The House of Representatives is gearing up for a potential vote this week on the farm bill, which contains controversial language that critics say will shield pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits alleging they failed to adequately warn about potential harms of their products beyond EPA standards.

House Republicans Face Immense Criticism For Proposed Farm Bill That Provides Liability Shield For Pesticide Manufacturers

Criticism from some House Republicans and MAHA activists could put the bill in jeopardy of clearing the legislative chamber.

"We will slaughter the Farm Bill if Sections 10205, 10206 and 10207 are NOT REMOVED," Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) said.

"Section 10205 would shield pesticide makers from liability, weaken warning labels, and put foreign chemical corporations above the health of American families. Sections 10206 and 10207 would strip protections that help keep dangerous pesticides out of our children’s playgrounds, communities, and drinking water," she continued.

"This is how power and money operate in DC. This week a Farm Bill appeared in the House with language trying to shield Monsanto (Bayer) from legal liability from Roundup causing cancer—shielding the company from billions in liability. This is the same company that Trump’s Chief of Staff and former AG lobbied for. Obviously, we are a H*** NO!" Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) commented.

ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICO explained further:

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and other MAHA-aligned Republicans have threatened to withhold support for the bill unless the pesticide provision — which bars states from creating pesticide labeling laws that differ from EPA guidance — is stripped.

Luna said Monday she would “BLOW UP the farm bill” if the pesticide language wasn’t removed.

The draft rule, which was obtained by POLITICO, would still need to clear the committee and be adopted by the House before Luna’s amendment could get a floor vote.

House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) defended the pesticide language Monday during a Rules Committee hearing, sparring with Democratic lawmakers who slammed the provision as a “liability shield.”

Farm state Republicans have worried the Luna amendment will pass if it’s allowed a floor vote, noting only one Democrat opposed a similar measure in the House Agriculture Committee.

The fight over pesticide manufacturer health risk liability has reached a fever pitch in Washington this week. The Rules Committee’s decision comes the day after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case weighing whether Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, should be preempted from failure-to-warn claims for cancer risks associated with pesticide use.

Advocacy groups rallied outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments of Monsanto Company v. Durnell.

Supreme Court To Hear Oral Arguments In Critical Glyphosate Case, Activists Rally

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the farm bill "literally lets pesticide corporations dump cancer-causing chemicals into our air, water, and food."

"Making America healthy again starts with what is on our plates. Weakening pesticide oversight moves in the wrong direction. We've filed an amendment to strip pesticide loopholes from the Farm Bill," Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said.

ADVERTISEMENT

"These provisions preempt state and local authority, shut down judicial review, and hand EPA bureaucrats unchecked power to define what is safe. South Carolina farmers, families, and communities deserve better. Our amendment strips them out," she continued.

More from DTN Progressive Farmer:

The Supreme Court case is tied to claims alleging the failure to warn people that glyphosate could cause cancer under Missouri state law. Thompson said those claims should not apply to products that have met EPA regulatory standards.

McGovern noted, "Why do we need this language if everything is so wonderful for glyphosate?" He added, "It seems to me this is protecting Monsanto from losing a lot of money because they keep losing lawsuits after lawsuits."

Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, said even if a company violated EPA's rules for submitting false data on a pesticide application, the EPA will settle with companies without requiring an admission of fault. As a result, the language in the bill could take away the ability of people to have their day in court if the company hides details about the risks of its products, Craig said.

Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., pointed to Bayer's $7.25 billion fund to pay for glyphosate litigation. Neguse also said Bayer spent $2 million lobbying on the provision. Neguse pointed to comments from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who suggested state courts and juries should have the opportunity to sound alarms if the federal government gets a regulatory decision wrong.

"That's the point here," Neguse said.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, expressed his own concerns about the pesticide provision, saying he doesn't like that a state such as Texas would have to go through the EPA to address any problems that could arise from pesticide applications.

"I've got grave concerns of big ag making decisions in the corporate interest that aren't necessarily in the interest of every consumer and the health and well-being of every American," Roy said.

ADVERTISEMENT

When pressed on whether House members will get to vote on an amendment to remove the provision, Thompson countered, "This is about providing what our farmers are asking for, what the farmers need, and quite frankly that's why the provisions are in there."

Thompson added, "I hope there's enough (lawmakers) that believe in science is all I hope," Thompson said.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.