Senate Farm Bill Targets FIFRA Exemptions and EPA–USDA Coordination

/in ,

A new farm bill introduced in the Senate proposes several regulatory changes under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). If enacted, the bill would exclude certain biostimulants from the definition of “plant regulator,” exempt certain plant-incorporated protectants from FIFRA requirements, extend the deadline for interim registration review decisions, and expand coordination between EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The Agricultural Act of 2026, S. 5526, was reported to the Senate by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) on September 24, 2026, and placed on the Senate calendar. The committee had advanced the legislation on a party-line vote on September 16.

Similar reform measures were included in a House farm bill, which passed the House in April.

Product Exclusions and Exemptions

The Agricultural Act of 2026 would exclude certain plant biostimulants from regulation under FIFRA by excluding them from the definition of “plant regulator.”

“Plant biostimulant” would be defined as a substance that supports a plant’s natural nutrition processes independently of its nutrient content and thereby improves nutrient availability, uptake or use efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, or consequent growth, development, quality, or yield. The biostimulant exclusion would cover plant biostimulants that EPA determines have a low-risk profile and that are of biological origin or contain qualifying synthetic equivalents.

The legislation would also add exclusions from the definition of plant regulator for substances intended to be produced and used within a plant, qualifying plant biostimulants, and qualifying vitamin hormone products. In addition, it would define “nutritional chemical” and exclude plant biostimulants and nutritional chemicals from FIFRA’s definition of “nitrogen stabilizer.”

Exclusion from FIFRA’s definition of plant regulator means that a product would not be regulated as a pesticide solely on that basis. If the product does not otherwise qualify as a pesticide under FIFRA Section 2(u), it would generally not be subject to FIFRA’s pesticide registration, labeling, and related regulatory requirements.

Several of the proposed exclusions overlap with existing EPA regulations. Under 40 C.F.R. § 152.6(f) and (g), qualifying vitamin-hormone products, plant nutrients, inoculants, and soil amendments are already excluded. The proposed amendments would therefore provide express statutory treatment for certain products already excluded by regulation while potentially extending exclusions to additional qualifying products.

A related change would adopt a definition of plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) and exempt PIPs resulting from endogenous genetic material found within or that could arise from the plant’s gene pool from FIFRA’s requirements. The exemption would take effect after EPA issues guidance, due within one year after enactment, but EPA would retain authority to regulate a specific PIP by order. This, too, builds on EPA’s regulatory definition of PIP and existing exemptions for qualifying PIPs at 40 C.F.R. part 174, subpart B.

Registration Reviews

The bill would replace the existing 2022 deadline for completing initial registration reviews with a new deadline of October 1, 2031, for completing interim registration review decisions for affected pesticides. This change would give EPA additional time to issue interim decisions, rather than requiring completion of the full registration review process by the deadline.

Interim decisions noticed before that date, where EPA has not completed applicable ESA effects determinations or necessary consultation, would have to include measures to reduce potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat where applicable. In developing those measures, EPA would be required to take into account input from USDA and other members of the FIFRA interagency working group.

Interagency Coordination

The bill would also expand coordination between EPA, USDA, and other federal agencies.

The legislation would establish additional interagency coordination requirements concerning pesticide decisions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Before adopting certain ESA-related policies, strategies, workplans, or pilot programs, EPA would be required to consult other agencies participating in the FIFRA interagency working group and publish their input. It would also change the working group’s progress reports from every 180 days for five years to annually, require them to be posted on EPA’s website, and require the group to consult industry and nongovernmental stakeholders at least once a year.

The legislation would also increase USDA’s involvement in EPA pesticide risk mitigation decisions. EPA would be required to develop certain risk mitigation measures in coordination with USDA and publish an economic analysis of their implementation costs. EPA would also have to coordinate with USDA so that it has agronomic data from USDA and industry, and information on available alternatives, for use in registration and review decisions. EPA would then have to explain publicly how it used that information, including its reasons for declining to use it. The bill would also require EPA to coordinate with the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce concerning certain ESA-related measures.

In addition, the legislation would establish an Office of Biotechnology Policy to provide for the effective coordination of agricultural policies and activities within USDA related to biotechnology.

Potential Implications

If the Agricultural Act of 2026 is enacted, manufacturers of qualifying plant biostimulants could face fewer FIFRA obligations, which could affect product classification, registration, and labeling. Pesticide registrants could see more USDA input into EPA risk mitigation decisions, with more attention to implementation costs, agricultural uses, and alternatives. EPA would keep its authority to regulate products that do not qualify for the new exclusions or exemptions.

Idaho Judge Reads Supreme Court’s Roundup Ruling Narrowly

/in ,

A federal judge in Idaho has allowed a lawsuit alleging that Roundup causes cancer to go to trial, holding that the Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell only precludes label-based theories against the weedkiller’s manufacturer. The case is an early indication that state-law tort claims may remain viable after Durnell if they do not depend on Roundup’s label.

Issued October 1, 2026, the order denies Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence and design defect claims. Although the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, the court stressed that such a claim could succeed on different facts.

The case is one of thousands alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in past formulations of Roundup, causes cancer. Initially transferred to a multi-district litigation panel, the case was remanded to the District of Idaho for trial.

Meanwhile, the first state-court Roundup trial since Durnell is currently underway in St. Louis County, Missouri, which includes negligence and design-defect claims. That court found failure-to-warn allegations preempted, however.

EPA is also in the midst of reevaluating glyphosate’s human health risks, and recently requested scientific input on its review.

Legal Background

Many of the lawsuits against Monsanto have included claims that the manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings about Roundup’s alleged carcinogenicity. These “failure-to-warn” claims often focused on the absence of warning language on Roundup’s label.

On June 25, 2026, in Durnell, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts such claims. As discussed in a previous post, the court found that FIFRA and its implementing regulations require manufacturers to use EPA’s approved pesticide label. EPA has not determined that glyphosate causes cancer, and its approved Roundup label carries no cancer warning.

Because the state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning, the Court reasoned that the claim would impose a labeling requirement “in addition to or different from” EPA’s approved label. FIFRA expressly prohibits such state-law requirements, so the Court found the claim expressly preempted.

Impossibility Preemption Inapplicable

Before the District of Idaho, Monsanto argued that all of the plaintiff’s claims should be barred by impossibility preemption. The court was unpersuaded, finding the doctrine inapplicable.

Impossibility preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with state and federal requirements simultaneously. In Durnell, the Supreme Court did not reach impossibility preemption, finding express preemption sufficient to decide the case. But Monsanto pointed to a Durnell footnote observing that FIFRA bars selling a pesticide whose composition differs from the one described at registration. That made it impossible for Monsanto to change its formula, the company argued.

The court disagreed. “Monsanto cannot hide behind impossibility preemption when there is no evidence indicating it could not have pursued changing Roundup’s formula with the EPA had it wanted to,” the decision states. Monsanto knew of alternatives and ultimately changed the formula, the court noted, adding that “it was not impossible to ask EPA to change the formula.”

Non-Label Claims Survive Durnell

The plaintiff brings three claims: negligence, failure-to-warn, and design defect. Because of Durnell, the court held that the plaintiff cannot put on evidence about Roundup’s labeling. However, to the extent that they do not rest on the label, the court determined that none of the three claims are precluded by Durnell.

Addressing negligence, the court held that “nothing in Durnell” suggests “its holding should be read so broadly as to encompass negligence claims that are not based on labeling.” The court rejected Monsanto’s arguments that it was “prohibited” from making any claims differing from those approved by EPA. The plaintiff “is not necessarily saying Monsanto should have warned him that Roundup caused cancer; just that [Roundup] was potentially dangerous for his health,” the decision states.

However, the court noted that the distinction between negligence and failure-to-warn claims would be “a tough line for both parties to tow,” emphasizing that the parties should “hew closely to the negligence framework.”

The court likewise recognized that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive on materials other than the product label, stating that such a claim “can still be pleaded in this type of case if facts exist to support it.”

Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff’s design defect claim was not a disguised failure-to-warn claim and could proceed. The “allegation is that Roundup’s chemical formulation is unsafe. Full stop,” the decision states. The court noted that causation, hotly disputed on competing expert evidence, is for the jury.

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which notes that common-law rules requiring manufacturers to design reasonably safe products free of defects do not require manufacturers to label or package products in a particular way.

Facts Preclude Failure-to-Warn Claim

Although the court determined that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive Durnell, the court found evidentiary deficiencies in this case that were fatal to the claim here.

Besides product labeling, the only failure-to-warn theory that was not “severely under-developed” was based on advertising, the court held. But according to the court, the plaintiff admitted that he could not recall seeing Roundup advertisements during deposition. While the plaintiff later tried to recharacterize those statements, the court doubted that it cured the problem.

“Simply put, the Court is concerned that, were it to allow this claim to proceed to trial, Hoge would essentially be arguing a failure to warn labeling claim just without the word ‘label,’” the decision states. “This cuts against the Durnell decision.”

The case is Hoge v. Monsanto Co., No. 4:25-cv-277 (D. Idaho). Trial is set for February 2027.

California Scales Back Pesticide PFAS Bill, Enacts Disclosure-Only Law

/in , , ,

On September 27, 2026, California enacted legislation requiring the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to disclose the presence of PFAS in pesticides, defined as substances containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

The chaptered version of AB 1603 is far narrower than an earlier iteration. As amended in March 2026, the bill would have prohibited the registration or re-registration of pesticides with intentionally added PFAS, imposed labeling requirements, and phased out PFAS in pesticides altogether. More on those proposed requirements can be found in a previous post.

As chaptered, the law instead requires DPR to:

  1. Indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS ingredients in its pesticide use reporting database and add PFAS as a category of interest in the database;
  2. Include PFAS trends in its annual pesticide use report and other relevant reporting documents; and
  3. Publish a list of all registered pesticides containing PFAS on its website and submit it to local officials.

The disclosures apply beyond active ingredients. Specifically, they apply to PFAS intentionally added to a pesticide as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.

Notably, despite its narrowed scope, the legislation declares the Legislature’s intent to “[b]egin phasing out the use of PFAS pesticides and take additional steps to address other PFAS in pesticides.”

The database update is required on or before January 1, 2028, or the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever comes first, and annually thereafter. The list of registered pesticides containing PFAS is also due January 1, 2028, and must be updated within 60 days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS.

EPA Seeks Scientific Input as Glyphosate Review Moves Forward

/in , , ,

EPA’s long-running review of glyphosate is entering a new phase, with the Agency soliciting scientific input and working with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reassess the pesticide’s potential effects on human health.

Last month, EPA requested comment on a list of studies that will inform its ongoing registration review of the pesticidal substance under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This month, the Agency also announced a partnership with HHS to improve scientific coordination in the review.

Although FIFRA requires EPA to review pesticide registrations at least every 15 years, the Agency has not yet completed the registration review that began in 2009. The review has been prolonged, in part, by the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 vacatur of the human-health portion of EPA’s interim decision.

Glyphosate is best known as the active ingredient in the weed-killer Roundup. EPA has long taken the position that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen, a position shared by a number of other international regulatory authorities. However, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

IARC’s determination was a major catalyst for litigation over Roundup’s alleged carcinogenicity. Nearly 4,000 actions are currently pending in a federal multidistrict litigation concerning Roundup product liability claims, with numerous state suits also pending.

Those plaintiffs were dealt a significant blow earlier this year by the Supreme Court. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court held that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims based on the absence of a cancer warning from EPA-approved Roundup labels.

EPA’s registration review could have significant implications for this ongoing litigation. And because glyphosate is one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States, the review may also have significant agricultural implications.

Background on EPA’s Glyphosate Review

In 2020, EPA issued an interim registration review decision concluding that glyphosate posed no human-health risks of concern when used according to its label and was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Environmental and farmworker organizations challenged that decision in the Ninth Circuit. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the court vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s interim decision and remanded it to the Agency for further analysis and explanation.

The court held that EPA’s selection of the “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” hazard descriptor was not supported by substantial evidence because its reasoning was internally inconsistent and did not adequately follow the Agency’s Cancer Guidelines. Among other concerns, EPA acknowledged that the available evidence did not permit a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but nevertheless classified glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The court also identified problems with EPA’s evaluation of animal-tumor studies. The court did not determine that glyphosate causes cancer; rather, it concluded that EPA had not adequately supported its classification.

The Ninth Circuit also held that EPA’s registration review decision constituted agency action triggering the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It remanded the ecological portion of the decision without vacatur and directed EPA to complete additional review.

In September 2022, EPA withdrew the remaining portions of the interim decision, explaining that it needed additional time to address the ecological issues and satisfy its ESA obligations. EPA stated that its underlying scientific findings had not changed but that it would revisit and better explain its evaluation of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential.

Open-Literature Search

On August 25, 2026, EPA released a list of studies screened by the Agency to inform its human health risk assessment for glyphosate. The list includes over 5,300 studies, including over one thousand studies classified as “potentially relevant.” In a separate document, EPA explained the methodology underlying the search.

The same day, EPA requested public input on the completeness of the search and asked commenters to identify additional peer-reviewed studies that may warrant consideration. The Agency initially established a September 24, 2026, deadline for comments.

On September 28, EPA extended the comment period on its search by 60 days, moving the deadline from September 24 to November 23, 2026. According to EPA, the extension is intended to provide additional time for meaningful stakeholder input.

EPA-HHS Memorandum of Understanding

On September 22, 2026, EPA and HHS announced a new interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) intended to expand scientific coordination in EPA’s glyphosate registration review. Under the agreement, the agencies will exchange scientific information, identify research gaps, and coordinate additional research concerning potential human health effects of glyphosate.

EPA and HHS will establish a joint technical working group composed of experts from EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and several HHS components, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Toxicology Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

The agencies identified several areas for additional research and coordination, including the toxicology of glyphosate formulations and surfactants, occupational epidemiology, human exposure and biomonitoring, and dietary exposure. EPA stated that its updated human health assessment will evaluate evidence concerning cancer, genotoxicity, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as exposure from glyphosate-based formulations, occupational uses, and dietary sources, including preharvest applications.

The MOU creates no new authority for either agency and does not dictate the outcome of the registration review. EPA retains sole responsibility for registration decisions under FIFRA.

What to Watch

EPA currently anticipates completing the updated human health risk assessment in early 2027. That assessment will provide another opportunity for public comment and could inform subsequent regulatory decisions concerning glyphosate. In the meantime, under the MOU, EPA and HHS intend to make appropriate materials produced by the working group available in the glyphosate registration-review docket as they are finalized.

In addition, the first Roundup trial following Durnell is currently underway. While state-law failure-to-warn claims are no longer viable, the trial may be an early indicator of whether design defect or other torts can succeed. That case is Aretino v. Monsanto Co., No. 20SL-CC03676 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis County), filed July 10, 2020.

Interagency MOU Addresses Chemical Contaminants in Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products

/in , ,

In a move described as advancing the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and EPA have updated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) addressing drug residues, pesticide residues, and chemical contaminants in meat, poultry, and egg products.

Announced July 10, 2026, the MOU is intended to coordinate federal activities concerning chemical residues and contaminants that have the potential to adulterate those foods. It supersedes a prior 1984 agreement between the same agencies.

According to a USDA press release, as part of the effort, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has implemented a new laboratory method to monitor levels of 18 heavy metals in foods. USDA says that elevated levels will lead to further assessment and possible regulatory response. The press release adds that FSIS will “expand its surveillance for heavy metals to include processed foods, such as sausages and ready-to-eat meals, which combine ingredients from multiple sources.”

Coordinating Federal Oversight of Chemical Residues

FSIS primarily oversees the safety and regulation of meat, poultry, and egg products and tests these products for chemical residues through programs such as the National Residue Program. FDA oversees most other foods, live food-producing animals before slaughter, animal food, and animal drugs. EPA regulates pesticides and establishes allowable pesticide residue levels in food, including food for food-producing animals.

Under the MOU, FSIS, FDA, and EPA will coordinate on sampling and testing, tolerances and screening levels, and potential regulatory violations. Among other things, FSIS will provide FDA with weekly residue reports and keep FDA and EPA informed of its sampling and testing programs. FDA and EPA will also notify FSIS when they establish or amend certain tolerances, exemptions, action levels, or safe levels that may relate to FSIS-regulated products.

The agencies also agree to notify one another of information concerning the actual, suspected, or anticipated presence of chemical residues or contaminants that may constitute or result in violations of applicable federal food safety laws. FDA will review reports of potentially adulterated food and, when appropriate, investigate the circumstances that may have caused food-producing animals to be exposed before slaughter. EPA will similarly review reports of pesticide misuse or other potential violations and, when appropriate, investigate or refer the matter to the appropriate state enforcement authority.

A Senior Executive Council with representatives from each of the three agencies will oversee the arrangement and meet at least annually. The MOU also establishes procedures for sharing confidential and non-public information among the agencies, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements.

FIFRA Preempts Label-Based Failure-to-Warn Claims, Supreme Court Rules

/in , , ,

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim alleging that Monsanto failed to warn users that the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.  The decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell concludes that EPA’s approval of a pesticide label without a cancer warning constitutes a federal labeling “requirement” that state tort law cannot override.

The ruling resolves a circuit split. The Third Circuit previously found preemption on these facts, while the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and several state appellate courts had not.

What the Court Decided

Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh identified two interlocking features of FIFRA’s registration regime that together produce the preemptive effect.  First, before registering any pesticide, EPA must determine that the proposed label contains all warnings “necessary and . . . adequate to protect health and the environment” and is not false or misleading.  That determination reflects the agency’s considered judgment about what a label must—and need not—say.  Second, EPA’s implementing regulations require manufacturers to use the EPA-approved label, subject to narrow exceptions not at issue in this case.  Changing the label without EPA approval, including by unilaterally adding a cancer warning, may expose the manufacturer to civil and criminal penalties under federal law.  Together, the majority reasoned, those features constitute a federal labeling “requirement” under FIFRA’s preemption clause that preempts state tort law claims imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” those required under FIFRA.

The majority found support for that reasoning in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., which held that FDA premarket approval of medical devices preempts conflicting state-law device claims, emphasizing the similarities between that preemption clause and FIFRA’s.  It also distinguished Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which allowed state failure-to-warn claims equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding standard, on the ground that Bates involved efficacy claims—statements EPA does not review at registration.  Safety determinations, which EPA does review, carry preemptive force that efficacy claims do not, the majority ruled.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Jackson argued FIFRA’s own misbranding prohibition is the relevant federal requirement, and a state claim that simply parallels that prohibition should not be preempted under Bates.  The majority and dissent also disagree over whether EPA’s precautionary-statement regulations reach chronic risks like cancer, as opposed to only acute hazards.  The majority concludes they do, while the dissent maintains the regulatory text addresses acute hazards only.  Because cancer is a chronic condition, the dissent argues pesticide manufacturers can add a cancer warning without EPA approval.

Justice Thomas joined the majority in full but wrote separately to question whether FIFRA’s registration scheme exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, whether FIFRA unlawfully delegates legislative power to EPA, and whether agency action can carry preemptive force under the Supremacy Clause at all.  No other Justice joined that view.

Who’s Affected

The decision most directly benefits pesticide and agrochemical manufacturers defending failure-to-warn claims premised on an EPA-approved label.  The Court’s reasoning, however, leans on a comparison to other federal statutes with similarly worded preemption clauses, which suggests the analysis may be cited in disputes involving other federally regulated, labeled products.  The opinion does not address other theories—such as design defect, manufacturing defect, or advertising-based claims—that were not before the Court in this case.

What to Watch

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s pending-dockets report lists roughly 3,900 active cases in the Roundup MDL as of July 1, 2026, a population of claims against which Durnell‘s reasoning will likely be tested in dismissal motions.  EPA’s glyphosate registration posture also remains unsettled in part, since the Ninth Circuit vacated the agency’s most recent 2020 interim registration review decision in 2022.

In addition, federal lawmakers have introduced legislation to override the Court’s interpretation.  The People Over Poison Act, H.R.9528, would add language to FIFRA clarifying that the law’s preemption clause “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.”  The bill was introduced on June 29, 2026, by Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) and has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S.), petition for writ of certiorari granted January 16, 2026.  A previous post on the case, written after the Court granted certiorari, can be found here.

Texas AG Launches Glyphosate Investigation into Major Food Companies

/in ,

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an investigation into glyphosate residue in foods, especially foods containing oats, his office announced June 2, 2026.

The investigation will examine whether major food companies are complying with Texas law and whether consumers have been misled by health claims on common food products.  The office has already issued civil investigative demands to pesticide and food manufacturers including Bayer and PepsiCo, the press release states.

According to the release, the percentage of Americans with detectable levels of the herbicide in their bodies has risen sharply in recent decades—from 12% in 1993 to over 70% today.  The office attributes this largely to the widespread use of glyphosate as a desiccant, or drying agent, applied to crops shortly before harvest, which it claims accounts for over 90% of glyphosate found in food.

Oats are a particular focus.  While the EPA prohibits using glyphosate as a desiccant on oats grown domestically, the office alleges that “major food companies source their oats from foreign countries where the practice is allowed,” leading to elevated exposures in children through foods such as cereals, breakfast bars, and cookies.

“In fact, studies show that certain food products marketed to children are some of the most glyphosate-contaminated food products in the United States,” the release states.  “Other products are marketed as ‘healthy’ when manufacturers know their products are contaminated with dangerously high levels of glyphosate.”

The glyphosate probe comes less than two months after Paxton’s office announced a similar investigation into activewear company Lululemon over alleged consumer deception related to PFAS in its products.

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides worldwide and the active ingredient in Roundup.  In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, a designation that EPA has not adopted.  Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA sets pesticide food tolerances at levels at least 100 times below the dose that produced no adverse effects during animal testing.

EPA Avoids Court Order on Organophosphates, but Timeline Concerns Remain

/in , , , ,

The Ninth Circuit has declined to force EPA to act on a petition brought by nonprofits targeting organophosphate pesticides, calling the request “premature” despite noting concerns with the agency’s response timeline for certain pesticides.

The 2021 petition, brought by environmental and farmworker groups, asks EPA to revoke Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food tolerances and cancel Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registrations for organophosphate pesticides due to health harms.

In a memo issued April 27, 2026, the court generally accepted EPA’s plan to address the disputed pesticides in three groups, finding the delay thus far “below the threshold of what we have generally found to be unreasonable.”

Under EPA’s proposed schedule, the agency plans to respond to the first group of pesticides in 2026.  For the second group, EPA plans to address the FFDCA issues in 2026 and the FIFRA issues during registration review.  EPA plans to address the third group entirely in conjunction with registration review.

Still, the court expressed concern about “the lack of a concrete timeline” for resolving some of the petitioners’ FIFRA claims, particularly those involving pesticides that may present higher risks.

“EPA admits that it will not complete its registration review for any of the thirteen pesticides by the October 2026 statutory deadline,” the memo states.  “If, by the expiration of that statutory deadline, EPA still ‘does not offer a timetable’ for resolving the FIFRA-related claims for those particular pesticides presenting higher levels of risk,” the outcome may be different, the court said.

“If EPA chooses not to address the chemicals posing the greatest risk by the 2026 deadline, Petitioners are free to file a second mandamus petition as to those chemicals,” the court added, using the legal term for a petition seeking to compel agency action.

Registration Review

The court was partly persuaded by the existence of the October 2026 registration review deadline itself, which Congress extended from October 2022 through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022, commonly known as PRIA 5.

“Congress thus judged that EPA needs more time to complete the FIFRA registration review process for the types of pesticides at issue,” the memo states.  “This weighs heavily against granting relief with respect to Petitioners’ FIFRA-related claims until after the congressional deadline has passed.”

The October 2026 deadline for registration reviews applies to pesticides registered before October 1, 2007, when Congress formally required EPA to review each registered pesticide at least once every fifteen years to ensure that it can still be used without unreasonable adverse effect on human health or the environment.

Human Health Concerns    

The 2021 petition argues that organophosphate pesticides can cause a range of unreasonable adverse effects, including neurodevelopmental harm in children at exposures “far below” EPA’s current regulatory endpoint.  According to the petition, those harms include impaired motor and mental development, reduced IQ, attention disorders, and autism associated with low-level exposure.

These alleged harms were not sufficient for the court to force EPA’s hand, however.

“The breadth of [Petitioners’] request was perhaps reasonable in 2021 in light of what the EPA characterizes as its earlier conservative assumption ‘that all the [organophosphates] cause similar neurodevelopmental effects.’”  But “all parties now seem to agree that the degree of risk does not appear to be consistent for all thirteen pesticides still at issue.”

For example, the petitioners conceded that the pesticides chlorethoxyfos, tribufos, and terbufos are lower priority at oral argument, while emphasizing greater risk associated with bensulide, the court said.  “On this record, we cannot hold that human risks justify granting the petition as to all thirteen pesticides.”

The case is In re Pesticide Action Network North America, No. 25-3955 (9th Cir.), petition for a writ of mandamus filed 6/25/2025.  The memorandum disposition is unpublished.

California Bill Would Phase Out PFAS Pesticides, Require Label Disclosures

/in , , , ,

California is considering legislation to phase out use, require labeling, and prohibit registrations of pesticides containing PFAS, defined as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

AB 1603 states that PFAS exposure “poses a significant threat to the environment and public health” and that their intentional use in pesticides is increasing.  The bill notes that EPA has approved 70 active ingredient PFAS pesticides, including 53 allowed for use in California by state regulators, and that a 2025 analysis found that approximately 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied in California annually.

The bill would immediately prohibit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) from registering or re-registering pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as an active or inert ingredient, and would phase in the following additional requirements:

  • January 1, 2028: Prohibition on manufacturing, distribution, or sale unless labeled with the following statement: “This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment.”
  • January 1, 2030: Prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with 23 specific intentionally added PFAS.
  • January 1, 2035: Blanket prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with any intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1603 would also designate pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as a restricted material.  By January 1, 2028, CDPR would be required to prescribe the times and conditions under which such materials may be used or possessed across the state, with authority to prohibit use or possession in certain areas.  Use or possession would require a written permit from the county agricultural commissioner, and those permits and related public disclosures would be subject to the same label statement described above.

Any state labeling requirement must contend with the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prohibit states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the statute.  EPA does not currently require any label disclosure for pesticides containing PFAS.

AB 1603 was introduced on January 16, 2026.  The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will hold a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2026.

EPA: Single Fluorinated Compounds Aren’t PFAS

Late last year, EPA published a webpage pushing back on concerns about pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon—the threshold for designation as PFAS under AB 1603.

“EPA-approved single fluorinated compounds are not forever chemicals, they are not PFAS, and do not pose any risks of concern when used as labeled,” the webpage states.

EPA emphasizes that, regardless of a pesticide’s contents, registration under FIFRA requires a determination that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.  The agency conducts “robust, chemical-specific” hazard and exposure assessments, “ensuring that every scientific aspect of these compounds is thoroughly evaluated before any registration decision is made.”  It conducts a similarly thorough evaluation when setting food tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which requires a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” EPA states.

EPA notes that pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon can offer agronomic benefits and may replace more harmful alternatives, such as organochlorines.  The agency also points to the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and other jurisdictions that have registered or are considering registering pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon.

Supreme Court to Weigh FIFRA Preemption in Roundup Cancer Warning Case

/in , ,

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Monsanto’s appeal of a $1.2 million jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who claimed Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer, focusing on whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims when EPA has not required the warning.

At the core of the dispute is FIFRA section 24(b), 7 U.S.C. 136v(b), which forbids states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA.  Citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrisciences LLC, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held that this language does not preempt state-law claims if the elements of the claim “parallel” FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

However, more recently, in 2024, the Third Circuit created what many view as a circuit split, ruling that those courts erred by applying the “parallel requirements” test from Bates too generally.  According to the Third Circuit, EPA regulations implementing FIFRA prohibit manufacturers from adding precautionary statements to product labels without EPA approval, making such labels preempted.

Monsanto’s petition for certiorari, filed April 4, 2025, asks the Court to adopt the Third Circuit’s analysis.  “Because the jury verdict in this case requires Monsanto to include a cancer warning that EPA’s regulations did not require—and in fact affirmatively forbade it from adding—FIFRA preempts Respondent’s claim,” the petition argues.

Respondent John Durnell argues that the circuit split is both “irrelevant” and “illusory.”  In his June 9, 2025, brief, he argues that the jury verdict did not hinge on the labeling claims because Monsanto also advertised Roundup as safe in television advertisements.  He further maintains that there is no actual circuit split.

According to Durnell, there are two ways to update pesticide product labeling: by notification to EPA or by applying for amended registration.  Due to a “unique quirk” in the Third Circuit case, the court explicitly limited its analysis to the first option and “express[ed] no opinion” on whether Monsanto was required to pursue the latter, the brief states.

The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have massive implications for numerous suits alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic.  EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S.), petition for writ of certiorari granted January 16, 2026.