Tennessee lawmakers postpone pesticide bill until 2026
Chemical companies seeking legal immunity from Roundup-related lawsuits will have to wait a year to get their way in Tennessee.
The House Judiciary Committee opted Tuesday to postpone legislation until 2026 enabling Bayer/Monsanto to avoid liability in lawsuits connected to cancer claims. Republican Rep. Clay Doggett of Pulaski called for the delay less than a week after the full Senate passed its version of the bill.
'I felt like there was a lot of stakeholders, there was a lot of questions that we had that didn't get answered,' Doggett said Tuesday.
Tennessee bill would expand weed-killer manufacturers' legal immunity
Germany-based Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, recently agreed to pay nearly $2.1 billion to a man who claimed he contracted non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from Roundup. Some 170,000 similar lawsuits have been filed against the chemical company.
Under the legislation, though, as long as a pesticide manufacturer's federally-approved label doesn't warn of a disease, they couldn't be held liable for causing an illness.
Farmers in his rural Middle Tennessee district supported the bill, Doggett said. Yet lawmakers were overwhelmed with information about the bill, making it difficult to bring it to a vote this year, he said.
For instance, Republican Rep. Gino Bulso, a Brentwood attorney, told lawmakers a provision in state law gives people standing to sue in federal court. Doggett also added that he favors an amendment to the measure that dropped a 'blanket immunity' provision for the companies involved.
Doggett conceded that farmers could be 'more prone' to contract illnesses from spraying the pesticide/herbicide. Yet he said farmers in his district support the legislation and use of the chemical, and he added that other lawmakers said foreign countries will continue using the product on their crops even if it vanishes in America.
Farmers and the Farm Bureau testified previously that the Roundup used in modern agriculture enables no-till farming on larger tracts, which is considered a more efficient method.
The House bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Rusty Grills of Newbern in West Tennessee, called the outcome 'part of the legislative process.'
'There's lots of questions people have that they didn't feel like they got adequate answers to, so knowing that, we're at the end of the session now, so there's not a whole lot of time to get answers,' Grills said.
The bill can be brought back for consideration in 2026 since it wasn't voted down.
Critics have said they believe it gives Bayer and Monsanto blanket immunity to lawsuits.
But Grills said rather than a giveaway to the company, the legislation would put an end to frivolous lawsuits and stave off a day when farmers can't use preferred products because of the threat of legal action against manufacturers.
'I'm one of those farmers. We use these products, and because we use those products, we're able to make a living,' Grills said.
A Tennessee Farm Bureau lobbyist testified recently that the Senate bill would avert only cases involving product labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Opponents of the legislation say it will remove people's constitutional rights to a jury trial when they're diagnosed with deadly illnesses caused by the product.
Legislatures in Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Wyoming and Mississippi have turned down similar bills, yet Bayer-Monsanto hasn't pulled products from shelves, leaving opponents to say the chemical maker is more concerned with increasing earnings than protecting people.
The Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association testified in the Senate that opponents don't believe the products should be banned, only that customers should maintain their right to take legal action.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
Chicago Tribune
10 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere charged with computer tampering
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere faces three counts of computer tampering, according to a complaint filed this week in Will County Circuit Court. Traynere, a Bolingbrook Democrat, allegedly accessed the email account of board member Judy Ogalla, a Monee Republican, in March 2024 without Ogalla's authorization, according to the charges. The misdemeanor charges filed by special prosecutor William Elward state Traynere forwarded emails from Ogalla's account to herself and others. Ogalla, who was the Will County Board chairman at the time, said that Traynere knowingly accessed her email and knew it was unethical. Ogalla questioned whether Traynere had opened her email more than once. She said she doesn't know what all Traynere saw. 'Was she in my email other times and I just didn't know?' Ogalla said. 'She shouldn't have done it.' An email exchanged between board member Steve Balich, a Homer Glen Republican, and Ogalla regarding the controversial 143rd Street road widening project had been forwarded to the county executive, who replied to the email, Balich said during a July 2024 news conference with other County Board Republicans. Reached Wednesday, Traynere said she was unaware of the charges. Traynere said she had been testing out a rumor that all County Board members were given the same password when they were issued new devices. At the time the incident occurred, Traynere said she contacted Ogalla to explain what happened and believed it amounted to nothing. She said it was a simple mistake to see if it were true that all board members had the same password and she was exposing a problem with the system. A summons was issued for Traynere to appear in court Sept. 9. Traynere said Wednesday she believes the charges are political. Traynere has been on the Will County Board since 2008 and is the past Democratic Leader. She chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Her term expires in 2026. Already, Sheldon Watts and Tyler Giacalone have announced they are running for the two seats that are up for election next year to represent District 11. Earlier this year, Traynere was issued a traffic citation stemming from an accident with a minor on a bicycle. That case was dismissed May 15, according to her lawyer and Will County Court documents.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Obama endorses Newsom's redistricting plan in California
Former President Barack Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach. 'Over the long term, we shouldn't have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who's got better ideas,' Obama wrote in a post on X. 'But since Texas is taking direction from a partisan White House and gerrymandering in the middle of a decade to try and maintain the House despite their unpopular policies, I have tremendous respect for how Governor Newsom has approached this,' he continued. 'He's put forward a smart, measured approach in California, designed to address a very particular problem at a very particular moment in time.' Obama's public statement comes after he praised Newsom's plan in front of a crowd at a Martha's Vineyard, Mass. fundraiser on Tuesday. 'We're only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn't go into effect,' the former president said. Newsom, who is considered a potential 2028 presidential contender, hit back at Republican redistricting efforts in Texas earlier this month when he called on California lawmakers to come up with ways to skirt the state's redistricting regulations and produce maps more favorable to Democrats to even the playing field. The California governor announced plans earlier this month to hold a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot measure that would permit Democrats to pass a new House map ahead of the 2026 midterms in the predominantly blue state. On Tuesday, California Republicans sued the state in an attempt to block the legislature from considering legislation that would allow Newsom to go ahead with a special election.
