In April 2026, California farmer Terri McCall stood on the steps of the Supreme Court at a rally protesting pesticide use, telling the story of how her husband and dog both died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a disease she believes was caused by pesticides. Her husband, Jack, had used Roundup for more than three decades on their 20-acre ranch before dying of cancer in 2016. It's the kind of personal tragedy that tends to make one question the wisdom of spraying questionable chemicals around the place for 30 years.

Over 57,000 pesticide products are currently registered for use in the United States, ranging from powerful chemicals used in conventional agriculture, to common insect repellents approved for use on children. Scientific evidence is accumulating that some of them are linked to illnesses ranging from cancer to Parkinson’s disease. So, naturally, the chemical industry has decided the best response is not to make safer products, but to make lawsuits against them illegal.

Beginning in 2024, a powerful coalition of chemical manufacturers and industry groups launched a coordinated national effort to pass “immunity laws,” bills designed to shield companies from potential legal claims tied to harms from their pesticide products. Over the past three years alone, industry lobbyists attempted to pass pesticide immunity legislation in 15 different states. The chemical makers argue that companies should be protected from “failure to warn” lawsuits as long as they use labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Opponents say that standard is dangerously inadequate, pointing out that the official EPA labels for glyphosate still do not carry a cancer warning, despite mounting evidence that it may cause cancer and the World Health Organization calling it “probably carcinogenic.” So the EPA's stamp of approval is about as reassuring as a thumbs-up from a used car salesman.

“The science is pretty clear,” said Daniel Hinkle, the senior counsel for policy and state affairs at the American Association for Justice. “The evidence continues to accumulate, and the pesticide makers continue to lose in the courtroom.” Indeed, several landmark court cases have found chemical makers responsible for illnesses like cancers and neurological diseases, resulting in billions of dollars in payments from pesticide makers. Bayer alone has paid over $11 billion in cancer settlements linked to its products. In response, the chemical industry has poured millions of dollars into lobbying for pesticide immunity laws at the state and federal levels. “It’s very clear that this is a coordinated campaign by the industry to absolve themselves of legal liability for health harms from these chemicals,” said Hinkle.

In the last three years, advocates fought against proposed immunity bills in 15 states. While defeated in a dozen states, the bills passed in Georgia, North Dakota and Kentucky. “The states where these bills are passing have some of the highest cancer rates in the nation,” said Joy Reeves, the director of policy and strategic development at the Rachel Carson Council. “The reality now is, if you’re a farmer and get sick, you have fewer options to hold the pesticide companies accountable.” The Modern Ag Alliance (MAA), a lobbying and public relations group founded by Bayer in 2024, has been a central driver of the effort, spending roughly $1.6M lobbying in Tennessee in 2025 alone. In Idaho, MAA was the top outside spender that same year.

In 2012, on a warm July afternoon in Iowa, organic farmer Rob Faux was working in his poultry yard when a crop duster sprayed fungicides and insecticides over him and his chickens and turkeys. Subsequently, Faux was diagnosed with cancer. Iowa, which used 53 million pounds of pesticides in 2025, also has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation. Faux, now communications manager for the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN), warns that if immunity laws pass, families will have fewer options to hold makers accountable for products like mosquito repellent for children that makes them sick. He also points to the loss of local control: if pesticide applicators are getting chemicals into a local lake that supplies drinking water, communities should be able to protect themselves, but proposed immunity bills would prevent local governments from setting stricter rules than federal standards.

These concerns brought together a broad coalition spanning left-leaning environmental advocates and members of the Make America Healthy Again network. Protestors gathered outside the Supreme Court for a rally the last week of April as the justices inside heard opening arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, a closely-watched case that could reshape the future of pesticide litigation nationwide. The case centers on whether federal pesticide labeling laws override state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits. Just a few days later, federal lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected an effort to insert pesticide immunity language into the Farm Bill, with 73 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the provision. “It was a pretty astounding defeat,” said Max Sano of Beyond Pesticides. “But these bills are still popping up everywhere [on a state level], so we can’t afford to slow down.” His organization is currently monitoring newly proposed pesticide immunity legislation in 10 states.

Reeves described the current moment as “today’s Silent Spring movement,” referencing Rachel Carson’s landmark 1962 book. Advocates are taking a multi-pronged approach: organizing national coalition calls, educating lawmakers, tracking bills across states, mobilizing grassroots campaigns, and coordinating legal and public awareness efforts. “It is incredibly important to be in communication with your lawmaker,” said Hinkle. “Every single call or email matters.” Reeves echoes him, saying, “If you care about your family and your community, you should engage on this issue. It affects us all.” The Rachel Carson Council, founded in 1965, is the national environmental organization envisioned by Rachel Carson to carry on her work after her death.