Bayer Hopeful Farm Bill will End Roundup Lawsuits

Santa Clara, CABayer has aggressively lobbied the upcoming Farm Bill, which Congress has to adopt every five years to sustain federal agriculture and nutrition programs. The ag chemical giant is counting on the provision that would result in only EPA-approved labels on pesticide packaging, such as Monsanto Roundup – amounting to a “Get out of jail free” card for pesticide companies, says one victims’ rights representative.   

In 2020 Bayer announced it would cough up over $10 billion in settlement money, just two years after it took over U.S. firm Monsanto and inherited massive litigation problems linked to the Roundup weedkiller.

The farm bill includes language that would make it harder for farmers and others to claim in court that they were not sufficiently warned of the potential dangers associated with prolonged use of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate. According to a detailed and insightful article in the Washington Post, a section in the 1,000 page farm bill could halt some Roundup lawsuits and save Bayer from “financial crisis”. Drafted by lawyers with the help of Bayer, the provision intends to create uniformity on national pesticide labelling and prevent individual states from making their own warnings.

Roundup and the EPA

Jess Christiansen, the head of crop science and sustainability communications for Bayer, said the company was seeking that protection as Roundup had gone through adequate testing by the EPA and had been proven safe. The federal Environmental Protection Agency still contends that glyphosate is safe but many health and environmental authorities claim that it is a carcinogen. Certain states such as California have banned the use of Roundup for safety reasons. Local laws have allowed thousands of Roundup users to file lawsuits, claiming they were never warned that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, could cause life-threatening diseases, mainly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Agricultural Labelling Uniformity Act

If passed, the 2023 introduction of a bipartisan pesticide labeling bill would pre-empt states from imposing different –or additional– pesticide labeling obligations than those approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R. 4288) was introduced by U.S. Representatives Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) and Jim Costa (D-CA),  two members of the House Agriculture Committee, purportedly to “ensure uniformity of labeling standards for pesticides that are backed by sound science and approved by the Doing so would provide certainty and stability for agriculture producers and consumers”.  According to WaPo, Republicans repeatedly pushed the provision — drafted with Bayer’s help — that critics say would undo some nationwide pesticide protections. Once Bayer helped craft the measure, the company then circulated it among lawmakers to rally support before later pushing the House to add it to the farm bill.

Follow the Money

According to Open Secrets, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics, Bayer has spent $9.7 million on lobbying during the current election cycle and Johnson’s campaign committee received $1,000 from political action committees affiliated with Bayer in each of 2020 and 2022.

South Dakota Searchlight asked Dusty Johnson if he worked with Bayer on the legislation. He denied it. But Bayer's Political Action Committee donated $4,000 to Johnson, and over $3,500 to Costa, according to FEC data. “Listen, anytime you’re writing legislation, you need to be talking to a broad cross-section of stakeholders,” Johnson said. “Shame on any member of Congress who thinks they have all of the answers and just goes in and tries to make law for the whole country without talking to people who were affected.

He also told the States Newsroom that, “Our legislation doesn’t do anything in the courts… If somebody’s got a legitimate claim in court today, there isn’t anything that we would do to adjust their claim from a backward-looking perspective.” That’s not Bayer’s intention, which is seeking a “blockade against future lawsuits.”

Johnson’s Critics

Critics of Johnson’s legislation, including environmental groups, say this bill is a chemical betrayal –sacrificing health for profits. In the WaPo article, they argued that the legislation undermines state autonomy and public health protections, fearing that creating in the bill a single federal standard would limit the ability of plaintiffs to argue that they weren’t adequately warned about the dangers of Roundup. 

The American Association for Justice, weighed in. “When American farmers develop cancer from dangerous and deadly chemicals, they should be able to hold the mega-corporations who sold those chemicals responsible,” and said when the House committee approved the bill. “The farm bill would override state and local health protections.”

Analyzing the Farm Bill, the Natural Resources Defense Council described it as “deeply flawed”.

“The chairman’s mark of the Farm Bill not only misses the mark but it obliterates vital protections with catastrophic indifference to public health and the environment. By attempting to strip local governments of their authority to regulate pesticides, this bill would leave communities defenseless, unable to enforce safeguards around schools, parks, and ecologically sensitive areas where our children and wildlife are most vulnerable. Worse still, the bill would insulate Big Ag from any liability stemming from its toxic products. Lawsuits have forced multinational pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, the maker of cancer-causing glyphosate, to compensate pesticide-exposed victims billions of dollars. But this Farm Bill provision would allow Bayer and others like it a license to poison with impunity.”

To conclude, the Washington Post article cited legal experts who said the farm bill provision could effectively shut down some lawsuits against Bayer. The measure would prohibit state and local governments from penalizing or holding companies liable for pesticide warning rules that differ substantially from the federal government’s. The current farm bill expires on 30 September and the House has yet to vote on the proposed version.