Young plants have emerged from the soil and we’re still trying to put more in at the Genuine Faux Farm as I write this. We are rapidly entering the season where our efforts will move from planting to tending the fields. I have noticed the potential for fine apple, white peach, and pear harvests this year, which shows clear evidence that our pollinators have been successful in their work. Otherwise, I’m resting on the laurels that come with getting all of the potatoes and enough of the onions into the ground with enough time for them to make us proud.
Meanwhile, I am experiencing a sense of relief now that many state legislative sessions have completed business for 2025. The last few months have taken their toll on me and I just want to spend a bit more time working on the farm.
Still I am keenly aware of the obligations I have to myself, my communities and this world. I will not shirk them, but I might be a bit slower as I catch my breath and find moments to heal and rejuvenate.
A significant portion of my energy in recent months has been to represent PAN in coalitions working to halt proposed legislation that would provide pesticide companies with a liability shield. These bills would prevent individuals, like you and me, from seeking accountability if we are harmed by pesticides and it can be shown that the pesticide company misrepresented the risks their products might have for our health.
The Modern Ag Alliance, spearheaded by Bayer, has been pouring money into states in an effort to gain immunity to lawsuits. Their motivation comes from mounting settlements as a result of court findings that Monsanto (owned by Bayer) failed to properly divulge the risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to users of their RoundUp products. Rather than proactively working to reduce risks and seek to care for those who might have been harmed, Bayer and Big Ag are seeking a license to deceive and, potentially, harm us.
The good news is that the efforts of concerned organizations and people like you have blocked this legislation in eight states, including Iowa. While the Modern Ag Alliance poured money into advertising and a wave of lobbyists, grassroots efforts took away what they thought were going to be easy wins.
I would like to thank everyone who signed actions, wrote letters to the editor, attended events, and went the extra mile to contact legislators and governors regarding these bills. While this battle is not yet over for the year (there is still activity in North Carolina, Ohio and at the federal level), we are showing strength and unity of purpose that brings results.
Summary for 2025 lawsuit immunity bills at the state level
The following is a summary outlining the status of the 2025 Lawsuit Immunity bills brought forward in state legislatures. It’s important to note that these bills got varying levels of traction and a win this year does not mean it won’t return in 2026:
Signed into law: North Dakota and Georgia
Introduced and reassigned to committee in the Senate: North Carolina
Lobbyists looking to introduce language into budget bill: Ohio
Introduced but failed to be assigned to committee: Idaho, Montana
Assigned to committee, but failed to advance: Mississippi, Wyoming
Removed by bill’s sponsors: Florida
Deferred in committee until the 2026 session: Tennessee
Failed to pass both arms of legislature: Missouri and Iowa
Lawsuit immunity became law in two states
Considering the money and influence being thrown around by the Modern Ag Alliance and Bayer, it should not be a surprise that the bill succeeded in a couple of states. Last year, bills were introduced in Iowa, Missouri and Idaho as “common sense” bills that proponents were confident would quickly be passed into law. Fortunately, there were people in each of those states that recognized what was happening and got the word out in time to mount resistance to the idea of lawsuit immunity for pesticide companies.
This year, the bill was introduced in North Dakota and Georgia with the same playbook and saw little opposition early in the process. This was the model the Modern Ag Alliance was hoping to see unfold in other states. Coalition members that were aware of these bills didn’t have enough contact in either state to raise the alarm before the momentum had gotten the legislation through much of the process. The result was that there was not enough time to recruit and educate the necessary legislative champions to take the fight to the Senate and House floors. Votes were made - and then quite possibly regretted.
It’s a good reminder that just a few people paying attention and then taking action can make a tremendous difference. If it weren’t for quick reactions in 2024, the results in Iowa and Missouri would have been similar to what happened in Georgia and North Dakota this year.
While the bill was signed into law in two states, grassroots movements did make the process uncomfortable for those who supported the bill. Governor Kemp of Georgia opted to very quietly sign the bill, hoping to avoid more negative publicity. I am hopeful that people will improve their memories and make that a decision that will return to haunt him.
Meanwhile, a grassroots movement in North Dakota is seeking to put this before the voters as a referendum. If the voting population stands against this bill, it would be repealed. Our coalition partners at Dakota Resource Council are attempting to gather resources (including funding) and lead a petition process to get this referendum onto next year’s ballot.
Idaho fights back
Idaho is home to mines that supply phosphates to a large glyphosate facility owned by Bayer/Monsanto. Bayer has used the threat of economic losses in an effort to pressure the state to provide pesticide companies shelter from potential lawsuits.
Along with Iowa and Missouri, Idaho was targeted in 2024 with these bills. The Modern Ag Alliance likely assumed that these states would be easy wins, especially given their economic connections to glyphosate manufacturing and agricultural reliance on related pesticide products.
Fortunately, Idaho has had recent experience with other sectors seeking liability shields and this bill was recognized for what it was. Last year’s opposition worked hard to make sure legislators understood the bill’s ultimate purpose. As a result, many politicians did not want to be connected with a bill containing lawsuit immunity language in 2025.
“Ultimately it’s a question of, ‘If this is such a certifiably safe product, then why in the world would you need immunity from any liability?’”
– Jonathan Oppenheimer, Idaho Conservation League
This year, the pesticide immunity bill was defeated despite Bayer’s spending (about $600,000) in an effort to promote a bill. The bill was not given a hearing in a committee in 2025.
Iowa and Missouri battle to the end
In Iowa and Missouri, attempts were made to get pesticide company liability shields passed up until the last moments of their legislative sessions. The presence of lobbyists employed by the Modern Ag Alliance was strong, but the work of coalitions in both states headed off attempts to sneak the language into other bills.
The bill passed the Missouri House, but ran into opposition in the Senate. However, the Senate Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources Committee attempted to circumvent opponents by appending language from HB 544 on to HB 1116, a bill that would “allow real property owners building a fence to enter an adjoining property up to ten feet without liability for trespassing.” It was passed out of that committee with no opportunity for public comment.
Let that sink in for a moment.
A Senate committee tried to gather quietly - along with a large number of agribusiness lobbyists - and took a bill about FENCES to use it as a vehicle bad bill language that had been stopped when they were in their own bills. It was only because eagle-eyed members of the multi-state coalition to oppose these bills recognized the situation and were able to be in attendance. As a result, this deceptive attempt to pass the bill was exposed and halted.
In Iowa, the bill passed the Senate, getting the ONLY the minimum number of votes required (26). Intense public pressure that found its voice initially in 2024 reinforced the desire of many House Representatives to “have nothing to do with this bill.” As was the case in 2024, there were conversations to attempt to append lawsuit immunity language to the Appropriations Bill, but opposition remained firm.
“Our farm families are exposed to any number of risks that are inherent in the job of raising food for our communities, our state, and our country. We proudly dedicate our lives and our livelihood to the task and take responsibility for our actions. We’re deeply disappointed that Iowa Senators chose to protect chemical companies from their responsibility to provide the safest products they can and chose to take away an important tool farmers and all Iowans have to hold those companies accountable.”
– Aaron Lehman, Alleman farmer and president of the Iowa Farmers Union.
States currently being monitored
North Carolina currently has a bill in the Senate (SB 639) that has been through multiple committees and was scheduled to go to the floor. But, it was removed from the calendar two weeks ago and sent back to the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate. The lawsuit immunity language can be found in Section 19 of that bill. Toxic Free NC had been leading local opposition with great success. For more information, check out this article in NC Health News.
There has been some pressure from Modern Ag Alliance lobbyists in Ohio to include liability shield language for pesticide companies in the state budget bill (HB 96). The bill was introduced only a couple of days ago and does not include lawsuit immunity language at this time. Beyond Pesticides are monitoring the situation for developments.
That means my job with respect to these bills at PAN is ongoing. We are prepared to help members take action in both states once the coalition’s leading organization in each state indicates a need to do so. And then there are likely to be efforts at the federal level too.
In the meantime, I do hope to expend some energy on other things for a while. But I’ll be ready to fulfill my obligation to be a positive member of all of my communities in whatever way seems to be best.
We can make a difference together and I have proof. It’s nice to know that these efforts can be successful, even when we are faced with opponents that have more money, more staff and more time to push a bad agenda.
Thanks to your continual updates and information this session, Rob, it made my correspondence with my legislators (hopefully) more effective. You did your job well, making mine easier.