The bills in state legislatures and in the Congress to grant a massive liability shield to pesticide and herbicide manufacturers is a disaster

from Elizabeth Kucinich

https://kucinichreport.substack.com/p/the-great-betrayal-the-battle-against

A Call to Action for Health, Freedom, Life and the Land

If you were harmed by a product that caused cancer, infertility, or liver disease, would you expect to have the right to seek justice in a court of law? Most Americans would answer yes. No one understands that principle better than America’s farmers, who have long been both stewards of the land and, increasingly, frontline victims of chemical harm.

The Chemical Industry’s Playbook: Liability Shields, Legal Immunity, and the Erosion of Rights

The policy pattern is clear: First, preemption of local authority over pesticide restrictions. Second, the pursuit of liability protections for manufacturers of toxic substances. Third, the normalization of harm with no recourse. This is not theoretical. It is a real-time shift in the balance of power between public interest and private industry.

A coordinated effort is unfolding in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill to grant legal immunity (liability shields) to agrochemical manufacturers. This means BigAg, BigChem, and BigSeed can hurt you, even kill you, and not just get away with it, but profit from it!

At this very moment, across America, a new wave of legislation seeks to provide legal immunity to chemical companies—removing the right to recourse for harm their products have caused. This “shield” is not just for a niche set of chemicals, but for all pesticides and chemicals regulated under federal law.

The chemical industry has created an unlivable future. Their legacy is one of ecocide, and the destruction of public health. Chemical companies are seeking liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. These are not innocent corporations. They have been paid billions of dollars in damages for contaminating water, poisoning land, and causing cancers, birth defects, and lifelong disease.

Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid over $10 billion to settle lawsuits linking Roundup (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Syngenta, a Chinese state-owned company through ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims and is working to settle more cases. Paraquat has been banned in the European Union since 2007, in China for domestic use, and in other countries due to its extreme toxicity. DuPont, 3M, and Chemours (a DuPont spin-off) have collectively paid billions for contaminating water supplies with PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals,” which the EU is now moving to comprehensively ban.

Corteva (formerly Dow AgroSciences) has stopped producing chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to neurodevelopmental harm in children and banned in the EU and many other countries. Atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide, remains in use in the United States despite being banned in the EU since 2004 and in over 35 other countries due to groundwater contamination risks. Koch Industries, through its subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, has been implicated in PFAS contamination and paid penalties for related violations.

At the same time, the industrial meatpackers such as Smithfield, owned by China’s WH Group, and JBS, a Brazilian conglomerate, are driving demand for pesticide-intensive feed crops while benefiting from billions in U.S. taxpayer subsidies.

Georgia recently passed Senate Bill 144, which limits liability for PFAS contamination, linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and immune system dysfunction. At least five additional states have introduced similar bills. At the federal level, the 2024 draft of the House Republican Farm Bill included language that would preempt state pesticide laws and restrict legal pathways for victims of agrichemical exposure to seek damages. The provision has not advanced, but it signals a strategic and escalating trend.

Just last week, Republican Agriculture Committee Chair, Rep. Glenn Thompson, was quoted stating that provisions in the new stand-alone Farm Bill would protect pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits if products meet federal labeling requirements, and would prevent states from setting animal production standards that other states must follow, such as California’s Proposition 12 requirements.

These efforts come despite growing scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate, atrazine, dicamba, and chlorpyrifos, to a host of health and environmental impacts. Independent research has shown that low-level, chronic exposure to some of these chemicals may contribute to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, endocrine disruption, developmental neurotoxicity, and certain cancers.

Agrochemical companies argue that these liability shields are necessary to ensure continued access to “essential crop protection tools” and to prevent “frivolous litigation.” But legal accountability is not a threat to agriculture. It is a cornerstone of a functioning market and a free society. When companies cannot be held liable for harm, there is no incentive to innovate toward safer alternatives, and the costs of that harm are externalized to the public.

While the international community moves to ban or has banned many of these chemicals, the U.S. liability shield being pushed by the chemical industry and their allies in Congress is designed to protect a wide range of hazardous chemicals and the corporations that make them, likely driving further use. Specifically, it aims to cover:

• Glyphosate (Roundup), the world’s most widely used herbicide, linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and manufactured by Bayer/Monsanto. Banned or restricted in Austria (attempted), Germany (phase-out replaced by restrictions), Luxembourg, France (partial bans), Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Widely used with GMO crops engineered for glyphosate resistance, including soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa. Annual U.S. usage: ~280–290 million pounds.
• Paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, sold by Syngenta (a Chinese state-owned company). Banned in over 70 countries, including the European Union, China (domestic use), Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. Often used in weed control rotations. Annual U.S. usage: ~8 million pounds.
• PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances / “forever chemicals”), a class of over 12,000 compounds used in firefighting foams, non-stick coatings, and industrial processes, linked to cancer, thyroid disease, immune system suppression, and birth defects. Subject to a proposed EU-wide ban; already banned or restricted in France (consumer products by 2026, textiles by 2030), Denmark (food packaging), and New Zealand (cosmetics by 2026). Used in agricultural seed coatings, irrigation systems, chemical containers, and food packaging, contaminating soil, water, food, and consumers.
• Neonicotinoids, insecticides that kill pollinators and are associated with neurological harm in humans. Banned or restricted in the European Union (outdoor use of three neonicotinoids since 2018), France (all outdoor use), and Slovenia. Used as seed coatings on both GMO and non-GMO crops, especially corn and soybeans. Annual U.S. usage: ~4 million pounds.
• Dicamba, a herbicide known for widespread crop damage and environmental contamination. Banned in the United States for over-the-top applications on soybeans and cotton (2024 federal court decision); classified as “very dangerous” in Brazil but still permitted. Used with GMO dicamba-resistant crops such as Xtend soybeans and cotton. Annual U.S. usage: ~9 million pounds.
• Atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide linked to birth defects, reproductive harm, and amphibian population collapse. Banned in the European Union (since 2004) and in Austria, Bahrain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden; also banned in Hawaii and U.S. territories. Heavily used in conventional corn, which is tolerant through selective breeding. Annual U.S. usage: ~70 million pounds.

The article goes on, but I do not agree with all the rest of it. I think the issue of saving the small farming industry is not simply a matter of moving government subsidies from GMO to organic farmers. The problem is that no one is making money now. See this 5 month old USDA chart of median farm incomes by product farms specialize in. Only the dairy farmers are earning enough to live on. Livestock farmers lost money last year.

We need a long-term plan that will provide prosperity for for the entire industry of food production and keep all farmers on the land.—Nass