Eric Bjerregaard, It is you who doesn't understand.  Only some of the chemicals that the plaintiff was exposed to were herbicides, and others were referred to as "hazardous chemicals."  You can insist that those others were herbicides, but there is no evidence of it.  As you note, the broad, inclusive term is "pesticides."  The plaintiff was exposed to pesticides applied by a boom sprayer that required evacuation for 24 hours, according to the complaint.  That's hazardous.  You wouldn't want to ingest that stuff.