforts in other states, in an effort to safeguard agricultural inputs from what supporters of the bill call “meritless litigation.”

“This legislation ensures that the label is the law,” said Dave Struthers, who farms near Collins, Iowa, and supports the bill. “The EPA, backed by decades of global research, has not found a link between glyphosate and cancer, yet lawsuits continue to claim otherwise. If we don’t act, companies may be forced to stop selling these essential products, making us reliant on foreign alternatives.”

Struthers emphasized that glyphosate plays a critical role in conservation practices, including no-till farming and cover cropping, which help prevent soil erosion and improve sustainability. “Without glyphosate, terminating cover crops effectively becomes much more expensive and challenging,” he noted.

The National Push for Uniformity

Beyond Iowa, legislative efforts are advancing in states such as North Dakota, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and Idaho. North Dakota’s bill passed with unanimous support (88-0 vote) in the House, and Georgia’s legislation has also passed with bipartisan support and now awaits Gov. Kemp’s signature, said Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance.

The Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, introduced in the previous Congress by U.S. Representatives Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Jim Costa (D-CA), seeks to reinforce that pesticide labeling decisions should be solely under federal jurisdiction. The bill is pretty simple, said Kyle Kunkler, senior director of government affairs at the American Soybean Association. “It reaffirms what has been in place in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for more than 50 years and clarifies that under FIFRA, states cannot impose their own different labeling requirements that contradict EPA regulatory findings.”

Kunkler went on to stress the need for certainty surrounding regulations. “If every state starts adding its own labeling requirements, we risk a fragmented system that disrupts commerce and limits farmers’ access to necessary crop protection tools,” he said.

Kunkler pointed to California’s Proposition 65 as a key example of how conflicting regulations can cause confusion. “California requires a label warning of cancer risks based on one outlier study, despite global regulatory consensus that glyphosate is not a carcinogen,” he said. “This kind of state intervention creates legal vulnerabilities and makes it nearly impossible for manufacturers to operate with confidence.”

Innovation Impact and Supply Chain

Burns-Thompson noted that the movement to limit litigation is critical to maintaining innovation in crop protection. “We are not just talking about glyphosate; this sets a precedent that could affect all pesticides,” she warned. “If we don’t clarify these regulations now, manufacturers may hesitate to invest in new technologies, knowing they could face endless lawsuits.”

Farmers are also concerned about supply chain disruptions. “Right now, there is only one domestic producer of glyphosate in the U.S., but if litigation forces them out, we’ll have to rely on imports,” Burns-Thompson explained. “That would not only drive up costs but also make us dependent on a foreign supplier with uncertain trade relations.”

Current tariffs and retaliatory actions between the U.S. and China can also impact glyphosate supply, Kunkler said. “This runs the risk of not only causing input prices to escalate for U.S. farmers, but if a trade partner like China decides it’s going to prohibit exports, U.S. farmers could be completely cut out of the market,” Kunkler said. 

The Future of Glyphosate

The fight continues in the courts as well. Bayer has faced more than $10 billion in legal costs and over 170,000 cases filed in the courts. In a recent letter sent to farmers, Bayer warned that continued lawsuits could force them to cease glyphosate production altogether.

“We cannot continue to sell an approved product while losing billions of dollars due to misleading litigation,” the letter stated. “This isn’t just about glyphosate — if this legal trend continues, all crop protection products could be under attack.”

Bayer has successfully defended itself in numerous lawsuits, but uncertainty remains with additional cases in active litigation. “We need legislative relief,” said Martha Smith, Bayer’s head of stakeholder relations. “We would encourage farmers to speak up and help legislators and the general public understand the importance of glyphosate and the importance of a U.S. based supply.”