This deep dive is our monthly love letter to the community. We keep it free for everyone because knowledge on commercial influence should be accessible.
What do manufacturers of pesticides, forever chemicals, and food have in common?
They are all fighting for legal immunity from the harms their products and activities cause.
Every time they win, a powerful incentive to clean up their act is lost, leaving consumers and advocates without a vital tool to fight for food systems that are healthy, safe, ethical, and sustainable.
The case of pesticide immunity
You may have heard of the current “pesticide immunity” case of Monsanto Company v. Durnell (2026) that the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing. Judges heard oral arguments on April 27th from both sides. Monsanto/Bayer has lost numerous state-based lawsuits for harms alleged from their products and face tens of thousands more. In the Durnell case, the company argues that because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not required warning labels for their products, the states can’t allow lawsuits based on the companies not disclosing possible risks on those products’ labels. The plaintiffs argue that the EPA law is a minimum, not a legal shield, and does not preempt state laws.
This Supreme Court case is not the only legal immunity tactic the pesticide companies are implementing. The industry is, in fact, “pursuing a coordinated, multi-front strategy to win broad legal immunity through the Supreme Court, state legislatures, and federal policy changes that could severely limit the ability of farmers, farmworkers, families, and communities to seek accountability for pesticide harms” (see the May 2026 webinar by the URSA Collective describing the strategy).
In addition to the Supreme Court case, Bayer and its industry allies lobbied for the inclusion of a provision in the 2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 7567) to grant pesticide manufacturers statutory immunity from failure‑to‑warn lawsuits. Had the provision stayed, the pesticide industry would have succeeded in getting their desired legal immunity through legislature that they’re still trying to get through the Supreme Court. But, after a bipartisan group of lawmakers, public health, MAHA, and environmental advocates rallied against what they saw as a “corporate giveaway,” the provision was taken out of the House version of the Farm Bill through the Luna Amendment on April 30, 2026.
The other piece of the pesticide industry’s multi-front strategy has been to work through the state legislature, so far working to introduce liability shield bills in at least six states. While most of the introduced bills have failed to pass, two states – North Dakota (in 2017) and Georgia (in 2024) – have passed pesticide industry immunity laws so far.
These fights are significant because should the industry succeed, it will prevent people who are harmed by its products - whether consumers, workers, or residents - from being able to sue for damages.
Pesticide companies are not the only ones pursuing legal immunity
The reason why everyone who cares about our food system should care about these legal battles is that pesticide companies are not the only ones pursuing this immunity strategy. Companies across the food system that are under scrutiny for causing harm to people and planet have similarly attempted to stack the system in their favor and cut legal accountability off at the knees.