Rozenboom has strong feelings on proposed pesticide tort reform bill

Yahoo

18-02-2025

Feb. 18—Editor's note: This is the first in a series of articles covering the topics discussed at legislative gatherings hosted by the League of Women Voters of Jasper County.
Iowa Sen. Ken Rozenboom admitted he has strong feelings about the proposed bill in the legislature that limits lawsuits against agricultural chemical companies.
Well, to be exact, he said he had "really, really strong feelings" about this topic.
He told guests at a legislative gathering — hosted by the League of Women Voters of Jasper County — the different viewpoints he is considering. As a lawmaker, he has issues with vague terminologies being used to stoke fear in the populace. As a farmer, he sees the benefits some pesticides can provide to crops.
Opponents of Senate Study Bill 1051 argue against pesticides and claim they could be a factor for why Iowa has the second highest cancer rate in the United States. Rozenboom is taking these issues into consideration, too, and he told constituents he is sensitive to the disease, which has killed two of his brothers.
However, Rozenboom pushed back against what some call the "Cancer Gag Act," saying it is not a bill that prohibits any Iowans from suing companies like Bayer. He also disputed the link to glyphosate — the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup — causing cancers like non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"They've been trying for decades to find a link because if they can find a link that will open up Bayer and other companies to bankruptcy-type lawsuits," he said. "That link does not exist. So on the other side of the equation we have a product that has done more to feed people around the world than any other product."
Rozenboom argued glyphosate has enabled farmers from all across the world to produce more food and given them a tool to implement more conservation practices. There is so much benefit from that technology, he said, but people want to throw it all away so lawyers have a "new bucket of cash to dig into."
The Republican lawmaker also disputed the decade-old classification from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization, saying glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Rozenboom said, to him, that means no real proof.
"Let me give you some other things they found probable cause on: Working at night probably causes cancer. Aloe vera probably causes cancer. Washing dishes is a probable cause of cancer," Rozenboom said. " ...Glyphosate is in that same class. There are many more from this group, which I consider rogue."
Rozenboom also considers the group to be non-scientific. He said the agency gets a lot of publicity from the press and has polluted the argument "while showing absolutely no proof." Rep. Jon Dunwell said the bill has not been presented to the House yet, but he does have some questions.
"What does the bill actually do? There has been some disagreement as to what the bill does," Dunwell said. "There are those who say the bill totally shields these companies, specifically Bayer... The Bayer folks and the other people in agriculture have clearly communicated to me that is not what the bill does."
Dunwell said the bill does not shield pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits that could one day find a link to cancer. He echoed Rozenboom's sentiments in that there are no reliable studies clearly linking glyphosate to cancer. Of note, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not consider glyphosate a carcinogen.
"That's why it's not on the label at this point, required by the EPA," Dunwell said. "...I have been in support of protecting them (Bayer) from being sued from mislabeling when the reality is they're doing exactly what we as a government have asked them to do."
Dunwell also argued that lawsuits contribute to a declination to the GDP, so it impacts the economy. Two years ago, Iowa signed into law medical malpractice tort reform. Prior to that law passing, Dunwell said officials from the local clinic told him they were one lawsuit away from going under.
Still, Dunwell acknowledged the state's high cancer rates and how that is of great concern for the governor and Iowa lawmakers.
Linda Wormley, of Newton, said constituents want to see action, but instead it feels like lawmakers are worried more about corporations.
"No," Rozenboom said. "We're worried about Iowa farmers."
Wormley replied, "I am an Iowa farmer."
To Rozenboom, Illinois uses a fair amount of Roundup, too, but that state's cancer rate is well below Iowa. He argued if glyphosate was the problem then Illinois would be just as high. Dunwell said the bottom line is the governor has started the process of studying why the state's cancer rate is so high.
Rozenboom said opponents of Bayer declared the company had a duty to warn users that their product may cause cancer. He decried the phrase "duty to warn" as vague and confusing legal standard. Rozenboom said the EPA is not a friend of farmers and has had 50 years to study this chemical.
"To that point, there are 1,500 long-term, very exhaustive, with thousands and thousands and thousands of factory workers and farmers and users that have found no link," Rozenboom said. "So there's scientific evidence on this. It's just contrary to the ones that want to bankrupt the makers."
The state senator said reports from media and the classification on glyphosate from IARC have only fueled the fire and scared a lot of people.
"But that's my feelings on this," he said. "I've been dealing with this for years."
Rozenboom wanted to emphasize that he is sensitive to cancer. One of his brothers is fighting prostate cancer right now. His oldest brother died of cancer in 1962, which was before Roundup was on the market. Another brother of his died last September. He farmed his whole life and used Roundup like any farmer.
"There's no causation there," he said. "My wife is currently fighting lymphoma for the second time in 16 years. Cancer is really dominant in my family. So I'm sensitive to things that cause cancer. It's as sensitive to anybody in this room, I suspect. So please don't misinterpret my position on this as not caring.
"Because I care."