Pesticide company’s efforts to advance the laws that can stop them against them are provoking fights in several US farm states and searching for 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, supported by a flood of advertising supporting measures.
Fighting in Iowa is now particularly harsh, where opponents say The proposed law -backed law from pesticides Due to the high levels of cancer in Iowa, many fear that many fears are linked to the major agricultural use of the state’s pesticides. Iowa has a The second highest rate New cancer issues in the United States and rapidly rising rate.
As long as product labels are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the bill will prevent people from prosecuting pesticides manufacturers if they fail to warn them of health risks. Organizers against the Iowa Bill today are planning a rally in the state capital today after the State Senate voted for the state Senate to further the move.
Opponents say the legislation will start looting farmers and others who use pesticides by being held accountable for pesticide companies if their pesticides cause illness or injury. Yes.
“We are very upset. Our farmers feel that if they suffer injuries or illnesses due to the use of their pesticides, they should have access to the courts. Iowa Farmers Union. “We just don’t think the playground should bend.”
But legislative supporters say they are trying to ensure that farmers do not lose access to beneficial grass killers, pesticides and other chemicals that are commonly used in growing food. They believe that Tort lawyers exploit and persuade the sick people to bring scientific evidence to bring cases, and such measures should be restricted.
There are numerous large farm groups including Iowa Farm Bureau Federation To support the bill.
The actions in the states have put pressure on federal law changes simultaneously that will put into practice shield companies from cases brought by people, claiming that the reason for their use of pesticides Cancer or other diseases develop.
Former Monsovo is the owner of the German -based Germany, the chief architect Strategy, It is designed as a means of defeating thousands of litigation filed by farmers and others, which causes cancer development to use their herbs in Monsovo’s round -up herbs.
So far, billions of dollars of settlements and jury decisions are in favor of the plaintiffs to the bayer, and more cases are pending. The company says The pursuit of legislative changes is necessary to protect its “important investment” and to ensure that the farmers do not lose access to the roundup.
Bayer says it has joined more than 360 farmers and industry groups to advance federal legislative changes and to fight for changes in state laws, modern AG Alliance of agricultural organizations to fight for changes. With alliance.
Bayer said in a statement that state laws could not prevent anyone from prosecuting pesticides, though they would ensure that no pesticides registered with EPA and Label approved by EPA. Will be sold with. The company said the “future of American farming” depends on the reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products-which is safe for use by EPA.
In addition to Iowa, steps are also taking place in other states. In Missouri, the former home state of Monsovo, the proposed shield law was passed on February 4 by the House Agriculture Committee.
Jonathan Open Hameer, director of the Ideo Conservation League official relations, said the law has not yet been formally introduced in Idaho, but a draft is circulating among the lawmakers. A contingent of the league and other opposition groups held a press conference last week condemning the groups were declared a “immunity from a chemical company” law.
He cited research on high levels of pesticides in pregnant women, which live near the agricultural sectors, and a study that has been found. The presence of high cancer Is affiliated with the display of pesticides.
“There are significant concerns from the fact that the EPA does not study its safety before approval on these products,” said Open Hameer. He said he relys on these industry research studies. And when you look at the date of the approval of pesticides, there have been several incidents where manufacturers knew that their products were damaged, but efforts were made to limit the public disclosure of these studies. As a result, many dangerous products have been in the market for years. The EPA often takes decades to withdraw the approval of these products.
The pesticide industry believes that thousands of studies prove their product safety and provides strict surveillance EPA to ensure that the products are safe when labeled.
With state legislative measures, EPA last month Opened a period of public comments On a petition filed by Nebraska, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Carolina and South Dakota lawyers. .
The proposed amendment will prevent any state labeling requirements that were “contradictory” from the results of the EPA related to pesticides.
The proposed amendment states, “Statements or results about the effects of human health of the product, including cancer, birth defects, or the possibility of reproductive damage, which are different from EPA results and results” Invalid branding “Will be understood.
Like the proposed state laws, language will also ban legal claims against pesticides makers, which accuses them that if the EPA does not need a crowd of these dangers on a product label, they Allergic to failing to pose some health risks.
The EPA is accepting comments until February 20.
Back to Iowa, it is expected that the state will pass the state Senate but it is likely that it will face a great war in the House Chamber.
Despite the “flood” of online and newspaper advertisements by Iowa Bill supporters, the opposition is strong, said Andrew Murten, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice, who opposes the bill.
“Polling in Iowa Will indicate that ordinary people are not just going to fall for a message. “But lawmakers can be influenced by the ways that voters cannot, so the fight is far away.”
This story is shared with her The new leadEnvironmental Working Group’s Journalism Plan
