Nearly four decades ago, federal lawmakers created broad liability protections for vaccine manufacturers and established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as an alternative to civil lawsuits. Today, producers of agricultural chemicals are pushing for comparable legal shields — quietly and through multiple venues — that would limit victims’ ability to seek redress and could weaken safety incentives across the food system.
Why the Comparison Matters
When Congress enacted the vaccine liability framework in 1986, the pharmaceutical industry argued that litigation risk threatened vaccine development. The law sought to balance protecting public-health supply chains with compensating those who suffer rare injuries. Since then the U.S. childhood immunization schedule has expanded significantly, but critics also say the compensation system has shortcomings: award caps, limited payouts for many claimants, and underreporting of adverse events to surveillance systems.
Big Ag’s Push For Immunity
Lobbyists for agrichemical manufacturers have tried to obtain a similar liability shield. Industry efforts have included attempts to insert immunity language into appropriations bills and renewed efforts to include related provisions in the farm bill. Reporting and advocacy sources indicate draft language titled as Sections 10204 and 10205 in recent farm bill proposals would, respectively, limit liability for pesticides regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and preempt states from enacting stricter local safeguards. Opponents describe these provisions as creating de facto immunity for pesticide makers; supporters argue they create regulatory consistency.
State-Level Strategies and Industry Groups
At the state level, industry-backed organizations such as the Modern Ag Alliance have promoted model statutes that would narrow liability for manufacturers. Several states, including Georgia and North Dakota, have enacted laws influenced by this model. The alliance defends glyphosate-based products as essential to modern farming and calls many lawsuits against manufacturers "scientifically unsound."
Court Verdicts and Settlements
Courts and juries have not always sided with industry. High-profile jury verdicts in cases against Monsanto — for example, Johnson v. Monsanto, Hardeman v. Monsanto, and Pilliod v. Monsanto — returned multi‑million-dollar awards to plaintiffs. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, has spent roughly $11 billion in settlements and face-related costs to resolve nearly 100,000 lawsuits over Roundup, and recent judgments have pushed the company’s total liability toward $12 billion.
Why Liability Matters
Allowing injured people to sue creates market incentives for companies to reduce hazards and improve product safety. Civil liability also provides a public signal when harms occur and spurs reform. If manufacturers gain broad immunity, those incentives weaken; health costs could shift to workers, consumers and taxpayers while legal accountability diminishes.
What Activists and Policymakers Are Doing
Civic groups, academics, and affected farmworker and consumer advocates have pushed back on hidden riders and draft farm bill language. Activists succeeded in defeating an immunity rider that appeared in a recent appropriations draft. Still, industry lobbying remains active at both federal and state levels, meaning broader public engagement and legislative scrutiny will be needed to block future immunity proposals.
Bottom Line
Proposed immunity provisions in federal and state bills would constrain legal remedies for people harmed by pesticides and could reduce the incentive for companies to invest in safer products. Lawmakers and voters should demand transparency about draft legislative language and weigh the public-health and economic consequences before granting sweeping liability protections to pesticide manufacturers.
About the Author
Jennifer Galardi is Senior Policy Analyst for Restoring American Wellness at the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center.
