A coalition of leading free market think tanks and conservative policy organizations has issued a joint letter voicing strong support for Missouri House Bill 544 (HB 544), a measure aimed at clarifying the state’s approach to herbicide regulation.
HB 544 is designed to align Missouri law with federal standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specifically, the bill affirms that any pesticide or herbicide registered with the EPA, and labeled in accordance with EPA guidelines, should be deemed compliant with both state and federal safety and health regulations. This would ensure that products like RoundUp, a widely used glyphosate-based herbicide, can continue to be sold and used in Missouri without conflicting regulatory mandates.
“Legislation like HB 544 in Missouri clarifies and affirms that any pesticide registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and sold under an EPA-approved label, is sufficient to meet all federal and state health and safety warning requirements,” the letter stated.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, is a cornerstone of modern agriculture in Missouri. It plays a critical role in weed control, improving crop yields, and reducing the need for tillage, which can contribute to soil erosion. According to recent data, approximately 91% of soybean farmers and 66% of corn farmers in Missouri rely on glyphosate to manage their fields effectively.
However, the use of glyphosate has been the subject of controversy since a 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” That conclusion was based on “limited evidence” linking glyphosate to cancer in humans and “sufficient evidence” in experimental animals. Despite this, regulatory bodies such as the EPA, the European Food Safety Authority, and other international agencies have maintained that glyphosate, when used as directed, does not pose a significant health risk to humans.
Critics of HB 544 argue that the bill could provide blanket immunity to chemical manufacturers, particularly Bayer, the company that acquired Monsanto, the original producer of RoundUp. They contend that such legislation could prevent consumers from holding companies accountable for alleged health risks associated with herbicide exposure.
However, the organizations supporting the bill strongly reject this interpretation.
“Importantly, this legislation does not create blanket immunity for manufacturers, nor would it shield companies from liability in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, misuse, or noncompliance with EPA regulations,” the letter clarified. “Consumers have multiple legal pathways. Instead, HB 544 ensures that compliance with EPA-approved labeling is recognized as legally sufficient, upholding the authority of the federal regulatory framework and preventing conflicting mandates from undermining it.”
The debate over RoundUp has already led to extensive litigation. Bayer has agreed to pay approximately $10.9 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits related to the product. As of now, around 165,000 cases have been filed, with more than 60,000 still pending. One high-profile case in Cole County, Missouri, resulted in a staggering jury verdict: each of the three plaintiffs was awarded $500 million in punitive damages, along with $5.6 million and $38 million in compensatory damages. In total, Bayer was ordered to pay $1.56 billion in that case alone.
The letter of support for HB 544 was signed by a number of influential organizations, including the National Taxpayers Union, Innovation Economy Alliance, American Consumer Institute, Center for Individual Freedom, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Independent Women’s Forum, Market Institute, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, Missouri Century Foundation, and the Institute for Policy Innovation.
As the Missouri legislature considers HB 544, supporters continue to argue that the bill is essential for safeguarding regulatory clarity, reinforcing federal standards, and supporting the state’s agricultural economy.
