Iowans would lose ability to sue pesticide makers over labeling under GOP proposal

DES MOINES — As cancer rates in Iowa rise, state lawmakers continue to advance a bill that would add legal protections for pesticide manufacturers over the labeling that is required to warn consumers about the potential health risks associated with the use of their products.

The proposal, Senate File 2412, would protect chemical manufacturers from lawsuits in the state over a failure to warn consumers about potential adverse health effects of their products if the products already meet federal labeling requirements. The protections would not apply to Chinese state-owned companies — singling out agriculture and chemical company Syngenta.

The proposal is supported by Bayer, the manufacturer of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup that helped Republican lawmakers write an original bill draft. Bayer has been hit by lawsuits nationwide from individuals claiming it failed to warn consumers of the potential health risks of the weedkiller.

Bayer purchased Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018. The company has multiple crop science plants in Iowa, including one in Muscatine that manufactures Roundup.

The glyphosate-based herbicide has received significant scrutiny over health claims and its link to the development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. About 165,000 cancer claims have been brought in the United States against Bayer over exposure to the weedkiller, according to reporting by Reuters. Many were resolved as part of a $9.6 billion settlement in 2020, but about 54,000 remain.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that glyphosate “is unlikely to be a human carcinogen” and that there are no risks of concern to human health when used in accordance with its current label. However, a U.S. appeals court ordered the agency to reconsider those findings in 2022.

A World Health Organization cancer agency in 2015 found glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, was likely capable of causing cancer, but European Union regulators have determined there was not sufficient evidence for that finding.

Under the Iowa bill, pesticide manufacturers would be considered to have provided proper warning about the dangers of their products if they use labeling approved by the EPA, the label is consistent with the most recent human health assessment performed under the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or the label is consistent with the EPA’s carcinogenicity classification for the pesticide.

Iowa Sen. Jeff Edler, a Republican and farmer from State Center, said the World Health Organization’s 2015 report created what Edler called a “legal loophole” that allowed individuals to bring lawsuits against pesticide companies without scientific evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. Edler said during debate Tuesday in the Senate that the proposed legislation would close that loophole.

“We’re dealing with billions of dollars in lawsuits against the farm industry,” Edler said. “The reality is that money is coming out of farmers’ pockets. The price of Roundup and other chemicals has gone up exponentially because of these settlements.”

Edler also argued the legislation does not prevent individuals from suing pesticide manufacturers for illness suffered as a result of using their products. The bill, Edler said, prohibits lawsuits only over warning labels, provided the product already features a federally approved label.

Sen. Nate Boulton, a Democrat and a lawyer from Des Moines, argued that suggesting lawsuits that would seek to prove negligence on the part of pesticide manufacturers without including the companies’ duty to warn consumers of potential risks is “fantastical.” Boulton and other Democrats argued the legislation ignores the safety of Iowa’s farmers.

But multiple major farm groups in Iowa — including the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, the Iowa Corn Growers Association and Agribusiness Association of Iowa — support the bill, saying it would prevent unfounded lawsuits against Bayer, which they say creates a vital tool for farmers.

  Buy Photo

The Iowa Environmental Council and other environmental advocacy groups oppose the bill, saying that despite the EPA findings, there are studies showing links between glyphosate products and increased rates of cancer. They say the bill would take away the ability of Iowans, including farmers, to seek compensation when a company fails to properly warn about the dangers.

Also opposed to the bill are groups representing attorneys, according to state lobbying records.

Iowa has the fastest-growing rate of new cancers in the nation and the second-highest cancer rate overall. Oncologists and public health researchers say it’s time to look more closely at how Iowa’s heavy use of ag chemicals, including herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and nitrates, might be contributing.

The proposal Tuesday passed the Senate on a 30-19 vote, with only Republicans voting in support and four Republicans joining all Democrats in voting against.

That makes the proposal eligible for consideration in the Iowa House, where a similar bill, House Study Bill 737, was pulled Tuesday from the list of bills to be considered by that chamber’s Ways and Means Committee.

Committee chair Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican from Wilton, said the committee is working through questions and concerns some members have.

  Buy Photo

“It’s still a live round,” Kaufmann told reporters.

Kaufmann said the bill is needed because the EPA controls the labels of the pesticides and because there is disagreement on glyphosate’s links to cancer.

“The EPA requires the labels. The EPA will not allow them to give a warning for something with which there is currently no evidential link to cancer. And that is the crux of the bill,” he said. “If the EPA were to allow them to put the labels they want on, this bill wouldn’t be needed. And this conversation wouldn’t be needed. But the EPA is telling them what will be on their label, and a warning for what is being claimed to have a link to cancer has zero scientific proof to back it up. … Yet they’re still getting sued for something they can’t warn for. That’s the conundrum that we face.”

Kaufmann, too, asserted there are still avenues of litigation available to people who claim they have been harmed by Roundup, including an “extremely robust” settlement fund with which potential litigants can file a claim.

Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com