Two of America’s best-known consumer and environmental watchdogs have set out what they say every American should be able to expect from pesticide regulation, and they want the U.S. Congress to write it into law.
On Wednesday, Consumer Reports (CR) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights. It is a short list of protections covering cancer warnings, spray notifications, children’s food and schools, foreign bans and access to the courts. Taken together, the groups argue, these would close long-standing gaps in how the U.S. protects people from toxic pesticides.
The timing is deliberate. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) comes up for renewal next fall, and the two organisations want lawmakers to treat it as a chance to fix the wider system rather than simply roll over the fee schedule.
What the Bill of Rights demands
The document asserts that Americans should have:
- The right to know about health risks, including whether a pesticide is linked to cancer or other harms.
- The right to know where and when pesticides are sprayed, especially near homes and schools.
- The right to know when pesticides have been mishandled, and how much has been found in food and drinking water.
- The right to protection for children in schools, local parks and the food they eat, held to the strongest available safety standards.
- The right to a prompt U.S. review of any pesticide that another country bans on health grounds.
- The right to seek justice in court when people believe a pesticide has harmed them.
Some Americans already enjoy a few of these protections, but only depending on where they live. A handful of states, California among them, require advance notice before farm spraying; most do not. Rules on pesticide use in and around schools also vary from state to state.
“These are reforms that are long overdue,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president of government affairs. He argued that families should be able to trust that what they bring into their homes and schools, and the food they give their children, is safe.
The gaps it exposes
Missing cancer warnings. A Center for Biological Diversity analysis published this year looked at 4,919 pesticide products containing ingredients the EPA classifies as “likely” carcinogens. The EPA had required cancer warnings on the labels of just 69 of them. Some other products carry warnings only because of separate rules, such as OSHA requirements or California’s Proposition 65. Brian Ronholm, CR’s director of food policy, said current pesticide laws “fall short of giving consumers the information and protections they need.”
A child-safety margin that is rarely used. The Food Quality Protection Act tells the EPA to apply an extra margin of safety when setting allowable pesticide levels in food if children may be especially vulnerable, or if the risk to them is uncertain. A 2020 study by an EWG scientist found the agency applied this “FQPA safety factor” in only a small minority of cases.
No trigger when other countries act. When the European Union or another jurisdiction bans a pesticide over health concerns, nothing in U.S. law forces a fresh review here. The chemical can stay on the American market indefinitely.
Narrower access to the courts. The final right responds to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a Roundup case that limited people’s ability to sue for damages over pesticide harm. For the many thousands of people who say glyphosate-based weedkillers made them ill, that decision has made the legal route considerably harder.
Faber said all four problems stem from the same failure: U.S. law is not banning the worst pesticides, not warning people about them, and not moving fast enough when other countries act.
Tracey Woodruff, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and population health who studies environmental pollutants, applauded the Bill of Rights but said it could have gone further. Her position is that it should also have tackled the influence pesticide corporations have over the rules governing their own industry. As the system is currently set up, she argued, people have no right not to be exposed to toxic pesticides. She added that the public is deeply angry about industry shaping decisions that affect their health, and about pesticides in particular.
Why PRIA renewal matters
PRIA mainly sets the fees manufacturers pay the EPA to register their products. But it amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the core law governing how pesticides are registered, sold and used in the U.S. That makes each renewal one of the few moments when Congress has to open the statute. According to EWG, lawmakers could take up renewal as early as December, ahead of the current law’s expiry next September.
CR and EWG want lawmakers to use that opening to strengthen FIFRA. EWG Legislative Director Geoff Horsfield said Congress should reject any new pesticide law that fails to protect consumers.
What it means for the public
The Bill of Rights is not legislation, and nothing in it changes the law today. Its value is in naming, in one place, the protections that many people assume they already have but do not.
Until Congress acts, the burden of avoiding exposure falls largely on individuals. Readers can:
- Check whether their state requires notice before nearby spraying, and ask local schools and councils what they apply on playgrounds and parks.
- Choose organic or independently residue-tested food where possible, particularly for children.
- Contact their members of Congress ahead of the PRIA renewal and ask where they stand on these rights.
The full Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights is available from EWG, with background reporting from Consumer Reports.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
