The Looming Shield: How Big Ag is Rewriting the Rules on Pesticide Liability
Over $10 billion. That’s the amount Bayer has already paid, and is projected to pay, in settlements related to claims that its Roundup herbicide causes cancer. But the financial toll isn’t Bayer’s biggest concern anymore. A quiet, yet powerful, legislative push is underway – one that could effectively block future lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the science, and reshape the landscape of environmental and public health accountability.
The Battle for Legal Immunity
Seven years after acquiring Monsanto, Bayer finds itself at a critical juncture. The company, along with other agrochemical giants, is actively lobbying for liability shields, arguing they are essential to maintain the availability of crucial agricultural chemicals. The Modern Ag Alliance, a Bayer-founded group representing over 100 agricultural organizations, is spearheading this effort. Their message? Without protection from lawsuits, farmers could face economic ruin and food prices could skyrocket.
This isn’t just a lobbying effort confined to Washington D.C. The Alliance has already secured legislative wins in Georgia and North Dakota, blocking lawsuits related to pesticide use. Their strategy is now focused on a broader national campaign, targeting both state legislatures and Congress.
A Hidden Provision in Congress
The most immediate threat lies within a seemingly innocuous provision – Section 453 – tucked into a congressional appropriations bill. While the language doesn’t explicitly mention lawsuits or pesticide liability, it prohibits the use of funds to issue guidance, adopt policies, or approve labeling changes that contradict EPA human health assessments. Critics argue this effectively ties the hands of regulators and states, preventing them from warning the public about potential pesticide risks even when new scientific evidence emerges.
“Nobody thinks that a giant chemical company should be able to lie about the risks of using their product and get away with it,” says Daniel Hinkle, senior state affairs counsel for the American Association for Justice. “It’s just making sure that people understand that is what is at stake.”
The EPA’s Role and the Power of “Preemption”
Bayer argues that the EPA should be the sole arbiter of pesticide safety, and that if a product receives EPA approval, companies shouldn’t be liable for failing to warn of perceived risks. This argument hinges on the legal concept of preemption – the idea that federal law overrides state law. Bayer has actively pursued this strategy in court, seeking to establish federal control over pesticide regulation.
However, consumer advocates point out that EPA assessments can be outdated and influenced by political pressures. The current language in the appropriations bill would make it incredibly difficult for the EPA to update warnings, even in light of new scientific findings, effectively locking in potentially flawed assessments.
The Rise of the “Maha” Movement and Bipartisan Opposition
The legislative push isn’t happening in a vacuum. The “Make American Healthy Again” (Maha) movement, a growing coalition of voters concerned about toxins in food and the environment, is actively opposing the proposed changes. Led by figures like health journalist Max Lugavere, Maha is leveraging social media and grassroots organizing to raise awareness and pressure lawmakers.
“Stripping away legal recourse in these cases wouldn’t just be wrong, it would be a tragedy,” Lugavere stated, highlighting the growing public concern over pesticide risks. The Maha movement’s bipartisan appeal adds a unique dynamic to the fight, potentially attracting support from across the political spectrum.
Beyond Roundup: A Broader Trend
While the Roundup litigation has been the catalyst for this legislative effort, the implications extend far beyond glyphosate. The proposed liability shields would protect manufacturers of a wide range of pesticides, potentially impacting the health of farmworkers, consumers, and the environment. This raises concerns about a broader trend of weakening environmental regulations and prioritizing corporate profits over public safety.
What’s Next? The Farm Bill and Beyond
The appropriations bill is just one battleground. Similar language is expected to appear in the upcoming farm bill, with strong support from Representative Glenn Thompson, chair of the House committee on agriculture. This suggests a sustained and coordinated effort to reshape pesticide regulation in favor of industry interests.
Bayer, while publicly downplaying the impact of the appropriations bill language, has made it clear that “legislative certainty” is a top priority. The company has even threatened to stop selling glyphosate if it can’t secure legal protection from lawsuits. This raises a critical question: are we heading towards a future where corporations dictate the terms of public health and environmental safety?
The fight over pesticide liability is far from over. It’s a complex issue with far-reaching consequences, demanding increased scrutiny and public engagement. The outcome will not only determine the fate of Bayer and other agrochemical companies, but also the future of food safety, environmental protection, and the right to seek justice when harmed by toxic chemicals. What are your predictions for the future of pesticide regulation? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
