It sounds like the bill doesn't really have much to do with Bayer, and is meant to target Chinese companies. I have mixed feelings about these bills. I understand why it's done, but it does feel...
It sounds like the bill doesn't really have much to do with Bayer, and is meant to target Chinese companies. I have mixed feelings about these bills. I understand why it's done, but it does feel unfair to those businesses. It's not a big surprise though that Bayer is a sponsor since it ostensibly protects them and hurts their competitor.
If I'm reading between the lines correctly though, there seems to be an implication that Bayer are sponsoring the bill purely because they feel they need legal immunity. I don't really see why that would be. They are approved by the FDA and do follow labelling protocols. In that sense at least, they haven't done anything wrong.
The cases they have lost have been based primarily on the IARC putting them in group 2A, classification "probably carcinogenic". As I'm sure many here know, that is the same grouping as night shift work and hot beverages. The list is not intended to indicate risk, but only show a possible connection or highlight a theoretical mechanism. Suffice it to say, this is not a good basis for legal arguments, and those legal cases are not a good standard for setting policy. All that should matter is the science, which is what the FDA and many other groups conduct.
Back to the bill, I'm sure Edler has his own motivations in pushing it forward (maintaining the agriculture industry for Iowa is a good guess), but Dotzler's argument is really unconvincing for me.
“I don’t think that the science is caught up yet with with the real effects of some of these pesticides, and the FDA doesn’t necessarily have that good track record when it comes to it,” Dotzler said.
The FDA has wrongly labeled products as safe in the past, Dotzler said, pointing to DDT, a chemical used as a pesticide, which was banned from the U.S. in 1972 for its negative environmental impacts.
They've been wrong before, so they could be wrong about this? Sure I guess, but that isn't actually proof of anything. That's just FUD tactics.
I don't have strong feelings about the bill either way, but I do wish politics would take the back seat here and let the best, current science dictate policy for a change. And I also wish the WHO/IARC would update their labeling so as to not terrify people about drinking coffee.
How many times has it come out that a company or industry had insider knowledge that something they were doing is harmful, but buried it from the public to continue selling and profiting? Global...
How many times has it come out that a company or industry had insider knowledge that something they were doing is harmful, but buried it from the public to continue selling and profiting? Global warming comes to mind immediately.
Would it not be fair to hold Bayer liable if they had internal findings 30+ years ago about harms and buried the evidence?
Yes, absolutely. That would mean they deceived both the public and regulators. Such actions would likely be deemed criminal. Currently however there's no indication of anything like that....
Would it not be fair to hold Bayer liable if they had internal findings 30+ years ago about harms and buried the evidence?
Yes, absolutely. That would mean they deceived both the public and regulators. Such actions would likely be deemed criminal.
Currently however there's no indication of anything like that. Glyphosate remains one of the most studied chemicals of all times, and while its record is not 100% solid, the vast majority of independent assessments have shown it to be safe to use in large-scale farming. Especially in comparison to other pesticides, which are often less targeted or require larger applications to have the same effectiveness.
I suppose I should have finished my thought: What does Bayer (Monsanto) know that we don't, which is incentivizing them to fund legislation for immunity? I'd be really, really, really suspicious...
I suppose I should have finished my thought:
What does Bayer (Monsanto) know that we don't, which is incentivizing them to fund legislation for immunity?
I'd be really, really, really suspicious if a car company started lobbying to be immune from liability due to manufacturing defects on brakes.
Also, from the article:
RoundUp, a pesticide linked with development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In 2020, Bayer agreed to pay $10 billion to settle cancer lawsuit
Pretty sure you don't settle a cancer lawsuit for $10 billion if you're pretty sure you're innocent.
I feel like I addressed this directly in my first comment. The bill directly advantages Bayer and hurts Syngenta, one of their leading competitors. It seems like a no brainer that they'd support...
What does Bayer (Monsanto) know that we don't, which is incentivizing them to fund legislation for immunity?
I feel like I addressed this directly in my first comment. The bill directly advantages Bayer and hurts Syngenta, one of their leading competitors. It seems like a no brainer that they'd support it.
Bill 3188 is extremely short. I'd suggest giving it a read if you haven't yet. It's very simple in that it claims that if you follow all the rules, you cannot be accused legally of not doing so. Nobody is asking for exceptions for any crimes, nor special treatment. It's only asking for the fair application of law to be based on current EPA health standards.
Pretty sure you don't settle a cancer lawsuit for $10 billion if you're pretty sure you're innocent.
People settle for all kinds of reasons. Doing so may have fended off a class action lawsuit, or simply saved billions in lawyer fees responding to these cases individually. It's impossible to know what their strategy is. In other cases they've fought and won suits over the same thing. There is not a lot of consistency here, especially as civil cases often use juries. They may have simply saw a single large settlement as being less risky and time-consuming than rolling the dice over and over again in these civil tort cases.
So, I'm not sure I feel better after reading it. It very much feels like it absolves them so long as any followup study that finds harm wasn't performed by the federal government. However, doesn't...
So, I'm not sure I feel better after reading it. It very much feels like it absolves them so long as any followup study that finds harm wasn't performed by the federal government.
However, doesn't the EPA have to approve to import pesticides from China? That really makes this some grade-A bullshit.
The bill provides that a label provides sufficient warning if it complies with any one of three criteria:
(1) it was approved by the EPA
(2) it is consistent with the most recent human health assessment performed under the federal Act, or
(3) it is consistent with the EPA’s carcinogenicity classification 1 for the pesticide.
In each case, the label is sufficient to satisfy any requirements for a warning regarding health or safety under the state Act, and any other provision of state law or any other common law duty to warn. However, this provision of the bill does not apply to a product made by a Chinese state-owned enterprise.
Ahhh good old capitalism being unable to compete with a socialist enterprise. A privately-owned Chinese enterprise would be fine. /snark
There's also this in the article: I make no claims regarding the veracity of this claim, and am skeptical. If true however, I can see how Bayer might be in favor of the bill without having an...
There's also this in the article:
“We’re trying to prevent what I’m going to call frivolous lawsuits and a loophole that has been used to sue with no cause,” Edler said. “Because this does not provide immunity for cause. You all know that, but we have not represented that clearly today, senators.”
I make no claims regarding the veracity of this claim, and am skeptical. If true however, I can see how Bayer might be in favor of the bill without having an insidious motive.
They are the guys who developed and sold heroin as a "non-addicting" cough suppressant for children, though. I am inclined to assume the worst of them.
This sounds like another episode in the litigation of Roundup and related herbicides (whether they're presently US-made or not). Monsanto created a product that was banned in parts of Europe and...
This sounds like another episode in the litigation of Roundup and related herbicides (whether they're presently US-made or not). Monsanto created a product that was banned in parts of Europe and the US because it likely causes cancer (the Trump administration advised that it is "not likely" to cause cancer, so draw your own conclusions). Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 and here we are. Bayer is going to continue to try to litigate away any allegations that their products might cause cancer in humans (much less that it kills bees and causes malformation or death in the development of other species, including amphibians).
It sounds like the bill doesn't really have much to do with Bayer, and is meant to target Chinese companies. I have mixed feelings about these bills. I understand why it's done, but it does feel unfair to those businesses. It's not a big surprise though that Bayer is a sponsor since it ostensibly protects them and hurts their competitor.
If I'm reading between the lines correctly though, there seems to be an implication that Bayer are sponsoring the bill purely because they feel they need legal immunity. I don't really see why that would be. They are approved by the FDA and do follow labelling protocols. In that sense at least, they haven't done anything wrong.
The cases they have lost have been based primarily on the IARC putting them in group 2A, classification "probably carcinogenic". As I'm sure many here know, that is the same grouping as night shift work and hot beverages. The list is not intended to indicate risk, but only show a possible connection or highlight a theoretical mechanism. Suffice it to say, this is not a good basis for legal arguments, and those legal cases are not a good standard for setting policy. All that should matter is the science, which is what the FDA and many other groups conduct.
Back to the bill, I'm sure Edler has his own motivations in pushing it forward (maintaining the agriculture industry for Iowa is a good guess), but Dotzler's argument is really unconvincing for me.
They've been wrong before, so they could be wrong about this? Sure I guess, but that isn't actually proof of anything. That's just FUD tactics.
I don't have strong feelings about the bill either way, but I do wish politics would take the back seat here and let the best, current science dictate policy for a change. And I also wish the WHO/IARC would update their labeling so as to not terrify people about drinking coffee.
How many times has it come out that a company or industry had insider knowledge that something they were doing is harmful, but buried it from the public to continue selling and profiting? Global warming comes to mind immediately.
Would it not be fair to hold Bayer liable if they had internal findings 30+ years ago about harms and buried the evidence?
Yes, absolutely. That would mean they deceived both the public and regulators. Such actions would likely be deemed criminal.
Currently however there's no indication of anything like that. Glyphosate remains one of the most studied chemicals of all times, and while its record is not 100% solid, the vast majority of independent assessments have shown it to be safe to use in large-scale farming. Especially in comparison to other pesticides, which are often less targeted or require larger applications to have the same effectiveness.
I suppose I should have finished my thought:
What does Bayer (Monsanto) know that we don't, which is incentivizing them to fund legislation for immunity?
I'd be really, really, really suspicious if a car company started lobbying to be immune from liability due to manufacturing defects on brakes.
Also, from the article:
Pretty sure you don't settle a cancer lawsuit for $10 billion if you're pretty sure you're innocent.
I feel like I addressed this directly in my first comment. The bill directly advantages Bayer and hurts Syngenta, one of their leading competitors. It seems like a no brainer that they'd support it.
Bill 3188 is extremely short. I'd suggest giving it a read if you haven't yet. It's very simple in that it claims that if you follow all the rules, you cannot be accused legally of not doing so. Nobody is asking for exceptions for any crimes, nor special treatment. It's only asking for the fair application of law to be based on current EPA health standards.
People settle for all kinds of reasons. Doing so may have fended off a class action lawsuit, or simply saved billions in lawyer fees responding to these cases individually. It's impossible to know what their strategy is. In other cases they've fought and won suits over the same thing. There is not a lot of consistency here, especially as civil cases often use juries. They may have simply saw a single large settlement as being less risky and time-consuming than rolling the dice over and over again in these civil tort cases.
So, I'm not sure I feel better after reading it. It very much feels like it absolves them so long as any followup study that finds harm wasn't performed by the federal government.
However, doesn't the EPA have to approve to import pesticides from China? That really makes this some grade-A bullshit.
Ahhh good old capitalism being unable to compete with a socialist enterprise. A privately-owned Chinese enterprise would be fine. /snark
There's also this in the article:
I make no claims regarding the veracity of this claim, and am skeptical. If true however, I can see how Bayer might be in favor of the bill without having an insidious motive.
They are the guys who developed and sold heroin as a "non-addicting" cough suppressant for children, though. I am inclined to assume the worst of them.
This sounds like another episode in the litigation of Roundup and related herbicides (whether they're presently US-made or not). Monsanto created a product that was banned in parts of Europe and the US because it likely causes cancer (the Trump administration advised that it is "not likely" to cause cancer, so draw your own conclusions). Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 and here we are. Bayer is going to continue to try to litigate away any allegations that their products might cause cancer in humans (much less that it kills bees and causes malformation or death in the development of other species, including amphibians).
My apologies if this is a duplicate post