Asheville – The North Carolina Farm Act of 2025, Senate Bill 639, may seem like an innocuous piece of legislation. However, during its review in the NC General Assembly committees, Section 19 was added to the third version with virtually no debate. Section 19 grants de facto immunity from failure-to-warn claims to U.S. and foreign chemical companies in cases of health injuries.
Taking Away Our Right To Protect Our Families?
Section 19 states that “the duty of a manufacturer or seller of a pesticide to warn a consumer or the public about the risks associated with the pesticide shall be presumed to be satisfied if the pesticide bears the label approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act” (FIFRA). This is a “presumption” of sufficiency bill that rigs the process in favor of pesticide manufacturers by creating one-sided and unclear standard for proving a claim.
Facing billions in settlement lawsuits, Bayer, whose Crop Science division generated about $25 billion in sales last year, is aggressively lobbying state-level legislation to limit failure-to-warn claims. The lobbying directory maintained by the North Carolina Secretary of State currently shows four registered Bayer lobbyists, as well as Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, a lobbyist for Modern Ag Alliance, founded by Bayer. Syngenta, the pesticide company owned by China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina), lists two lobbyists. In other states, the Farm Bureaus have been heavily involved in lobbying for similar legislation. The North Carolina Farm Bureau has twelve lobbyists registered. Mark Behrens, a registered lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has given public comment twice in favor of Section 19.
The National Agricultural Law Center reported that the highest number of injury cases have been against Monsanto-Bayer’s glyphosate, believed to cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but plaintiffs have also filed cases alleging injury as the result of exposure to paraquat, chlorpyrifos, and other commonly used pesticide products. Most pesticide injury plaintiffs claim that pesticide manufacturers failed to warn consumers about health risks.
Dr Alexandra Muñoz, Toxicologist, Testifies
Dr. Muñoz holds a PhD and MS in Molecular Toxicology and Carcinogenesis from New York University. She specializes in understanding the molecular mechanisms by which toxins produce cancers and other diseases at the cellular level.
In her testimony in the North Carolina Senate Judiciary committee on May 6, 2025 Dr. Muñoz opened saying, “I am gravely concerned about the impact of Section 19 on future generations and advocating for the complete removal of Section 19 from SB 639.” She continued, “I would like to make clear that the EPA approved labels do not reflect the peer-reviewed scientific literature, because companies submit their own data to the EPA under FIFRA. In numerous cases, the EPA-approved labels do not warn about the actual health risks of the products.”
Dr, Muñoz pointed out, “Section 19 grants de facto immunity to an industry that has consistently manipulated toxicity data and avoided listing the actual health harm risks of products on warning labels. Section 19 applies to 15,000 chemicals and all future chemicals in this space.” Dr. Muñoz continued, “The types of chemicals regulated under FIFRA are not inert, and are known to cause brain damage, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and changes in sexual development.” Dr. Muñoz is concerned that with Section 19 in place, new chemicals brought to market without the proper warning labels and without corporate accountability, may irreparably harm the fertility of future generations.
Even though the EPA does NOT require testing of full product formulations, which according to Dr. Muñoz “is essential to evaluate the toxicological impact of a given product”, Section 19 sets a prohibitive burden on the public, requiring evidence that must be “academically peer reviewed, published in a recognized academic journal, and capable of replication.”
NC State Senator Jay Chaudhuri feels the “presumption” sets an unfair and excessive burden on the public. “Section 19 covers all pesticide manufacturers, including foreign-owned companies like ChemChina, who sells Paraquat—one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States, but it’s banned in China due to its toxicity and links to Parkinson’s,” said Chaudhuri. “By granting immunity based solely on the EPA labeling, this bill protects pesticide companies in Berlin and Beijing rather than protecting the people in Benson and Banner Elk. This legislation puts our communities at risk.”
Mom’s Across America
Zen Honeycutt, Founder and Executive Director for Moms Across America, shared concerns that “Section 19 gives immunity from lawsuits to chemical companies that sell agrochemicals used on our food, playgrounds, school grounds, and sidewalks where our pets and children play.”
Stand for Health Freedom
Stand for Health Freedom explained, “The EPA does not require pesticide manufacturers to perform chronic toxicity studies with full product formulations. Pesticide manufacturers perform their own efficacy and safety studies and they draft their own product labels. Decades elapse between the licensing of a pesticide and the first independent peer-reviewed published science showing harm. The EPA only requires active ingredients to be studied for chronic toxicity, such as for carcinogenicity, fertility issues, and neurotoxicity.”
Contact Your State Senators
The General Assembly comes back to work next week, and will be voting on this bill. Please contact your senators to let them know we do not want corporate protection over people’s health.