A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Pesticide Harm Accountability Act aims to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The bill seeks to protect certain State tort law claims from being blocked by Federal preemption. It specifically addresses issues regarding pesticide labeling and packaging. The act aims to ensure that state laws can be used to hold manufacturers accountable for harm. Additionally, it requires the EPA to report on any regulations that currently limit these state claims.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +8
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill significantly expands the ability of states to exercise tort law against manufacturers.
- Scored +7
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer protection by allowing state-mandated warnings on pesticide products.
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill strengthens environmental protections by allowing states to hold manufacturers accountable via tort law.
The opposite
- Scored -6
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill increases legal liability and potential litigation risks for pesticide manufacturers.
- Scored -5
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill reduces federal preemption power in favor of state legal authority.
- Scored -4
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill may increase liability and regulatory scrutiny for the agricultural industry.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Ability to add warnings: This provision allows for the placement of warnings on a pesticide or device if they are required under a State's tort law, which could help inform consumers of potential risks (Section 3(a)).
-
Legal accountability through state courts: By clarifying that federal law does not prohibit or limit claims related to the labeling or packaging of pesticides under State tort law, individuals may be able to pursue legal action if they are harmed by these products (Section 3(b)).
-
Increased transparency through reporting: The bill requires the EPA to identify and report on any regulations or guidance that currently restrict state tort law claims, which could lead to bringing those regulations into compliance (Section 4).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill significantly expands the ability of states to exercise tort law against manufacturers. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases transparency by requiring the EPA to report on regulations that limit state tort claims. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill reduces federal preemption power in favor of state legal authority.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protection by allowing state-mandated warnings on pesticide products.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill strengthens environmental protections by allowing states to hold manufacturers accountable via tort law.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households often bear a disproportionate burden of pesticide exposure and benefit from increased accountability. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — This provides a mechanism for middle-class families to seek redress for pesticide-related harms. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill increases legal liability and potential litigation risks for pesticide manufacturers. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill may increase liability and regulatory scrutiny for the agricultural industry.
- 8/24/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- Introduced in House