A legislative storm is brewing across the United States as proposals in at least eight states aim to align state pesticide labeling requirements with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conclusions. These proposed laws, circulating in draft form in over 20 states, have ignited a fierce debate backed by a wave of advertising. The legislation seeks to bar any state labeling requirements that contradict the EPA's safety conclusions, a move that has drawn both significant support and opposition.
In Iowa, the battle over the proposed "Cancer Gag Act" is particularly intense. Iowa, which has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the nation and the fastest-growing rate, is at the center of this controversy. Opponents argue that these legislative changes could stifle lawsuits against pesticide companies accused of failing to warn consumers about health risks not specified by the EPA.
The litigation against pesticide companies has already cost Bayer billions in settlements and jury verdicts favoring plaintiffs. More cases are pending, fueling concerns among farmers and consumers alike. Aaron Lehman, president of the Iowa Farmers Union, expressed deep concern over the potential impact on farmers' rights to seek legal redress.
“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.
The pesticide industry, however, argues that thousands of studies affirm the safety of their products. They emphasize that the EPA provides stringent oversight to ensure these products are safe when used as labeled. Bayer, a leading player in this industry, has joined forces with over 360 grower and industry groups advocating for federal legislative changes. They have also aligned with the Modern Ag Alliance coalition to push for changes in state laws.
The proposed amendment would classify labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA conclusions as "misbranding." As part of this effort, Missouri's House agriculture committee approved a proposed shield law on February 4th. This law would effectively bar legal claims against pesticide makers for not warning consumers about certain health risks if those risks are not mandated on product labels by the EPA.
Oppenheimer, a vocal critic of these developments, highlights significant concerns regarding the EPA's reliance on industry research for safety studies.
“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.” – Oppenheimer
Public sentiment in Iowa appears skeptical of Bayer's message, as indicated by polling data.
“Polling in Iowa would indicate that the general public is simply not going to fall for Bayer’s message,” Mertens said.
The EPA is currently accepting comments until February 20th regarding a petition from attorneys general in 11 states seeking an amendment to federal law. This amendment would make it more challenging for individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers. The outcome of this process could significantly impact the future landscape of pesticide regulation and litigation in the United States.