HB 303: Pesticide and Agricultural Immunity — 2025

Rep. Doug Pickett (R-Oakley) introduced House Bill 303, which seeks to provide sweeping legal immunity to certain agricultural products. Three versions of a similar bill failed during the 2024 Idaho legislative session, but the unpopular bill has arisen for reconsideration.

The bill seeks to prevent Idahoans from seeking accountability for pesticide-related injuries, and this year’s version also applies to any products that have a state or federally-approved label, and which are used in the production of “food or fiber.” This would seem apply to any agricultural chemicals, farm equipment, veterinary pharmaceuticals, Genetically Modified Organisms, and asbestos (it’s a “fiber”).

The main outcome of the bill is that it would effectively prevent litigation against pesticide manufacturers, so long as a state or federal agency has approved their product for use. The bill is being promoted by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical company with large phosphate mines in Southeast Idaho, and ChemChina/Syngenta, the Chinese state-owned manufacturer of Paraquat. A national corporate influence campaign from Bayer and ChemChina is underway in at least 21 states, and in Congress. Yet, despite spending millions of dollars on advertising, lobbying, and campaign contributions, the effort has come up short in a number of states, and is still pending in others.

It also doesn’t appear to be convincing voters. According to recent polling data from Idaho, Iowa, and Missouri, chemical company immunity proves deeply unpopular, with 90% opposed.

In recent years, a number of studies, some governmental agencies, and juries have found links between exposure to certain commonly used pesticides and health ailments including various cancers, Parkinson’s disease, delayed brain development, and other negative effects. Many other countries ban the use of certain pesticides that are approved for use in the United States, and the EPA has been criticized for their unwillingness to limit pesticide use, even after scientists have provided credible evidence linking pesticides to serious health concerns.

Settlements and guilty verdicts against Bayer are estimated at $13+ billion and other lawsuits are still pending against Bayer and other corporate chemical manufacturers. The bill would effectively eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate hold these companies accountable. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and families would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages.

The China National Chemical Corporation, the parent company of Syngenta, produces Paraquat, a pesticide that has been linked to Parkinson’s Disease. In January 2025, the US Department of Defense listed ChemChina as a Military Company with ties to the People’s Liberation Army, and Executive Orders issued by both Presidents Trump and Biden prohibited investment in ChemChina by American companies or individuals. Why would the Idaho Legislature now seek to provide a multi-billion dollar gift to this adversarial company? What’s more?…Paraquat is banned in China, and 70 other countries, because of the risks to public health!

Local research in Idaho has also shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields. Another Idaho study found elevated cancer occurrence correlated to pesticide exposure. As a result, the potential threats to rural Idahoans and farmworkers appears highest. Further, pesticides can also contaminate groundwater, but it’s hard to track because the Idaho State Department of Agriculture curtailed their monitoring several years ago and the last report was issued more than 5 years ago.

Idaho already has a cap on punitive damages in these types of disputes, and there have been no jury awards from Idaho courts. Plus, it’s already very difficult to go up against a multinational corporation in a courtroom, and requires substantial evidence to prove a link between pesticide exposure and human health. This bill would establish a seemingly insurmountable legal hurdle, requiring a showing that:

• “the clear weight of scientific evidence does not support…the warning,”
• “the manufacturer or seller knows or should have known…that the required warning was not supported,”
• and that “at minimum“ such evidence be “academically peer reviewed, published in a recognized academic journal, capable of replication, and reflect” sound science.

If you agree that the Idaho Legislature should not be limiting the ability of Idahoans to access the courts and should protect Idaho’s public health, ask your legislator to reject House Bill 303!