Cory Booker pitches bill to allow lawsuits against pesticide makers over ‘toxic products'
The Pesticide Injury Accountability Act would 'ensure that pesticide manufacturers can be held responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products', according to a summary of the bill. The legislation would be amended to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (Fifra).
If passed, the law would turn the tables on efforts by Bayer and a coalition of agricultural organizations as they push for state-by-state legislation blocking individuals from being able to file lawsuits accusing the companies of failing to warn of the risks of their products. The industry has also been pushing for federal preemptive protections against litigation.
So far, two states – Georgia and North Dakota – have passed what critics call 'liability shield' laws. The laws essentially declare that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has oversight of pesticide labeling and state laws cannot permit companies to be held liable for failing to go beyond what the EPA requires in warning customers of potential risks.
Booker's proposed law would not invalidate the state laws, but would give individuals an alternative – the right to bring their injury claims in federal courts if they can't bring them in state courts.
'Rather than providing a liability shield so that foreign corporations are allowed to poison the American people, Congress should instead … ensure that these chemical companies can be held accountable in federal court for the harm caused by their toxic products,' Booker said in a statement accompanying the announcement of the bill.
So far, 17 environmental, public health and consumer groups have endorsed the measure, including leaders in the 'Make America healthy again' (Maha) movement.
Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America and a supporter of Booker's legislation, said it is 'unconscionable that corporations are pushing our elected officials to manipulate laws that protect their profits over the health and safety of Americans'. She noted that many pesticides used widely in the US are banned in other countries because of their health risks.
The summary of the bill names both Germany-based Bayer and the Chinese-owned Syngenta as key targets and says they and others are seeking 'liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused'.
Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 and inherited a mass of lawsuits involving close to 200,000 plaintiffs in the US alone, all alleging that the company should have warned users that its glyphosate-based weed killing products, such as the popular Roundup brand, could cause cancer. The company has already paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury awards, but still faces roughly 67,000 lawsuits.
Likewise, Syngenta is facing several thousand lawsuits from people alleging that its paraquat weed killing products cause Parkinson's disease and that Syngenta should have warned users of evidence that chronic exposure could cause the incurable brain disease. The company has so far paid out well over $100m to settle cases before they go to trial, and is attempting to solidify a broad settlement of the majority of the cases.
Bayer and its allies argue that their pesticide products, which are widely used in farming, are not only safe but are necessary for food production. Costly lawsuits jeopardize the availability of pesticides for agriculture, they say.
Bayer did not provide a comment directly about Booker's bill, but said the 'future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA'.
The company has asserted in its litigation defense that it should not be subject to failure-to-warn claims because such claims are preempted by federal law. The company says that if it did place cancer risk warnings on product labels it would conflict with provisions of FIFRA that give the EPA oversight of labeling language. The EPA says that glyphosate herbicides are 'not likely' to be carcinogenic.
Bayer said Thursday it wants to see federal legislation to 'ensure that states and courts do not take a position or action regarding product labels at odds with congressional intent, federal law and established scientific research and federal authority'.
'Farmers and consumers need to not only be able to trust the regulation of the products they use but trust that the government has made decisions based on agreed-upon and established science, facts, and data,' Bayer said.
Syngenta said Booker's bill 'targets American food security' and that farmers do not deserve an 'attack on the products they rely on'. The company said American agriculture is 'highly regulated, productive and safe', and that its paraquat products specifically, have not been shown to cause Parkinson's disease.
This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Britain has no business laughing at Trump's EU trade deal
In a world where Donald Trump's tariffs and trade wars make everyone a loser, are there any winners from his latest deal, sealed by a handshake with the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in a ballroom at one of the president's Scottish golf courses, of all places? One very clear loser is von der Leyen herself. If body language is anything to go by, she looked like she'd been badly bullied by the Big Orange Man – and, truthfully, so she had. In her own clipped remarks, she admits that a reduction in tariffs to 15 per cent, while 'not to be underestimated', was 'the best we could get'. President Macron has declared the US-EU trade deal a 'dark day' for Europe – and you can understand why. A general tariff level of 15 per cent – better than the 20 per cent proposed by Trump on his infamous 'Liberation Day' in April, and even better than the 30 per cent he was threatening a couple of weeks ago – is still prohibitive. It is certainly way above the 2 to 3 per cent levels that most EU exporters used to face. A trade war has been avoided, but this looks like the kind of deal the Americans have forced on the likes of Vietnam or Indonesia. So it is something of a humiliation for the mighty European Union, a global trade superpower. The feeling in some parts of Europe must be that if von der Leyen had played hard ball like the Chinese, a more evenly balanced and more advantageous relationship could have been reached in the long run. We will never know the truth about that. For European pride and for many of its great industrial concerns, the deal is disappointing, and will be expensive – the Volkswagen group is just one to speak out. But for European consumers, it is surely good news. They will be able to enjoy cheaper imports from the United States; it is American customers who will have to pay more for their French wines and Italian sports cars. Could it be that the EU's trade deal – which Trump has, well, trumpeted as the 'biggest ever', and whose biggest 'win' is the removal of a threat to raise tariffs to 30 per cent later this week – is marginally worse than the one Starmer did with Trump in May? Britain's trade deal lowered tariffs of UK goods imported into the US to 10 per cent, and imposed a lesser, 25 per cent tariff on the UK steel industry, with room for further concessions, while the 50 per cent 'worldwide rate' will remain for the EU. For those now cheering this as a rare Brexit benefit, it is a hollow victory. For the concessions to Britain are so minor, they cannot hope to make up for the ground lost since Brexit – essentially, a GDP loss in excess of 5 per cent. And we're not out of the rough, by any stretch. As Keir Starmer meets the US president for further trade discussions at the Trump Turnberry golf course, he will be acutely conscious of his counterpart's unpredictability. Starmer has milked the modest concessions he managed to wangle, particularly on cars and food standards, but much remains vague and far from nailed-down. The greatest danger is the fuzzy UK commitment to improve the trading environment for the US pharma groups will eventually mean an enormous increase in the drugs bill for the National Health Service, which it can ill-afford. Trump also omitted virtually the whole of the service sector from his UK deal, where the British actually enjoy a surplus, which is great until he decides otherwise. There are no legally binding rules here. The world economy remains highly inter-dependent, and globalisation, while receding, cannot sensibly be ended, as even Elon Musk tries to argue. All barriers to trade harm the country that erects them both directly and, in their depressing effects on world growth, indirectly. Consumers are charged more, on a highly regressive basis, companies are forced to pay more for inputs, and be less cost-effective, and competition and dynamic structural change are deliberately impeded. Whatever the details of the individual deals counties are trying to strike with one another, tariffs make us all poorer in the long run.
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
What's in Trump's trade deal with Europe?
BRUSSELS, July 28 (Reuters) - The United States and the European Union agreed on a framework trade deal, which leaders on both sides of the Atlantic said would end months of uncertainty for industries and consumers. Here are the main elements of the deal that will enter into force on August 1 through an executive order by President Donald Trump, according to EU officials: * BASELINE TARIFF RATE: Almost all EU goods entering the U.S. will be subject to a 15% baseline tariff. The 15% tariff is not added to any existing rates. * CARS: Cars and car parts will be subject to the 15% tariff, compared to the 27.5% they face now. * PHARMACEUTICALS AND SEMICONDUCTORS: Pharmaceuticals and microchips will face a 0% tariff until the U.S. concludes Section 232 trade investigations in a few weeks and imposes new global tariff rates on the two industries. The levy on pharmaceuticals and microchips imported from Europe will not exceed 15%, irrespective of the tariffs applied more widely. * TIMBER AND COPPER: Tariffs will be applied after the conclusion of 232 investigations into those sectors. The duties on European lumber and copper will not exceed 15%. * STEEL AND ALUMINIUM: Tariffs on European steel and aluminium will stay at 50%, for now, but the EU and the U.S. agreed that they will be replaced by a quota system that will be negotiated later. European steel exports within the agreed quota would face the most-favoured nation tariff rate agreed under WTO rules, which are low and in some cases zero depending on the steel grade. Steel exports outside of the quota would be at 50%. * ZERO-FOR-ZERO tariffs: The U.S. and EU will have zero-for-zero tariffs on: - all aircraft and their components, - certain chemicals, - certain generic drugs, - semiconductor-making equipment, - some agricultural products but with the exclusion of all sensitive products like beef, rice, ethanol, sugar or poultry. - Natural resources and critical raw materials. More products are to be added. * WINE AND SPIRITS: A tariff rate for wine and spirits - a point of friction on both sides of the Atlantic - is still to be established. * STRATEGIC PURCHASES: The EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases, covering oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear technology during U.S. President Donald Trump's term in office. This will come as a mix of spot purchases for oil, long-term contracts for LNG and government procurement for nuclear technology. The amount has been estimated on the basis of Europe's planned phase out of energy purchases from Russia. EU purchases of U.S. microchips would be on top of the $750 billion. The U.S. will be the preferred vendor. * European companies are to invest $600 billion in the U.S. over the course of Trump's second term. Japan's package will consist of equity, loans and guarantees from state-run agencies of up to $550 billion to be invested at Trump's discretion, Tokyo says. EU officials, in contrast, said Europe's $600 billion investment pledge is based on the combined investment intentions expressed by European companies. * DEFENCE PROCUREMENT: EU member states will purchase U.S. military equipment. The deal does not specify an amount.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Darren Walker's new book is still hopeful despite growing inequality as he leaves Ford Foundation
Darren Walker needed to be convinced of his new book's relevance. The outgoing Ford Foundation president feared that 'The Idea of America," set to publish in September just before he leaves the nonprofit, risked feeling disjointed. In more than eight dozen selected texts dating back to 2013, he reflects on everything from his path as a Black, gay child from rural Texas into the halls of premiere American philanthropies to his solutions for reversing the deepening inequality of our 'new Gilded Age." 'To be clear, not everything I said and wrote over the last 12 years is worthy of publication," Walker said. A point of great regret, he said, is that he finds American democracy weaker now than when he started. Younger generations lack access to the same 'mobility escalator' that he rode from poverty. And he described President Donald Trump 's administration's first six months as 'disorienting' for a sector he successfully pushed to adopt more ambitious and just funding practices. Despite that bleak picture, Walker embraces the characterization of his upcoming collection as patriotic. 'My own journey in America leaves me no option but to be hopeful because I have lived in a country that believed in me,' he said. Walker recently discussed his tenure and the book's call for shared values with the Associated Press inside his Ford Foundation office — where an enlarged picture of a Black child taken by Malian portrait photographer Seydou Keïta still hangs, one of many underrepresented artists' works that populated the headquarters under his leadership. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Q: Upon becoming Ford Foundation's president, you suggested that 'our most important job is to work ourselves out of a job' — a 2013 statement you include in the book. How would you grade your efforts? A: The past 12 years have been both exhilarating and exhausting. Exhilarating because there's never been a more exciting time to be in philanthropy. And exhausting because the political, socioeconomic dynamics of the last 12 years are very worrisome for our future. Philanthropy can play a role in helping to strengthen our democracy. But philanthropy can't save America. I would probably give myself a B or a B-. I don't think where we are as a nation after 12 years is where any country would want to be that had its eye on the future and the strength of our democracy. Q: Is there anything you would do differently? A: In 2013 and those early speeches, I identified growing inequality as a challenge to the strength of our democracy. And a part of that manifestation of growing inequality was a growing sense of disaffection — from our politics, our institutions, our economy. For the first time, a decade or so ago, we had clear evidence that working class white households were increasingly downwardly mobile economically. And the implications for that are deep and profound for our politics and our democracy. We started a program on increasing our investments in rural America, acknowledging some of the challenges, for example, of the trends around the impacts of the opioid epidemic on those communities. I underestimated the depth and the collective sense of being left behind. Even though I think I was correct in diagnosing the problem, I think the strategy to respond was not focused enough on this population. Q: Many people credit you for using Ford Foundation's endowment to increase grantmaking during the pandemic. Is that sort of creativity needed now with the new strains faced by the philanthropic sector? A: One of the disappointments I have with philanthropy is that we don't take enough risk. We don't innovate given the potential to use our capital to provide solutions. I do think that, in the coming years, foundations are going to be challenged to step up and lean in in ways that we haven't since the pandemic. The 5% payout is treated as a ceiling by a lot of foundations and, in fact, it's a floor. During these times when there's so much accumulated wealth sitting in our endowments, the public rightly is asking questions about just how much of that we are using and towards what end. Q: Where do you derive this sense of 'radical hope' at the end of your book? A: As a poor kid in rural Texas, I was given the license to dream. In fact, I was encouraged to dream and to believe that it will be possible for me to overcome the circumstances into which I was born. I've lived on both sides of the line of inequality. And I feel incredibly fortunate. But I'm also sobered by the gap between the privileged and the poor and the working-class people in America. It has widened during my lifetime and that is something I worry a lot about. But I'm hopeful because I think about my ancestors who were Black, enslaved, poor. African Americans, Black people, Black Americans have been hopeful for 400 years and have been patriots in believing in the possibility that this country would realize its aspirations for equality and justice. That has been our North Star. Q: Heather Gerken, the dean of Yale's law school, was recently named as your successor. Why is it important to have a leader with a legal background and an expertise in democracy? A: She is the perfect leader for Ford because she understands that at the center of our work must be a belief in democracy and democratic institutions and processes. She is also a bridge builder. She is a coalition builder. She's bold and courageous. I'm just thrilled about her taking the helm of the Ford Foundation. It is a signal from the Ford Foundation Board of Trustees that we are going to double down on our investment and our commitment to strengthening, protecting and promoting democracy. Q: Youtold AP last year that, when you exited this building for the last time, you'd only be looking forward. What does 'forward' mean to you now? A: I have resolved that I don't want to be a president or a CEO. I don't need to be a president of CEO. I think leaders can become nostalgic and hold onto their own history. Now there's no doubt, I know, that my obituary is going to say, 'Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation." That's the most important job I'll ever have. But hopefully I'll be able to add some more important work to that. ___ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit
