Protecting foreign pesticide companies in exchange for protecting our public health

The real danger of Section 19 of the North Carolina Farm Act

We had a pretty big (but may be temporary) win this week for North Carolina families.

Quick background: This week, the Senate Rules Committee heard the North Carolina Farm Act of 2025. As a general rule, the farm bill contains various provisions to the state’s agriculture laws. This year’s farm bill contained a particularly troublesome provision found in Section 19.

Section 19 creates a legal presumption that pesticide manufacturers meet their duty to warn if their label is Environmental Protection Agency-approved, acting as de facto immunity.

On Thursday, the Senate leadership pulled the Farm Act from the floor for a vote due to concerns about the bill. That’s a win.

Here are the three concerns I continue to have about Section 19.

EPA labeling is not a guarantee of safety

First, EPA labeling is not a guarantee of safety. Section 19 assumes the EPA-approved pesticide label fulfills a manufacturer’s duty to warn the public. However, that assumption collapses under scientific scrutiny. The EPA does not independently run scientific or toxicological studies on these products. Instead, it relies entirely on industry-submitted data. Many of these studies are neither peer-reviewed nor independently replicated. Under federal law, companies can also obtain “conditional approval” and defer submitting critical toxicity data for years.

Case in point: Dactal remained on the market for over a decade before the missing thyroid toxicity data was revealed, and it showed dangerous links to impaired fetal brain development. In short, the presence of an EPA label does not mean the science is settled or that the product is safe.

Rebuttable presumption standards put an unfair burden on the public

Second, the rebuttable presumption sets an unfair and excessive burden on the public. The new bill sets the bar impossibly high. Plaintiffs must show that the “weight of the scientific” evidence contracts the label and provide the manufacturer knew or should have known. Furthermore, we already have rules to filter out frivolous lawsuits. For example, if a plaintiff’s case can not meet the high evidentiary standard, the courts would dismiss the case early in the lawsuit. Section 19 creates an additional unnecessary procedural hurdle that blocks even legitimate claims.

National security, public safety, and public health risks

Third and finally, Section 19 creates national security, public safety, and public health risks. Section 19 covers all pesticide manufacturers, including foreign-owned companies like ChemChina. ChemChina sells Paraquat - one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States, but it is banned in China due to its toxicity and links to Parkinson’s. 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. Many of the chemicals disrupt hormones, damage developing brains, and impair fertility. This legislation puts our communities at risk.

In short, Section 19’s provision is not narrow. It applies to more than 15,000 existing pesticides and all future products. Section 19 creates a liability shield based on incomplete science and one-sided data. Section 19 raises the legal bar for victims to an unreasonably high level, far beyond what existing rules require. And, Section 19 opens the door for foreign chemical companies to harm our citizens without any accountability or consequences.

Yes, we got a win this Thursday, but stay vigilant about Section 19.