Protect Tennesseans' rights not corporate profits on crop pesticides regulation
For over 20 years, I've cared for families across Tennessee – children, parents, farmers, and retirees alike. And one thing I've learned is this: people want to be trusted to make informed decisions about their own health, and people deserve to be able to sue a company if that company's product causes cancer.
That's why I'm concerned about House Bill 809 / Senate Bill 527, which would quietly change the rules in favor of chemical companies – not Tennesseans.
The bill would make it nearly impossible for someone in our state to hold a pesticide company accountable in court – even if their product caused real harm. As long as the chemical's label was approved by the EPA, the company would be immune from civil liability under Tennessee law.
As most of us know, the EPA does not have a perfect record.
On the surface, it sounds technical. But in practice, it means this: if a family is harmed by glyphosate, they would have no right to a fair hearing in a Tennessee courtroom.The glyphosate lobbyist will say that if you don't support this bill then you don't support our farmers.
On the contrary, this bill doesn't protect farmers at all, but it does protect Bayer, and other companies, from being sued by that same farmer after he develops cancer.
It's not hard to imagine the scenarios. A farmer uses a product exactly as directed and suffers health consequences. A child is exposed to long-term spraying near a backyard and develops cancer. A water supply is tainted – but the label didn't give a full warning. If the EPA approved that label, this bill says: 'Tough luck.'
Glyphosate, one of the most common chemicals in question, has been used in Tennessee for almost 50 years. Since the 1990s, its use has skyrocketed with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops. But with that growth have come new questions – about health risks, environmental effects, and whether people are getting the full truth.
Counterpoint: Protect Tennessee farmers from activist-driven lawsuits related to pesticides
Courts have started to recognize those risks. Families across the country have won lawsuits after proving long-term exposure caused cancer or other illnesses. This bill would close the courtroom door before those Tennesseans could even make their case.
Here in Tennessee, we value local control, private property rights, and personal responsibility. This bill undercuts all three.
This bill, if passed, would eliminate the ability of Tennesseans to seek justice through our own state's legal system. Even if new evidence emerges (new research is ongoing), or if a product causes harm despite being used correctly, this bill would prevent Tennessee courts from hearing civil claims – especially those about misleading or inadequate labeling. That shifts power away from local families and juries and gives an extra layer of protection to multi-national chemical companies.
You may have seen billboards claiming food inflation will skyrocket in Tennessee without glyphosate. That's classic fear-based messaging. They're not defending the product's safety. They're warning us not to question it.
But ask yourself: if a product is truly safe, why do the companies behind it need immunity from lawsuits?
This isn't about banning anything. It's not about regulation. It's about preserving the right to seek justice when someone is harmed. That's a principal Tennesseans understand. And we should expect our legislature to defend that right—not quietly take it away.
HB 809 and SB 527 don't serve or protect the people of Tennessee. They serve companies who don't live here, don't answer to us, and don't suffer the consequences when things go wrong.
We don't need more corporate immunity. We need more faith in Tennesseans' right to choose—and the freedom to hold powerful interests legally accountable when necessary.
Ken Berry is a board certified family physician in practice for over 22 years in Benton County, Tennessee.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee legislation would indemnify pesticide companies | Opinion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Republicans draft competing budget as Senate nears deal with Hobbs
Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy | Arizona Mirror Arizona lawmakers are at odds again, but this time it's the Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate who can't agree on how to forge the state budget. Creating the state budget — deciding how much to allocate to departments, projects and initiatives or whether to fund them at all — is the most important job that legislators do each year, and the only thing they are constitutionally required to complete. Before the group of bills that will become the state budget becomes law, it must be approved by a majority in both the Arizona Senate and House — which are both controlled by Republicans — and garner a signature from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. In recent history, budget negotiations in Arizona have occurred behind closed doors among the governor and legislative leaders in the House and Senate. But this year is different, with Hobbs and Republican leaders in the Senate nearing a deal after weeks of negotiations. GOP leaders in the House, who haven't been involved in those talks, have responded by drafting their own budget, which was introduced late Wednesday afternoon. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'This is a sound, disciplined budget that delivers safe communities, strong families, and a government that lives within its means,' House Speaker Steve Montenegro said in a Wednesday evening statement. 'We're raising pay for our state law enforcement officers, reducing tuition at public universities, fully funding school choice, fixing critical infrastructure and roads, and protecting taxpayers. Our budget reins in government and puts it back to work for the people it serves.' But the spending package, which is chock-full of proposals that are unlikely to pass muster with Hobbs, will never become law. Instead, it is better viewed as a way for House Republicans to lay down a marker in order to force Hobbs and the Senate to move closer to the House's proposal. Republican political consultant Barrett Marson said House GOP leaders are hoping to demonstrate that the chamber can pass a spending plan in order to get leverage in the negotiations. 'Sometimes there's just gotta be movement to unstick a sticky situation,' he said. 'The House has an equal voice. And unlike previous years when one or both chambers had a go-it-alone ethos, the House isn't looking to be draconian or anything. They want something more responsible.' Marson said a major point of contention between the House and Senate is what to do with the budget surplus. While the Senate and Hobbs have settled on copying the novel process from 2023, in which each lawmaker was given a pot of money from the surplus that was used to fund whatever initiatives they wanted, the House wants to negotiate all of those details and not surrender control of that money to individual legislators. During a House Rules Committee meeting earlier Wednesday afternoon, House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, of Laveen, said he was disappointed in the way the budgeting process was happening this year. 'We should not be moving forward with a House Republican-only budget that is destined to fail,' he said. 'This will not get signed by the governor. I don't even think it's going to pass out of the Senate.' De Los Santos even questioned whether the proposal would get enough votes to pass through the House, where Republicans hold 33 of the chamber's 60 seats. 'What we do know is that this is not a negotiated, bipartisan deal in good faith,' he said. 'House Democrats are at the table negotiating in a bipartisan way with the executive, with our (Senate) counterparts across the courtyard. That is the way to get things done in shared government.' But Republican Rep. Neal Carter, of San Tan Valley, replied that the work of governing should be done transparently, instead of in private — and that it should allow for input from the public. 'As a Republican, I stand for full transparency and not for back-room deals or negotiated budgets with parties that are somehow outside of this public process,' Carter said. The House Republican budget, introduced by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Livingston, proposes significant changes in how federal money allocated to the state, but not restricted to specific uses, is controlled. The billions in unrestricted federal funds, currently controlled by the governor, would shift to legislative control and could only be spent on essential government services. The House GOP's budget proposal would also place new restrictions and monitoring requirements on entitlement programs, like the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System — the state's Medicaid program — and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps. Both programs would be monitored on at least a quarterly basis for participants who don't qualify, to be kicked off. And any participants who win $3,000 or more through gambling or playing the state lottery and don't report those winnings would become ineligible. It would also give the Arizona Department of Economic Security the authority to screen recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for illegal drug use and would ban anyone who tests positive for drugs not prescribed to them from the cash assistance program for a year. House Republicans also intend to increase the percentage of money spent in K-12 classrooms, as opposed to on administration; to decrease tuition for students attending the state's three public universities; and to ban those universities from using public or private money to give scholarships to students without legal immigration status. Hobbs introduced her budget proposal, which includes a much different list of priorities, back in January. Shortly after that, Livingston and Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, panned her proposal for leaving out projected cost increases for programs like AHCCCS. Hobbs spokesman Christian Slater told the Arizona Mirror on Wednesday that Livingston and Gress were to blame for the House's lack of collaboration on the budget. 'This is DDD all over again,' Slater said via email, referring to a fight earlier this year over funding for the Department of Developmental Disabilities. 'It's another circus led by the Speaker, David Livingston, and Matt Gress where they have refused to participate with any caucuses, including their Republican counterparts in the Senate, in a meaningful manner and are once again just trying to score some political points even though they know their plan is going absolutely nowhere.' Livingston and Gress, a former budget director for Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, were both key players in the fight over an extra $122 million in emergency funding for DDD that put vital services for the developmentally disabled in jeopardy. 'Rather than being productive, the House Republican leadership continues to show they are in over their head and unserious about governing,' Slater said. The House Appropriations Committee is set to discuss the proposal Thursday morning. The Senate Republicans have not introduced their budget proposal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Food Bank of Iowa is sounding the alarm while the fate of the President's 'big, beautiful bill' sits in the United States Senate. The concerns outlined by the organization are food insecurity and limited resources that food banks already have. 'We're gravely concerned about the one big, beautiful bill act as written,' said Annette Hacker, Vice President of Strategy and Communications for the Food Bank of Iowa. 'It stands to slash $267 billion with a 'b' from SNAP over ten years. And it takes 9.5 billion meals a year off of the table for people facing hunger.' New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa The bill has states pay for these federal benefits, in part, through a cost sharing method. Hacker said that this would be roughly $40 million a year the state would have to account for, which to her doesn't feel possible. The legislation also raises the age of SNAP work requirements to 65-years-old, extending those requirements to parents without children younger than 7-years-old. 'The crushing need this would create is not possible for the charitable food system, that's us, to absorb. If you look at every Feeding America food bank in this country, of which Food Bank of Iowa is one of 200 and all the partners and pantries we stock across the entire country, that's 6 billion meals a year distributed. This would be 9.5 billion more meals, a gap that would have to be filled. And the math just doesn't work,' said Hacker. U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said that the goal is for the chamber to take it up on the Senate floor in the last week of June. To volunteer or donate, visit the Food Bank of Iowa's website. Iowa News: Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Winner named in Coolest Thing Made in Iowa contest New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline Third case of measles in Iowa this year reported by HHS Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth.
President Donald Trump and many of his allies in Congress are making grand claims about the economic growth they say will result from the recently proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill." Trump has accused critics of not understanding the budget proposal, "especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming." A closer examination of the economic realities involved reveals that these claims are dramatically overstated. I have no objections on principles to extending the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Allowing these cuts to expire would deliver some measure of pain to the economy and add to our troubles. Tax hikes at a time when individuals and businesses are expecting tax stability would undoubtedly depress investment, employment, and overall economic confidence. Americans are already getting a huge tax hike because of Trump's tariffs. However, making a sound case for maintaining the current tax structure is fundamentally different from making the case that it will bring about substantial new growth. It's largely a defensive move. Realistically, the economic boost will be modest at best. In fact, the administration and congressional supporters of this bill admit that much without realizing it. On the Senate side, lawmakers argue that the fiscal cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts should be measured against today's tax code rather than against the code to which we would revert if the cuts automatically expire. They argue that assuming the cuts will be extended reflects the common expectation among taxpayers and markets. But if markets already expect extensions, then making the tax cuts permanent cannot generate significant additional economic growth. The growth that can be achieved by these tax cuts has largely been realized. Merely continuing with lower rates doesn't unleash many new incentives or productivity. In addition, the budget legislation does lots more than extend the 2017 tax cuts. In fact, about 25 percent of the bill consists of different tax breaks on tips or overtime, and spending hikes for the military and various special interests. These are not pro-growth policies—in addition to being expensive. The Tax Foundation estimates that the bill would raise economic output by approximately 0.8 percent in the long run. The Economic Policy Innovation Center analysis pegs the economic gain at around 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Both are far from the revolutionary 3 percent figures that Trump's most ardent fanboys are claiming. Moreover, most economic models don't adequately consider the negative consequences of ballooning federal debt on long-term growth. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will add a further $2.4 trillion to the debt. High levels of debt put upward pressure on interest rates, crowding out private investment and dampening long-term growth prospects. Historically, too much debt correlates with diminished economic performance. Whatever blip in the growth rate we will see thanks to the tax bill, it won't compensate for the damage done by the Trump administration's ongoing trade wars. Tariffs disrupt supplies, increase costs for American businesses and consumers, and create considerable economic uncertainty. Even if we generously assume that tax cuts will deliver an additional 0.5 percent to 0.8 percent in annual GDP growth, the drag from tariffs easily surpasses this modest benefit. The contradiction couldn't be clearer. Proponents of the bill and the president himself trumpet its growth-enhancing powers while simultaneously piling up debt and enacting trade policies that are both guaranteed to undermine economic dynamism. And yes, in addition to the expected opposition from Democrats, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and a few other voices from the right side of the aisle have been highlighting the bill's inadequacies, to the great displeasure of the president. Among other things, they point to its subsidies and other distorting economic interventions and accurately observe that the economic benefits being touted are inflated and misleading. Paul understands that a true pro-growth agenda would extend the tax provisions while limiting the debt impact by cutting wasteful spending, closing tax loopholes, and not loading the bill with lots of special-interest giveaways. The legislation is now in the hands of the Senate. If senators are interested in genuine and productive tax reform, they will scrap the new provisions and do 10-year extensions of pro-growth policies that are currently temporary in the legislation as passed by the House (such as 100 percent bonus depreciation and research-and-development expensing)—and they'd still be left with room to lower the cost. If they keep the spending offset included in the House bill and Medicaid reform, this would become both pro-growth and fiscally responsible legislation. Instead of indulging in the dangerous fantasy that any tax cuts will produce enormous growth, Congress needs to do the work and revise the bill so that it does produce growth and offsets the debt accumulation. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth. appeared first on
