The introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R.4288) in the U.S. House of Representatives, expected to be a part of the Farm Bill negotiations, yet again threatens to undermine local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from pesticides—effectively overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent. Environmental groups and consumer protection advocates have long fought off provisions like those in the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, which seeks to prohibit improved protections from inadequately regulated toxic pesticides. Among the many deficiencies in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review of pesticides is its failure to fully evaluate for endocrine disruption, according to the Office of Inspector General. This bill will hinder state governments from tailoring laws to address the specific needs and concerns of their communities.
>>Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language | Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.
While the bill's language appears to focus on labeling, it actually prohibits any locality or state from imposing restrictions that are more restrictive than the federal labeling on a pesticide product. The bill states that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) will require the “uniformity in national pesticide labeling, and prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof, or a court from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirement...different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator...” In other words, if a community restricts pesticide use near sensitive areas, like waterways, or seeks to protect children, or those with preexisting health conditions, that action would constitute a restriction different, albeit more protective, from the label.
The introduction of state pesticide preemption laws has been a growing trend, largely influenced by the pesticide industry's efforts to limit local and state control since the late 20th century. This has led to an ongoing debate surrounding the balance of authority among local, state, and federal levels of government in pesticide regulation, particularly in areas related to public health.
During the 2018 Farm Bill deliberations, similar efforts by the pesticide industry to limit state control were rejected by the Farm Bill conference committee. However, the introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act now aims to preempt California from issuing cancer warnings on products containing glyphosate, such as Roundup. Under California's Proposition 65, consumers are provided with information about chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive effects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an internationally recognized authority on the carcinogenic potential of chemicals, classifies glyphosate as a “probably carcinogenic in humans.”
Although the constitutionality of the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is currently being litigated, it illustrates the inadequacy of EPA's pesticide registration process. Despite the IARC finding and a preponderance of cancer findings in the scientific literature, as well as numerous jury verdicts for plaintiffs suffering non-Hodgkin lymphoma, EPA released a human health risk assessment in 2020 for glyphosate as part of its mandatory registration review, concluding that that the weed killer does not pose a cancer risk. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the EPA's determination, finding that the EPA disregarded evidence, including increased risks of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and tumors in animal studies, as acknowledged by its own experts, advisory panel, and medical professionals. Consequently, the EPA has been ordered to revise its assessments for the final registration review of glyphosate by 2026.
The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, the Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government throughout their jurisdiction. According to Mortier, however, states do retain authority to take away local control. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition's lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition's wording.
Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to prohibit localities from developing policies reflecting the unique needs and values of the people living there. In states that do not prohibit local action on pesticides, an ever-increasing number of communities are stepping up to protect their residents and unique local environment from pesticide poisoning and contamination. Having failed to curtail local action and with a growing number of communities deciding to act, the chemical industry is flexing its muscle with an attack in Congress.
States and localities must retain the ability to inform their residents about product risks, including pesticides like glyphosate. Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to draft a Farm Bill that does not undermine (i.e., preempt) the authority of local communities that are striving to safeguard public health and the environment.
The introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act has reignited a contentious debate regarding the balance of federal, state, and local control over pesticide use. The outcome of this proposed legislation will have significant implications for public health, environmental protection, and the authority of state governments across the United States.
>>Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language | Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.
The targets for this Action are the U.S. Congress and local elected officials across the United States.
Thank you for your active participation and engagement!
Mayors, city council members, and county commissioners should make their voices heard in opposition to preemption, which prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal and state rules and overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings. It could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of their communities.
Please send your mayor and other local officials a short note (see below) asking them to sign this letter! [Note: Only sign-ons of local officials can be accepted]
To find contact information for local elected officials, check out this tool from usa.gov: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Sample email to local elected officials (please cut-and-paste, as needed):
As a local elected official, please make your voice heard in opposition to federal preemption of local authority, which prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal and state rules and overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings. It could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of our community. Please see the letter and a link to sign onto the letter below:
Letter: bp-dc.org/official-local-letter-pesticide-preemption
Link to share for a local official to sign on to the letter: https://secure.everyaction.com/aMcVHaaV7ES6Qw6RhBOCbw2
While having differing views on pesticides, local leaders take very seriously a duty to protect constituents. Federal pesticide preemption is a direct attack on this authority. This provision prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal rules. It overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings and could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of their communities.
As of 2023, nearly 200 communities across the country have passed policies to restrict the use of pesticides in response to emerging evidence about potential human and environmental impacts. The exact concerns differ by pesticide, but include links to cancer, developmental challenges, lower IQ, and delayed motor development. Many of these laws work to protect the most vulnerable among us, such as children, who take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems. Others focus on safeguarding precious water resources, or the protection of wildlife like declining pollinator species critical to our environment and food supply.
While not every city has taken these actions, it is important to support the right to do so and you should oppose forfeiting this right for the indefinite future. In fact, federal pesticide preemption undermines the key role that local governments play across the country.
Please sign this letter in opposition to including preemption in the Farm Bill.
Thank you.
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************