Congressman Glenn Thompson (R-PA) has said a pesticide liability shield will be in the Farm Bill as well, which will be (probably) dealt with in August and September. The vote tomorrow will embed the liability shield in an Appropriations bill. The liability shield needs to be included in 2 bills—one to approve it (the Farm Bill) and one to pay for it (the Appropriations Bill).
The body of US jurisprudence is supposed to provide a legal remedy whenever citizens are harmed. You are supposed to be allowed your day in court.
Vaccines were the first and only consumer product to be given a liability shield in 1986, but in order to do so, an alternative remedy was set up: the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), with its own Special Masters instead of judges, to adjudicate alleged harms from liability-waived vaccines. Then Congress set up the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which began operating in 2010, to compensate Americans for injuries from vaccine, drug and device “countermeasures” when emergency countermeasures were given a liability shield in 2005.
For Americans who may have been injured by these products, neither program is satisfactory. The CICP in particular is ridiculous. Citizens have a short 1 year statute of limitations to file. Of over 14,400 filings, and 4,413 final decisions, the program has only compensated 69 individuals! Only 1.6% of claims adjudicated received compensation. Most of these were related to the COVID vaccines.
But if that wasn’t bad enough, issuing a liability shield for any manufacturer means that the company is now free to do less testing for safety, use sloppier manufacturing processes and roll out unsafe products knowing it won’t have to pay the price for injuries.
While glyphosate (Monsanto/Bayer’s Roundup) is now know to cause cancers and other problems, particularly non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, the liability shield sought by Bayer would apply to ALL pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. Even those banned in other countries for toxicity, but allowed into the US, would be shielded for the injuries they cause.
The way legal cases alleging Roundup caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma have been pursued is under the “failure to warn” doctrine. The pesticide label does not warn that lymphoma could be a result of exposure, although the manufactur knows it could be. This cause of action is what Bayer and the other chemical companies, including China’s Syngenta, seek to abolish. If a condition wasn’t listed as a warning on the label, they don’t want anyone to be able to sue for the injury, whether the manufacturer knew or not.
But, but—until the product is used widely, you don’t necessarily know what the injuries will be.
Furthermore, injured parties will be prevented from suing even after a particular injury becomes known to be a consequence of a pesticide, since the old label will still apply.
Liability shields simply invite industry to do a poor job making their products safe. Why would we want to issue them? The only ones who benefit are the pesticide manufacturers, and the recipients of their largesse. This is a LOSE-LOSE addition to US laws, and it is difficult to see how any Congressmember can justify a vote in favor of it.
Here is what we need you to do. Call the Congressmembers below and tell them why you are against this bill
Section 453 of the Federal House Interior Appropriations bill has Total Pesticide Immunity language included in it. It prohibits EPA from approving a label or taking action inconsistent with a human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification previously approved by the EPA—freezing the EPA’s position on a pesticide in place for decades, and eliminating the ability to hold the company accountable.
The language is found here. Expect a subcommittee vote on it TOMORROW at 10:00am EST. The markup will be live-streamed and can be found on the Committee’s website.
Federal Pesticide Immunity: What’s Really at Stake
Congress is considering federal legislation that would grant pesticide companies sweeping legal immunity — not only for Roundup, but for over 16,000 pesticide products regulated by the EPA. Here’s what you need to know:
This isn’t about one product — it’s about the future of 16,000 chemicals.
From household weedkillers to restricted-use agricultural pesticides, this legislation would apply across the board. It gives companies a free pass, even when they conceal risks or fail to warn about dangers — as long as their label was once approved by the EPA.
The EPA doesn’t independently test these products — it relies on the companies.
Federal law allows pesticide manufacturers to submit their own safety studies. The EPA does not conduct its own testing and relies heavily on industry submitted studies. And when companies manipulate or withhold critical data — as they’ve done in the past — this bill would still protect them. Immunity rewards companies for hiding the ball.
This legislation eliminates accountability — even when companies break the rules.
It would override state protections, block juries from hearing the facts, and tie the hands of farmers and families when harm is caused. Illnesses linked to these pesticides include cancer, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and developmental harm to children. If this becomes law, even when companies act unreasonably or deceptively, foreign chemical companies couldn’t be held responsible.
It gives total immunity to Chinese military controlled pesticide giants.
ChemChina — a state-owned company the Pentagon identifies as a Chinese military entity — owns Syngenta, which sells paraquat and hundreds of other EPA regulated pesticides in the U.S. despite some of them being banned in China. If this bill passes, American families could be barred from suing a Chinese military-controlled company for harm caused by its dangerous products. Why would Congress protect China instead of American farmers and families?
It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops — even when they lied to get EPA approval.
If this bill passes, nothing would stop a foreign chemical from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. They could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs — not the companies who caused the damage.
That’s the danger here: once pesticide companies know they can’t be held accountable, cutting corners and lying to regulators will become the business strategy. And it’s US farmers and families who will pay the price.
For those who requested the names and numbers individually:
Did $Moneypox stigmatize the Bill Billionaire who keeps WHO afloat and controls much of what it does? Maybe we should change the term billionaire as it stigmatizes Mr. Gates?
Original URL: https://merylnass.substack.com/p/great-news-the-us-pandemic-preparedness Earlier this week, HHS Secretary Kennedy ended nearly $500 million in contracts for mRNA projects managed by BARDA, HHS’ answer to DARPA, an agency whose job it was to identify early stage “countermeasures” and fund them because industry allegedly would not do so and we desperately needed them. This was all part…
David Bell’s erudite but easily accessible writing on the WHO, public health and medical fascism is a joy to read. This came out Nov 3. I have bolded what I think are the really important points.
I and Philippe Kruse gave a detailed briefing to Senator Borghi on the WHO in 2023. Senator Borghi became Italy’s champion fighting the WHO. Thanks to everyone who facilitated that meeting!!!
