Over the last couple of decades covering agribusiness, I’ve come to this ironclad factoid…the Republican Party is generally more sympathetic than the Democratic Party to the interests of Big Ag – the industrial complex that produces the majority of our food. One needs to not go far beyond Farm Bill debates to see the truth.  

Every five years, Congress must re-authorize the Farm Bill, an act that regulates safety net programs, farm loans, disaster assistance, and conservation. And here’s the thing. Democrat lawmakers tend to focus on protecting and expanding safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and generally concede most decision making about agricultural programs to the Republicans. 

And that suits Big Ag just fine because it is the GOP that far and away represents rural America – farm country.  

USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture shows that the GOP controls the top 21 congressional districts in the nation as measured by sales of agricultural commodities. And 81 of the top 100 congressional districts. All this is not lost on Big Ag, which has found Republicans more than helpful to shove some piece of favored legislation onto the President’s desk.

It’s the same at the state level. With the exception of Illinois and Minnesota, Republicans have partisan control of the farm belt.

All of which takes us to the ongoing struggles of Bayer to once and for all rid itself of glyphosate lawsuits. Ever since purchasing Monsanto in 2018, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer, has been an albatross around its neck. The German pharmaceutical company is losing billions of dollars in court verdicts finding glyphosate contributing to non-hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The federal courts have consistently ruled against Bayer’s efforts to show such lawsuits are, in fact, preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Plaintiffs routinely argue that Bayer’s glyphosate labels fail to warn that product usage could potentially lead to non-hodgkin’s lymphoma. Plaintiffs then say that FIFRA outlaws the sale of any pesticide that has been misbranded, suggesting Bayer has a legal duty to warn about the dangers of glyphosate usage.

For its part, Bayer maintains the Environmental Protection Agency has never determined glyphosate can cause cancer and that FIFRA specifically prohibits states from requiring a cancer warning if the warning is “different from or in addition to” the federally approved label.

Unfortunately for Bayer, the courts don’t agree. Most recently the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Carson v. Monsanto denied Bayer’s request for an en banc review of a three-judge panel ruling finding “FIFRA does not impliedly preempt the warning that Georgia law would require.”

Neither was the Ninth Court of Appeals sympathetic to Bayer’s arguments, finding in 2021 in Hardeman v. Monsanto that the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim was not preempted by FIFRA because of the prohibition on misbranding. 

With the federal courts by and large less than helpful, Bayer is likely exploring the possibility of using the bankruptcy courts for a get-out-of-jail free card.

That’s not all. Bayer is also looking to leverage its relationships with all those GOP lawmakers out in rural America to pretty pretty please prevent people from suing over glyphosate. Full stop.

There’s currently a Bayer full court press in the Federal House and Senate agriculture committees to write into the new farm bill language to end glyphosate litigation. Language drafted by Bayer.

Bayer is also knocking on the door of all those farm states with GOP partisan governments.  Bayer’s plan is to use its influence among elected officials to draft bills to take away the ability to sue over glyphosate. 

Iowa is illustrative. A couple of Bayer flacks recently presented their draft bill to an Iowa House subcommittee on agriculture. The measure quickly passed out of the subcommittee and awaits consideration by the House Committee on Agriculture.

“Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, for any pesticide registered with the United States environmental protection agency under the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, U.S.C. §136 et seq., the 6 label approved by the United States environmental protection agency in registering the pesticide, or a label consistent with 8 the most recent human health assessment performed under the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or a label consistent with the United States environmental protection  agency carcinogenicity classification for the pesticide under the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, shall be sufficient to satisfy any requirements for a warning regarding health or safety under chapter 206, any other provision or doctrine of state law, including without limitation the duty to warn, or any other common law duty to warn.” 

Similar Bayer lobbying efforts are also underway in Idaho. And Florida. And Missouri. It appears Bayer will truly stop at nothing to mitigate its legal exposure to glyphosate. Consider the ethically questionable Texas two-step. Prevent people from suing because you might just lose?  Bring it on. Anything to save a buck. Look for a friendly court to bail you out and create the possibility of the Supreme Court accepting certiorari? Just another Monday. Well it isn’t the government’s job to clean up Bayer’s mess by giving it a pass.

This is how Big Ag generally operates. And it gets away with despicable behavior because the American public isn’t aware of all the shenanigans. If the public truly knew of how it’s being taken to the cleaners by the agricultural complex it would be furious. If only…

The post Government should resist Bayer’s efforts to end glyphosate litigation appeared first on Investigate Midwest.