Diane Rosenberg is executive director of Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors, where this commentary appeared on May 13 as an updated version of an article first published on March 25.
Even though 89 percent of Iowans oppose the pesticide immunity bill, also known as the “Cancer Gag Act,” the Iowa Senate voted to move it forward for the second year in a row sending it to the Iowa House where it remains stalled. Senate File 394 would protect pesticide companies from personal injury lawsuits if a product has an EPA-approved warning label. Companies would still be protected if the label is inaccurate, doesn’t fully disclose all risks, or harms are identified in the future.
The chemical giant Bayer is lobbying heavily for this bill, and the corporation has a lot to gain if the bill passes. In 2018, Bayer purchased Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup that misled regulators and the public about glyphosate’s associated cancer risks. Since then, Bayer/Monsanto has faced approximately 165,000 glyphosate lawsuits, paying out massive verdicts totaling over $13 billion so far. 54,000 active cases remain with more expected every year.
Bayer also is attempting to get the pesticide immunity bill passed in at least 21 states with some version introduced in twelve states. North Dakota was the first state to enact the bill on April 23, followed by Georgia Governor Brian Kemp quietly signing that state’s legislation on May 9. The bill is still alive in North Carolina, stalled in Missouri, and killed in eight other states including Iowa (Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Idaho, Tennessee, and Florida). As in Iowa, the bill died in Oklahoma, but the legislature remains in session.
At the February 28 Cancer Listening Post in Fairfield, Democratic State Representative Megan Srinivas (District 30) said Bayer is especially concentrating on getting the pesticide immunity bill, also called a failure-to-warn bill, enacted in Iowa to make it easier to pass it in other states. In trying to move public opinion, Bayer organized the Modern Ag Alliance, a 90+ member national coalition that’s spending millions of dollars nationwide to ram this bill through Iowa and other state legislatures.
Bayer was surprised by the push-back in Iowa. But is that really surprising in a state with the second highest number of cancer cases in the nation and the only state where the rates of cancer are rising?
STATUS OF THE BILL
SF 394, (formerly SSB 1051), passed out of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee with a 2-1 vote on February 5. It went on to pass in the full Senate Judiciary Committee on February 20 with an 11-7 vote. Republican State Senator Adrian Dickey, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted to move the bill forward. (He represents Senate district 44, which includes Jefferson County.)
The Senate debated the bill on March 26 and passed with an amendment by a 26 votes to 21 vote, with three members absent and six Republicans (Kevin Alons, Doug Campbell, Sandy Salmon, Dave Sires, Jeff Taylor, and Cherielynn Westrich) joining all Democrats present to vote no. That was closer than last year’s vote on Senate File 2412, which senators approved by 30 votes to 19. The following Republicans voted against the pesticide immunity bill in 2024: Alons, Salmon, Taylor, and Mark Lofgren (he was absent for this year’s vote).
A screenshot of the Senate vote on March 26. Those in green voted in favor; those in white were absent. Source: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
The amendment proposed by Bayer would not “prohibit a cause of action based on any other provision or doctrine of state law.” However, advocates opposing the bill say the amendment doesn’t affect the way SF 394 would work as a defense in a lawsuit and does not, in fact, fix the bill. (Democratic State Senator Matt Blake explained during the floor debate why other legal remedies would not be available to Iowans harmed by these chemicals.)
The bill didn’t even take the first step in the House before the second funnel deadline on April 4. “At this point in time, we don’t have the support to move something forward,” House Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters on April 3. “You know, obviously there’s more session to go, but right now, where we sit today, I don’t see the support.”
But the bill opponents are wary because Bayer continues to lobby hard for Iowa to pass the pesticide immunity bill, and there are ways it can be revived after the second funnel.
Bayer officials met with Governor Kim Reynolds and House and Senate leadership on April 30 claiming the future of Bayer’s Muscatine glyphosate plant, which produces 70 percent of the herbicide in the U.S. and employees 400 people, is threatened without SF 394. That follows Bayer’s March 7 announcement that it might stop selling Roundup in this country unless it has stronger legal protections against litigation.
Environmental advocates say these are empty threats designed to scare farmers and legislators into supporting the bill. Bayer controls 40 percent of the international market for glyphosate sales and holds an exclusive patent on Roundup-resistant seeds. It’s unlikely, and would be foolhardy, for Bayer to walk away from such a large market.
The Iowa House still appears reluctant to revive the bill. But environmental advocates are concerned that the bill’s language may wind up attached to an appropriations bill or added as an amendment to other legislation during the busy last days before the session is over because of some strong legislative support.
On May 1, Speaker Grassley told reporters, “The bill didn’t move forward through the committee process because we didn’t have a level of support.”
However, Grassley didn’t completely rule out reviving the bill. “I always want to make sure Iowans are aware of the impacts that this may have, not just for agriculture, but also jobs in Iowa. A majority of the glyphosate that’s made in America, that’s used in America, is made in [Muscatine]…[T]he bill does not have a level of support, but that doesn’t mean – you know how this place goes– it’s not something we may discuss further.”
The Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture is concerned enough that legislation may get slipped in unnoticed, that they sent an email to all legislators on both sides of the aisle opposing the bills asking them to remain alert and to inform other legislators and members of IARA or the Iowa Farmers Union if they should see that happen.
Environmental groups remain vigilant for any signs the pesticide immunity bill may return.
WHAT MAKES GLYPHOSATE SO TOXIC?
Agricultural economist Dr. Chuck Benbrook spoke about glyphosate’s toxicity at February’s Cancer Listening Post. He explained that glyphosate’s formulation contains polyethoxylated amine (POEA), a surfactant that allows the pesticide to more effectively penetrate into weeds. When glyphosate comes into contact with human skin, POEA also causes glyphosate to directly penetrate into the human body and subsequently the DNA where it could cause damage.
Photo: Mariana Serdynska (Shutterstock)
INDUSTRY ARGUMENTS FOR THE CANCER GAG ACT vs. FACTS
Chemical company lobbyists are fueling legislators with numerous talking points supporting the pesticide immunity bill and are manipulating farmers with scare tactics. Here are statements you may be hearing accompanied by the facts.
The federal government prohibits putting stronger labels on pesticides so a chemical company can’t be sued for doing something the government says can’t be done.
FALSE. This is what Senator Dickey said during both the January and March legislative forums, so we talked with Max Sano, Senior Policy & Coalitions Associate at Beyond Pesticides, to better understand Senator Dickey’s comments and how pesticide regulations work.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), chemical companies can re-register a product and update its label if they find additional harmful risks associated with the product. In fact, Bayer is currently undergoing a product re-registration for a new formulation of Roundup.
FIFRA also contains a provision that allows states to require additional, supplemental warning labels to the EPA-approved label if they determine a need, especially to protect specific crops. You also may have seen California Proposition 65 warnings associated with some of your purchases.
Eleven states are trying to eliminate this allowance with a petition filed with the EPA that would characterize any additional state labeling as misbranding—if the petition were to be adopted. Currently, that hasn’t happened.
Glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer; therefore, the federal government can’t require labels to list that.
MISLEADING. In 2015, the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) labeled glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen” based on its review of over 1,000 studies. The following year, the EPA said glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant for human health risk assessment.” So, who’s right?
A study published by Dr. Benbrook in 2019 found the EPA and IARC used different criteria for evaluating glyphosate’s toxicity. The IARC primarily used peer-reviewed studies, and the EPA used registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, i.e., studies conducted by pesticide companies. The EPA itself does not conduct testing.
Also in 2019, University of Iowa-Seattle assistant professor and environmental health scientist Dr. Rachel Shaffer reported that the EPA’s scientific panel that reviewed the EPA’s 2016 draft assessment “raised a number of concerns with EPA’s process and conclusions, including that the agency did not follow its own cancer guidelines and made some inappropriate statistical decisions in the analysis.”
Shaffer is the co-author of a study on the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma that found glyphosate increases the risk of this blood cancer by 41%, one of many studies with similar findings. (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
Although there is significant evidence of the link, the pesticide immunity bill would provide immunity to pesticide companies if the EPA were to ever reverse its assessment of glyphosate’s toxicity.
Further, the EPA only requires warning labels on a product’s active ingredients. Many ingredients in a pesticide’s formulation, such as PFAS, may be equally or more toxic.
Glyphosate won’t be available to farmers if the Cancer Gag Act is passed.
FALSE. This is an industry scare tactic being used to manipulate farmers and to elicit their support. The pesticide immunity bill does not prohibit the production of glyphosate. The threats that Bayer may stop glyphosate production without SF 394 are seen as just that – threats.
The EPA permitting process provides for robust testing and leads to safe products.
FALSE. For decades, the agency’s pesticide registration process has been anything but robust. There are documented examples of companies withholding critical information. In one case, Investigate Midwest reported in 2020 that Monsanto and BASF worked together to develop dicamba-resistant seeds and withheld information on the way the pesticide would drift.
“For years, Monsanto struggled to keep dicamba from drifting in its own tests,” wrote the report’s authors. “In regulatory tests submitted to the EPA, the company sprayed the product in locations and under weather conditions that did not mirror how farmers would actually spray it. Midway through the approval process, with the EPA paying close attention, the company decided to stop its researchers from conducting tests.”
Instead, Monsanto and BASF blamed the pesticide drift on farmers.
An investigative article published by The Intercept in 2021 found the EPA is failing to adequately protect the public from pesticide harm. It interviewed over two dozen pesticide regulation experts, including 14 who worked for the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs.
The report’s author wrote the EPA, “is often unable to stand up to the intense pressures from powerful agrochemical companies, which spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying each year and employ many former EPA scientists once they leave the agency. The enormous corporate influence has weakened and, in some cases, shut down the meaningful regulation of pesticides in the U.S. and left the country’s residents exposed to levels of dangerous chemicals not tolerated in many other nations.”
The pesticide immunity bill doesn’t stop lawsuits from being filed. Injured parties could still file a lawsuit using other causes of action.
MISLEADING. Yes, lawsuits could be filed with other causes of action. However, the pesticide immunity bill would remove the failure to warn cause of action that has been the foundational legal argument successfully used in thousands of previous cancer cases and the leading cause of action in pending cases. It’s an effective argument, and Bayer wants it eliminated.
WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO STOP THE CANCER GAG ACT
The pesticide immunity bill benefits no one but Bayer and harms those that are most vulnerable to pesticide injury: farmers and other pesticides users.
Here’s what you can do to help prevent its return:
1. IOWA HOUSE: Continue to talk to or write to your state representatives to let them know you oppose this bill. If your legislator opposes the bill, thank them for their support. Find your representative here.
2. IOWA HOUSE: If you know your representative opposes the bill, ask them to stay alert for the language slipping into an appropriations or other bill at the last minute and to alert other legislators and Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture that the bill is back.
3. IOWA SENATE: If your senator voted for the bill, let them know you are disappointed with them and do not support their vote. The bill will likely be back next year. They need to hear from you regardless of how they voted this year.
Bayer is pressing hard, and from many different angles, to remove their liability for pesticide injury. So, we have to work from many different angles, too. Srinivas said the bill was stopped last year because Iowans spoke out loudly. Let’s again keep those voices speaking out loud and strong to stop the Cancer Gag Act once and for all.