From Crops to Courts: Should Pesticides Be Immune?
“Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called ‘insecticides’ but ‘biocides.’” – Rachel Carson, Silent Spring
Rachel Carson stood firmly in her belief based in science that something built to kill one thing will never target just that one thing. A prime example of this is the case of Johnson v. Monsanto Company (now Bayer).
RoundUp, a glyphosate-based herbicide, has been consistently advertised as “practically non-toxic as it pertains to mammals, birds and fish.” Glyphosate is a common ingredient in non-selective herbicides, meaning that it will kill most plants it comes into contact with. However, in March of 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” based on both human evidence and experimental animal studies. This means that there is evidence, though limited, linking glyphosate to cancer in humans, along with sufficient evidence linking glyphosate to cancer in animals. Thus, glyphosate is associated in particular with an increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the plaintiff in the case versus Monsanto, was a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District in San Francisco, California. As a part of his usual tasks, Johnson would apply RoundUp and RangerPro, another glyphosate-based Monsanto product. In Into the Weeds: Dewayne “Lee” Johnson vs. Monsanto Company, a documentary covering the case, Lee Johnson explains that this job saved him and his family. After experiencing financial troubles, Johnson was hopeful that this job would be what they needed to get by.
On the job, Johnson was told that these products were “safe enough to drink.” He had no idea about the potential risks of exposure to glyphosate herbicides. Then, in 2013, there was an accident with one of the herbicide tanks, causing it to spill and cover Johnson from head to toe. Following his second year of spraying these chemicals, he noticed a lesion on his knee and was ultimately diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After working with herbicides for so long, Johnson wondered if his cancer could be associated with his exposures. Johnson took Monsanto to trial, and in the end, the jury unanimously found that Monsanto had failed to warn users of the dangers associated with these chemicals and “had reason to know” these dangers were present.
So, where do “Immunity Bills” come in? Cases such as Lee Johnson’s show how critical it is to hold pesticide corporations responsible for the effects their products. But, as in Rachel Carson’s time, accountability for chemical companies causes backlash. Immunity bills, which have cropped up in Florida, Missouri, Idaho, and Iowa, are designed to give corporations like Bayer/Monsanto protection from their failure to disclose to the public all the dangers and risks associated with their chemicals. Such immunity is also known as an exemption from “failure-to-warn liability.” However, the catastrophic negligence of these companies is often masked by finding loopholes in the law. The pesticide registration process, for instance, requires that the scientific findings on environmental health and human health effects be translated into plain English and placed clearly on the bottle. But manufacturers often use product labels that are in fine print and confusing to read, despite the requirement that they be printed clearly and in logical locations. Chemical companies also carry out elaborate and misleading public relations campaigns, or greenwashing, about the safety of their products, including glyphosate.
Monsanto/Bayer is able to make these misleading safety claims because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disagrees with the IARC’s definition of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. So, such an accurate health warning is not required to be included on glyphosate labels. Immunity bills would make it impossible to seek liability action against any corporation whose products have EPA-authorized pesticide labels.
Currently, Bayer and other similar corporations are attempting to pass these immunity bills state-by-state. Idaho, Iowa, Florida, and Missouri have all had immunity bills introduced in their state Senate or House. These bills have yet to be passed, but some have come very close, and others are still being decided. Here is the recent status for each immunity bill. In Idaho, SB 1245 narrowly failed with a committee vote of 15 in favor and 19 opposed. In Florida, HB 347 passed in the House with a vote of 81-33 but died on calendar, meaning that it was ultimately not voted on. As of this writing, SF 2412 in Iowa has passed in the Senate and is awaiting action in the House, while the Missouri Senate has adjourned without holding a vote for HB 2763, meaning that the bill has failed to pass. However, the Missouri bill was passed in the House and received a “do pass” vote from the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food Production, and Outdoor Resources. Finally, on top of these state-level bills, the U.S. House of Representative’s proposed Farm Bill draft, which was released on May 17th, 2024, includes similar language to the array of state-introduced immunity bills. It intends to limit states’ abilities to create pesticide restrictions and to limit the ability to sue for “failure-to-warn liability.”
Should these bills pick up steam in other states, or if the House’s version of the Farm Bill is passed with immunity provisions, people like Dewayne “Lee” Johnson will not be able to get justice for the harm done to them and their loved ones. These immunity bills recklessly sacrifice and overshadow our health, environment, and right to justice simply to protect corporate greed and economic interest. We must act to prevent such flagrant disregard for the public’s health and the planet’s future. I urge you to join with me and the Rachel Carson Council and tell your member of Congress to oppose the pesticide immunity provisions in the version of the Farm Bill currently before the House of Representatives.
RCC Stanback Presidential Fellow – Sophie Valkenberg
Sophie Valkenberg is a Master of Environmental Management student at Duke University, concentrating in Community Engagement & Environmental Justice and Ecotoxicology & Environmental Health.