365 agricultural and related groups have sent a letter calling on Congress to enact the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, a bipartisan bill the groups say is needed to protect access for farmers and the public to safe, well-regulated pesticides. The groups—which represent millions of pesticide users from farmers to scientists, and mosquito control to public land managers—say the legislation would reaffirm and clarify long-standing provisions in federal pesticide law regarding labeling requirements.

Since the 1970s, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act has contained provisions that prevent states from imposing labeling requirements in addition to or different from federal requirements. Yet, the groups warned in the letter that recent state labeling requirements, “directly and unjustifiably contradict EPA’s scientific findings on pesticide safety. These actions risk creating an unworkable, inconsistent patchwork of state pesticide labels that can quickly disrupt commerce and access to these much-needed tools.” The groups are concerned that if contradictory labels are required on the same package, it could lead to products being pulled from the market.

Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association and a soybean farmer from Kentucky, said, “Not only does FIFRA prohibit states from requiring labels that conflict with federal findings, but also labels are not allowed to be ‘false or misleading.’ If a state requires a product to be labeled in contradiction to scientific findings from federal regulators, it places manufacturers in a no-win situation; either disregard a state labeling requirement or put a false and misleading label on a product, contradicting EPA findings and violating federal law. This situation is not sustainable.”

Supporting the enactment of the Agriculture Labeling Uniformity Act, which was introduced last Congress by Representatives Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Jim Costa (D-CA), is only the most recent effort farm groups have pursued to bring clarity to pesticide labeling. Earlier this month, 12 national and state agricultural groups filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear a case on whether states could require glyphosate to carry a cancer warning label despite repeated findings from EPA and other regulators around the globe that it is not a carcinogen. In March, nearly 300 groups supported a petition from several state attorneys general to conduct clarifying rulemaking at EPA on pesticide labels. Many groups also have been supporting state legislative efforts that reaffirm federal labeling law, including recent state laws passed in Georgia and North Dakota.

Ragland added, “We’re really taking an ‘all of the above’ approach to bring certainty to this issue. Unless there is clarity, we’re worried manufacturers could exit the market and leave farmers without much-needed tools needed to protect crops and provide affordable food for consumers.”