Latest news with #CancerGagAct
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa House not moving forward with bill shielding pesticide companies from health-related lawsuits
DES MOINES, Iowa — For two years in a row, what protesters coined the 'Cancer Gag Act' will not make it through the Iowa House. The Iowa Senate advanced the bill just a week ago with a slim margin: 26 voting for it and 21 against. The bill states that registered pesticide companies with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that have had labeling approved by the EPA shall be sufficient to satisfy requirements for a warning regarding health or safety. It also states that the bill shall not be interpreted to prohibit a cause of action, which is grounds for a lawsuit. The Speaker of the Iowa House told members of the media that it will not be moving forward with the bill at this time. 'I think at this point in time, there's not support within the caucus for that bill,' said Speaker Pat Grassley (R), District 57 from New Hartford. 'And I think the caucus just in a position where they're not sure that they can support it at this point in time.' The Iowa Senate President was disappointed once again that the Republican House caucus did not move the bill through committee level to make it funnel-proof. Wild Lights at Blank Park Zoo returns this weekend 'I suppose the House can be entitled to their wrong opinion. I believe wholeheartedly that the bill we passed doesn't prevent anybody from seeking justice if they're damaged by a company. But I also believe that to have a proper system of justice, we have to make sure that individuals or companies can't be sued for following the law.' Cancer rates have shot up in the state over recent years and many Iowans have taken action against companies like Bayer, who produces RoundUp, which is why some protested at the statehouse just this week for the bill not to advance through the second funnel. Bayer has disputed the claims of RoundUp causing cancer, while paying out billions of dollars to settle previous lawsuits. Democratic leadership in both chambers are glad that the bill seems to be dead again this year. 'I think it would be a really positive thing for Iowans if the pesticide bill does not move forward,' said Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner (D), District 45 from Iowa City. 'It was, from our read of it on the Senate side, it's really an immunity bill. And once you give one set of companies immunity, others are going to be lining up for it.' 'I think it's pretty telling that even Republicans in the House, that giving immunity to pesticide companies in a state that has skyrocketing cancer rates is not a good idea. And I'm thrilled to see that, hopefully, we won't be debating that this year,' said House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst (D), District 32 from Windsor Heights. While the bill did not meet the second funnel week deadline, there are still ways for bill to be brought back up later in session. Iowa News: Iowa House not moving forward with bill shielding pesticide companies from health-related lawsuits Tulips begin to bloom in Pella Iowa AG warns your genetic data could be at risk Fan-favorite donut vendor won't return to Iowa State Fair in 2025 WHO 13 Farm Report: Thursday, April 3 Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Major company's efforts to influence laws across multiple states spark fierce backlash: 'We just don't think the playing field should be tilted'
Bayer, the new owner of what was once the notorious pesticide and herbicide company Monsanto, is attempting to influence U.S. legislation that would make it harder for farmers and consumers who have gotten sick from these toxic chemicals to fight back in the courts, according to The Guardian. The legislation would essentially restrict any lawsuits over products that the Environmental Protection Agency says are safe. Versions of the measure have been introduced at the federal level and in eight states, while drafts are in the works in 20 others, The Guardian reported. Yet advocates maintain that the EPA does not adequately assess the health outcomes of pesticides and herbicides — or even their known risks — and that the proposed changes to laws are just a way for big companies to avoid more lawsuits, which have already cost Bayer billions in settlements and fees, per The Guardian. The outlet explained how the arguments over these laws are especially heated in Iowa, one of the top agriculture producers in the U.S. The state has the fastest growing rate of new cancer cases in the country, and many believe that is related to the farming industry's reliance on toxic chemicals, which saw proposed law nicknamed the "Cancer Gag Act" by opposition in the state. The use of toxic substances in mass farming — including Bayer's Roundup products — is common, but the practice has been linked to serious human health effects for years. From cancers to birth defects, it's nasty stuff. Yet with "Big Ag" throwing its support behind the potential law changes, lawmakers are seriously considering them. Their approval would get in the way of harmed individuals pursuing litigation, which is often their best shot at justice and holding companies accountable. "Our farmers feel that if they have injuries or illnesses due to their use of a pesticide they should have access to the courts," Aaron Lehman, an Iowa farmer and the president of the Iowa Farmers Union, told The Guardian. "We just don't think the playing field should be tilted." At the end of the day, it'll come down to individual legislators to enact or reject the changes. In Iowa, those involved expect the bill to pass the state senate but struggle in the house, per The Guardian. Want to make sure your state is safe from these changes? Contact your representatives and let them know your concerns. Do you worry about pesticides in your food? All the time Sometimes Not really I only eat organic Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. If you have a farm, garden, or lawn that you want to keep toxin-free, there are plenty of clean — and cheap — ways to protect your plants from pests and weeds. "The general public is simply not going to fall for Bayer's message," Andrew Mertens, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice, told The Guardian. "But … the fight is far from over." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rozenboom has strong feelings on proposed pesticide tort reform bill
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."
The Guardian
10-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Farmers ‘very worried' as US pesticide firms push to bar cancer diagnoses lawsuits
Pesticide company efforts to push through laws that could block litigation against them is igniting battles in several US farm states and pitting some farm groups against each other. Laws have been introduced in at least eight states so far and drafts are circulating in more than 20 states, backed by a deluge of advertising supporting the measures. The fight is particularly fierce now in Iowa, where opponents call the pesticide-backed proposed law the 'Cancer Gag Act', due to high levels of cancer in Iowa that many fear are linked to the state's large agricultural use of pesticides. Iowa has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the United States and the fastest growing rate. The bill would bar people from suing pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn them of health risks, as long as the product labels are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Organizers against the Iowa bill are planning a rally at the state capitol today after the state senate voted last week to advance the measure. Opponents say the legislation will rob farmers and others who use pesticides from holding companies accountable in court if their pesticide products cause disease or injury. 'We're very worried. Our farmers feel that if they have injuries or illnesses due to their use of a pesticide they should have access to the courts,' said Aaron Lehman, an Iowa corn and soybean farmer who is president of the Iowa Farmers Union. 'We just don't think the playing field should be tilted.' But backers of the legislation say they're trying to ensure farmers don't lose access to beneficial weed killers, insecticide and other chemicals that are commonly used in growing food. They maintain that tort lawyers exploit and entice sick people to bring lawsuits that are not backed by scientific evidence, and such actions should be limited. Several large farm groups, including the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, are supporting the bill. The actions in the states come alongside a simultaneous push for changes in federal law that would in effect shield companies from lawsuits brought by people claiming they developed cancers or other diseases due to their use of pesticides. Bayer, the Germany-based owner of the former Monsanto Co, is the chief architect of the strategy, designed as a means to beat back thousands of lawsuits filed by farmers and others who blame their use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicides for causing them to develop cancer. The litigation has so far cost Bayer billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts favoring plaintiffs, and more cases are pending. The company says the pursuit of the legislative changes is necessary to protect its 'important investments' and to ensure farmers don't lose access to Roundup. Bayer says it has joined with more than 360 grower and industry groups to push the federal legislative changes and with the Modern Ag Alliance coalition of agricultural organizations to fight for the changes in state laws. Bayer said in a statement that the state laws would not prevent anyone from suing pesticide makers, though they would ensure that any pesticide registered with the EPA and sold with an EPA-approved label would 'satisfy requirements for health and safety warnings'. The company said the 'future of American farming' depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA. In addition to Iowa, the measures are advancing in other states. In Missouri, the former home state of Monsanto, the proposed shield law passed through the House agriculture committee on 4 February. The legislation has not yet been formally introduced in Idaho, but a draft has been circulating among lawmakers, said Jonathan Oppenheimer, government relations director with the Idaho Conservation League. The league and a contingent of other opposition groups held a press conference last week denouncing the efforts to pass what the groups call the 'Chemical Company Immunity' law. They cited research showing elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields, and a study that found elevated cancer occurrence correlated to pesticide exposure. 'There are significant concerns with the fact that EPA does not conduct its own safety studies on these products before they are approved,' said Oppenheimer. 'They rely on these industry research studies. And as you look at the history of pesticide approval, there have been numerous instances where manufacturers knew that their products caused certain harms but sought to limit the public disclosure of those studies. As a result, many dangerous products have been on the market for years. Often it takes decades for the EPA to withdraw approval for these products.' The pesticide industry maintains that thousands of studies prove the safety of their products and the EPA provides rigorous oversight to ensure the products are safe when used as labeled. Along with the state legislative actions, the EPA last month opened a public comment period on a petition filed by the attorneys general of Nebraska, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota seeking an amendment to federal law that would make it harder for people to sue pesticide makers. The proposed modifications would bar any state labeling requirements that were 'inconsistent' with the EPA's conclusions regarding the safety of a pesticide. 'Statements or conclusions regarding the product's human health effects, including the likelihood of causing cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm, that are different from EPA's findings and conclusions' would be considered 'misbranding', the proposed amendment states. Like the proposed state laws, the language would essentially bar legal claims against pesticide makers that accuse them of failing to warn consumers of certain health risks if the EPA has not required those risks to be spelled out on a product label. The EPA is accepting comments until 20 February. Back in Iowa, the bill is expected to pass the state senate but is projected to face an uphill battle in the house chamber. Despite a 'flood' of online and newspaper advertising by proponents of the Iowa bill, opposition is strong, said Andrew Mertens, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice, which opposes the bill. 'Polling in Iowa would indicate that the general public is simply not going to fall for Bayer's message,' Mertens said. 'But legislators can be swayed in ways that voters cannot, so the fight is far from over.' This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group
