Pesticide Harm Accountability Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to restore the ability of individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers under State tort law for harm caused by pesticide exposure, particularly concerning labeling, by removing federal preemption as a defense.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to explicitly prevent federal preemption of State tort law claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging. It clarifies that federal misbranding rules do not prohibit state-required warnings and that FIFRA's uniformity clause does not limit state tort claims, effectively reversing the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in *Monsanto Co. v. Durnell*.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill restores a critical check on pesticide manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory process, ensuring accountability for harm caused by pesticide products. They contend that State tort law is essential when federal regulations, which they describe as having shortcomings like conditional registrations and lack of 'inactive' ingredient disclosure, fail to protect public health.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill creates a patchwork of state-specific labeling requirements, undermining the uniformity intended by FIFRA and potentially increasing compliance costs for manufacturers. They could also contend that it opens the door to frivolous lawsuits, hindering innovation and the availability of essential pest control products, and that EPA's existing regulatory framework is sufficient to ensure safety.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core intent and legal implications.
Section 3(a) of the bill, amending Section 2(q) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136(q))
State Tort Law Warnings Not Prohibited as Misbranding
This provision clarifies that the existing definition of 'misbranding' under FIFRA, which generally deals with false or misleading labels, cannot be interpreted to prohibit a pesticide label from including a warning required by a State's tort law. This means that if a state court determines a warning is necessary, adding that warning would not make the product 'misbranded' under federal law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures that manufacturers cannot use federal misbranding rules as a shield against state-mandated warnings, thereby protecting consumers and allowing states to address product safety gaps.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this creates regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers, as a warning required by one state's tort law might be deemed unnecessary or even contradictory in another, complicating national labeling standards.
Tradeoffs
Balances federal uniformity in labeling with states' rights to protect their citizens through tort law.
Section 3(b) of the bill, amending Section 24(b) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136v(b))
State Tort Law Claims Not Limited by Federal Uniformity
This provision explicitly states that the existing FIFRA clause, which generally ensures federal uniformity in pesticide labeling requirements, shall not be interpreted to prohibit or limit claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging under any State's tort law. This directly addresses and reverses the preemption established by the Supreme Court's *Monsanto Co. v. Durnell* decision.
Section 4
EPA Report on Regulations Limiting State Tort Claims
This section requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to submit a report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees within 180 days of the Act's enactment. The report must identify any existing EPA regulation, guidance, or interpretive statement that limits or restricts State tort law claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging under the amended FIFRA Section 24(b), and detail steps taken to bring these into compliance with the new law.