Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
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 sell glyphosate herbicide products.
The problem
Glyphosate is a widely used weedkiller. Some people believe it causes health problems. This bill addresses concerns about liability and compensation for potential health effects.
The proposal
The bill eliminates immunity protections that shield glyphosate manufacturers from lawsuits. It allows people to sue companies for injuries they claim resulted from glyphosate exposure.
The impact
Glyphosate manufacturers, farmers, agricultural companies, and people who claim health injuries from the product are all affected by changes to who can be sued and for what.
People who believe glyphosate harmed them could pursue lawsuits for compensation. This removes legal barriers that previously prevented some claims from being heard in court.
Companies may face stronger incentives to research safety and warn consumers about potential risks. The threat of lawsuits can encourage manufacturers to be more cautious.
People claiming glyphosate injuries could receive financial compensation through court decisions or settlements. This provides a remedy for those who believe they were harmed.
Lawsuits and liability concerns may raise costs for companies using glyphosate products. These expenses could be passed to farmers and consumers through higher prices.
Companies face unpredictable liability even for products approved by regulators. This creates business risk and may discourage investment in agricultural products.
Glyphosate is approved as safe by the EPA and other regulatory agencies. Allowing unlimited lawsuits contradicts government safety determinations and creates legal confusion.
Removing protections could lead to many lawsuits with weak evidence. This burdens courts and companies with cases that may lack scientific support.
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.