Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Removes legal protections for companies that make or sell glyphosate herbicide products.
The problem
Glyphosate is a widely used weedkiller. Some people claim it causes health problems. Companies face lawsuits. The bill responds to concerns about legal liability and product safety.
The proposal
The bill eliminates immunity protections that shield glyphosate manufacturers from certain lawsuits. It allows people to sue companies over glyphosate-related injuries without specific legal barriers.
The impact
Glyphosate manufacturers, farmers using the product, and people who believe they were harmed are affected. Lawsuits could increase. Product availability and costs may change.
People who believe glyphosate harmed them can pursue lawsuits more easily. This removes legal barriers that currently block some cases. It gives citizens a court option to seek compensation.
Threat of lawsuits may push manufacturers to test products more carefully. Companies might improve warning labels or safety measures. This creates incentive for stronger product oversight.
Companies become more responsible for product effects. They cannot hide behind legal immunity. This promotes corporate responsibility and transparency.
If glyphosate becomes more expensive or unavailable due to lawsuits, farmers pay more for weed control. This raises food production costs. Consumers may see higher grocery prices.
Removing immunity could trigger many lawsuits, even weak ones. This creates legal uncertainty for businesses. Courts and companies spend more on legal fees.
Companies might stop selling glyphosate due to legal risk. Farmers lose an effective, affordable weed-control tool. Alternatives may be more expensive or less effective.
The EPA has approved glyphosate as safe. This bill may contradict federal decisions. It creates confusion about which safety standards apply.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.