The plaintiffs in the chlorpyrifos cases tend to describe the same geography: a rented house at the edge of an almond grove or citrus orchard in Kings, Tulare, Fresno, or Kern County. A parent who worked the fields, sometimes while pregnant. A spray rig passing close enough that the smell came through the windows. Then, years later, a child with autism, a developmental delay, or a learning disability that no one in the family had seen before.
These families are not guessing at a cause. They are pointing to a chemical whose maker was fined by the EPA in the 1990s for failing to report neurological effects, and which federal regulators eventually concluded could not be shown to be safe for children at any measurable level in food.
How exposure happened
In the womb. Pregnant farmworkers absorbed the chemical through skin and air. Studies from Columbia and UC Berkeley followed children exposed prenatally and found lower IQ, memory deficits, and higher rates of developmental disorders.
Drift. Spray applied to fields moved on the wind into homes, schools, and yards. Plaintiffs describe residue on cars and laundry hung outside.
Take-home exposure and water. Residue on work clothes and boots carried indoors. In some communities, drinking water tested positive.
Corteva, which inherited the product line from Dow, told investors in 2026 that it faces claims alleging autism, developmental delays, and decreased neurological function — and that it has set aside money for the estimated resolution of certain claims.
Direct2Attorney · Litigation UpdateTwo populations, two kinds of claims
Children exposed early in life
Filed since 2021, mostly California state courts- Autism spectrum disorder
- ADHD and learning disabilities
- Reduced IQ and motor deficits
- Birth defects in some complaints
Adults who handled the product
First case filed June 2026- Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism
- Long-term occupational mixing and application
- Pest control and agricultural workers
- An emerging theory, modeled on paraquat litigation
What families say made the difference
Being able to establish where they lived and worked, and when. Employer records, pesticide use reports (California requires applicators to file them), school records documenting the child’s diagnosis, and medical evaluations linking symptoms to a developmental disorder. The families who came forward early are the ones whose claims are reflected in that accrual on Corteva’s balance sheet.
What this means if you're considering a claim
If you or a family member worked in or lived near treated agriculture, and a child later received a neurodevelopmental diagnosis — or an adult who handled the product developed Parkinson’s — a claim may exist. The children’s cases are established; the adult cases are new. A free review can determine which applies and whether a participating firm sees a fit.
Farm or agricultural exposure and a diagnosis?
Free, confidential review. Spanish-language intake available.
Common Questions
Deadlines for minors often do not begin until they turn 18, and discovery rules can extend them. An attorney licensed in your state can confirm
Yes. Bystander and residential drift exposure is central to the filed cases.
No. Injury claims do not depend on immigration status, and intake is confidential.
Most filed cases are in California because of its agriculture and use reporting, but exposure occurred nationwide and claims can arise elsewhere.
No. Direct2Attorney’s review is free, and participating law firms typically work on contingency, meaning fees are generally paid only if there is a recovery. Confirm fee terms in writing with the firm.
