Pesticide company efforts to push through laws that could block litigation against them is igniting battles in several US farm states and pitting some farm groups against each other.
Laws have been introduced in at least eight states so far and drafts are circulating in more than 20 states, backed by a deluge of advertising supporting the measures.
The fight is particularly fierce now in Iowa, where opponents call the pesticide-backed proposed law the “Cancer Gag Act”, due to high levels of cancer in Iowa that many fear are linked to the state’s large agricultural use of pesticides. Iowa has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the United States and the fastest growing rate.
The bill would bar people from suing pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn them of health risks, as long as the product labels are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Organizers against the Iowa bill are planning a rally at the state capitol today after the state senate voted last week to advance the measure.
Opponents say the legislation will rob farmers and others who use pesticides from holding companies accountable in court if their pesticide products cause disease or injury.
“We’re very worried. Our farmers feel that if they have injuries or illnesses due to their use of a pesticide they should have access to the courts,” said Aaron Lehman, an Iowa corn and soybean farmer who is president of the Iowa Farmers Union. “We just don’t think the playing field should be tilted.”
But backers of the legislation say they’re trying to ensure farmers don’t lose access to beneficial weed killers, insecticide and other chemicals that are commonly used in growing food. They maintain that tort lawyers exploit and entice sick people to bring lawsuits that are not backed by scientific evidence, and such actions should be limited.
Several large farm groups, including the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, are supporting the bill.
The actions in the states come alongside a simultaneous push for changes in federal law that would in effect shield companies from lawsuits brought by people claiming they developed cancers or other diseases due to their use of pesticides.
Bayer, the Germany-based owner of the former Monsanto Co, is the chief architect of the strategy, designed as a means to beat back thousands of lawsuits filed by farmers and others who blame their use of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides for causing them to develop cancer.
The litigation has so far cost Bayer billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts favoring plaintiffs, and more cases are pending. The company says the pursuit of the legislative changes is necessary to protect its “important investments” and to ensure farmers don’t lose access to Roundup.
Bayer says it has joined with more than 360 grower and industry groups to push the federal legislative changes and with the Modern Ag Alliance coalition of agricultural organizations to fight for the changes in state laws.
Bayer said in a statement that the state laws would not prevent anyone from suing pesticide makers, though they would ensure that any pesticide registered with the EPA and sold with an EPA-approved label would “satisfy requirements for health and safety warnings”. The company said the “future of American farming” depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA.
In addition to Iowa, the measures are advancing in other states. In Missouri, the former home state of Monsanto, the proposed shield law passed through the House agriculture committee on 4 February.
The legislation has not yet been formally introduced in Idaho, but a draft has been circulating among lawmakers, said Jonathan Oppenheimer, government relations director with the Idaho Conservation League. The league and a contingent of other opposition groups held a press conference last week denouncing the efforts to pass what the groups call the “Chemical Company Immunity” law.
They cited research showing elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields, and a study that found elevated cancer occurrence correlated to pesticide exposure.
“There are significant concerns with the fact that EPA does not conduct its own safety studies on these products before they are approved,” said Oppenheimer. “They rely on these industry research studies. And as you look at the history of pesticide approval, there have been numerous instances where manufacturers knew that their products caused certain harms but sought to limit the public disclosure of those studies. As a result, many dangerous products have been on the market for years. Often it takes decades for the EPA to withdraw approval for these products.”
The pesticide industry maintains that thousands of studies prove the safety of their products and the EPA provides rigorous oversight to ensure the products are safe when used as labeled.
Along with the state legislative actions, the EPA last month opened a public comment period on a petition filed by the attorneys general of Nebraska, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota seeking an amendment to federal law that would make it harder for people to sue pesticide makers.
The proposed modifications would bar any state labeling requirements that were “inconsistent” with the EPA’s conclusions regarding the safety of a pesticide.
“Statements or conclusions regarding the product’s human health effects, including the likelihood of causing cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm, that are different from EPA’s findings and conclusions” would be considered “misbranding”, the proposed amendment states.
Like the proposed state laws, the language would essentially bar legal claims against pesticide makers that accuse them of failing to warn consumers of certain health risks if the EPA has not required those risks to be spelled out on a product label.
The EPA is accepting comments until 20 February.
Back in Iowa, the bill is expected to pass the state senate but is projected to face an uphill battle in the house chamber.
Despite a “flood” of online and newspaper advertising by proponents of the Iowa bill, opposition is strong, said Andrew Mertens, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice, which opposes the bill.
“Polling in Iowa would indicate that the general public is simply not going to fall for Bayer’s message,” Mertens said. “But legislators can be swayed in ways that voters cannot, so the fight is far from over.”
This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group
