Pesticide Coalition Update

February 19, 2026

Glyphosate EO: On February 18, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order to secure supply continuity for US farmers to glyphosate. While this action does not directly convey immunity to Bayer, any order from Sec. Rollins implementing the EO could immunize Bayer for products sold in compliance with that order (so forward looking only). Setting aside how outrageous this is, we can use this in our advocacy to argue that Trump has negated Bayer’s threat to stop selling domestic glyphosate. Any immunity provisions are no longer necessary to protect domestic glyphosate, instead these immunity bills would only apply to the other 57,000 pesticide products if manufacturers lie about the dangers. This includes the pesticides used in homes and schools, and those manufactured by ChemChina.

Class Action Settlement: Bayer is offering to settle both current and future claims for anyone who has been exposed to a glyphosate-based herbicide and develops a lymphoma cancer for $7.25 billion dollars. In the coming days and months, attorneys and the court will review the settlement and its terms, and those with Roundup-caused lymphomas will make decisions that are right for them.

However, this action, taken in conjunction with the EO, reinforces the point that Roundup is off the table. Bayer has offered to settle claims with those who have cancer and those exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides who will get cancer, and Sec. Rollins can issue an order any day giving them immunity going forward. The state and federal immunity bills are now only about the 57,000 other pesticide products on the market.

Kentucky SB 199 Senate Committee Hearing: The Kentucky Senate Ag Committee is scheduled to have a hearing on SB 199 next Tuesday, February 24, at 10:00am ET. The Chairman of the committee is the sponsor of the bill. They need 7 votes to advance the bill out of committee and into the full Senate chamber. I know a number of groups will be on the ground opposing the bill next week  

Kansas HB 2746 Turnaround: Next week is the first week we could see movement on Kansas HB 2746 in the Kansas Senate. No hearing has been scheduled on the bill at this point, but we will continue to keep abreast of what is happening.

Farm Bill Introduced: The House Farm Bill text has been introduced and will be marked up on February 23. Section 10205 includes the FIFRA preemption provision that prohibits states and courts from imposing any pesticide labeling or packaging requirements beyond what EPA approves, effectively blocking state-level warning requirements. There are a number of other deeply problematic provisions that folks are fighting against as well. The full text of the bill can be found here.

Current Status of State Bills:

• 21+ states targeted by Modern Ag Alliance
• 9 states introduced

• • Kentucky (SB 199 – Hearing Scheduled for 2/24)
  • Kansas (HB 2746 - passed House, Senate hearing delayed until after 2/20)
  • Oklahoma (HB 1755 assigned to committee/SB 1078 available for Senate floor)
  • Missouri (SB 1005/HB 2712 - introduced)
  • Florida (SB 518/HB 443 - introduced)
  • Iowa (SF 394 – passed Senate, assigned to committee in House)
  • Tennessee (SB 527 passed Senate/HB 809 - pulled off notice indefinitely)
  • Not in session yet: North Carolina (SB 639/SB 401 – provision in larger bills)
  • Defeated: Wyoming (SF 74 - denied introduction)

• 2 states passed bills—Georgia & North Dakota

Monsanto v. Durnell: Oral arguments have been scheduled for April 27, 2026.

February 13, 2026

Kentucky Bill Introduced: Kentucky SB 199 has been introduced, and we are awaiting the bill text, which should be available today. I will follow up with an analysis if it is any different than usual. It will be posted here: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26rs/senate_bills.html

Wyoming Bill Defeated – Victory: Wyoming SF 74 was defeated when 13 senators voted against introduction, denying the sponsors the 2/3 majority needed for introduction during the budget cycle. This is the first state where we can say we killed the bill in 2026.

Monsanto v. Durnell: Oral arguments have been scheduled for April 27, 2026.

Farm Bill Introduced: The House Farm Bill text has been introduced and will be marked up on February 23. Section 10205 includes the FIFRA preemption provision that prohibits states and courts from imposing any pesticide labeling or packaging requirements beyond what EPA approves, effectively blocking state-level warning requirements. The full text of the bill can be found here.

Current Status of State Bills:

• 21+ states targeted by Modern Ag Alliance
• 9 states introduced

• • Kentucky (SB 199 - introduced, awaiting bill text)
  • Kansas (HB 2746 - passed House, Senate hearing delayed until after 3/20)
  • Oklahoma (HB 1755 assigned to committee/SB 1078 available for Senate floor)
  • Missouri (SB 1005/HB 2712 - introduced)
  • Florida (SB 518/HB 443 - introduced)
  • Iowa (SF 394 – passed Senate, assigned to committee in House)
  • Tennessee (SB 527 passed Senate/HB 809 - pulled off notice indefinitely)
  • Not in session yet: North Carolina (SB 639/SB 401 – provision in larger bills)
  • Defeated: Wyoming (SF 74 - denied introduction)

• 2 states passed bills—Georgia & North Dakota

Thanks to Geoff from EWG for the early grab. Sharing with others:

Pesticide preemption is Secs. 10205 and 10206 of the bill that they just released about 20 minutes ago. 

SEC. 10205. UNIFORMITY OF PESTICIDE LABELING REQUIREMENTS.  (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 24(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.  136v(b)) shall be applied to require uniformity in pesticide  labeling nationally, and to prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof, or a court from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements that would require labeling or packaging that is in addition to or different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Administrator’’) under such Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), including any requirements relating to warnings on such labeling or packaging, provided that the entity is not in material violation of subparagraph (M), (Q), or (R) of section 12(a)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(2)), for which the entity has been penalized pursuant to section 14 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136l). (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or diminish the authority of States under subsections (a) and (c) of section 24 of 2 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 3 (7 U.S.C. 136v). 4 

SEC. 10206. AUTHORITY OF STATES.  Section 24 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v) is amended—  (1) in the section heading by inserting ‘‘AND  LOCALITIES’’ after ‘‘STATES’’; and  (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(d) LOCAL REGULATION.—A political subdivision of a State shall not impose, or continue in effect, any requirement relating to the sale, distribution, labeling, application, or use of any pesticide or device that is subject to regulation— ‘‘(1) by a State pursuant to this section; or ‘‘(2) by the Administrator under this Act.’’. 

The full text of the bill can be found here.

View a short overview here and a title-by-title summary here.

February 5, 2026 - Wyoming SF 74 Introduced

Bayer introduced pesticide immunity legislation in Wyoming today – SF 74. https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2026/SF0074. If you have any contacts in Wyoming, please reach out to them to get them up to speed on the bill.

SF 74 is worded differently than other bills, but the effect is the same. SF 74 requires that the “health and safety” label on a pesticide “not vary in material respect” from the label registered with the EPA at the time of sale. Then, it eliminates “state common law requirements relating to pesticide labels or warnings.”

This is a significant departure from current law.

• FIFRA prohibits the sale of a pesticide whose label is false or misleading, even if the pesticide was previously registered.
• Wyoming common law requires companies to pay damages when a false or misleading product label causes catastrophic harm.  
• The Supreme Court in Bates held that state tort law may be enforced so long as it is consistent with FIFRA.
• State tort claims alleging a false or misleading label caused catastrophic harm are entirely consistent with FIFRA’s prohibition on false or misleading labels.

Therefore, under current law, if a pesticide label is registered, but nevertheless false or misleading, Wyoming citizens have a right to hold the company accountable.

SF 74 takes away that right to be fully informed of a pesticide’s dangers. The EPA’s registration would be conclusive, even if:  

• The registration was obtained by fraud on, or collusion with, the EPA;
• The registration is out of date because new dangers are now known, yet the company refuses to update its registration with the EPA, or
• EPA never reviewed the entire product formulation that proved dangerous, focusing only on the product's active ingredient.

SF 74 rewards deception, allowing companies to knowingly harm Wyoming residents as long as they can convince EPA to approve or maintain the registration of their pesticide.

SF 74 is not about one product or one company; it grants immunity from deception for over 57,000 pesticides registered under FIFRA. SF 74 covers all of these pesticides—including pesticide products manufactured overseas by hostile foreign governments, products used in our homes, schools, backyards, and fields, and products that cause cancer, Parkinson’s, birth defects, and infertility.