A fight is brewing in the Mississippi legislature over a pesticide "protection" bill.
State Senators Brice Wiggins, John Polk, Lydia Chassaniol, Charles Younger, Neil Whaley, Andy Berry, Philman Ladner, and Brian Rhodes sponsored SB #2472. The bill states:
The manufacturer or seller of a pesticide registered with the commissioner in accordance with Sections 63-9-1 through 63-23-29 and with the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 USC § 136 et seq., shall not be liable in a civil action related to the labeling of the pesticide, including a product liability action alleging a failure to warn, if the pesticide at issue bore a label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency under FIFRA at the time of sale.
Supporters of the bill argue the bill will protect much-needed pesticides from out-of-control lawsuits. Mississippi Farm Bureau and a plethora of other associations support the bill.
State Senator Angela Hill (R- Paul's Pastries) said "as far as I can tell, no state in the country has passed such a bill. It's potentially the most immoral bill since I got to the legislature in 2012." "If someone is harmed by the product, they should not lose the right to be compensated. The state or federal government should not ban compensation. If a child is born handicapped, you are on your own. I'm more worried about the health of my constituents than what happens to a product." said the State Senator.
The EPA has been tightening the regulations on pesticides. Smithsonian Magazine reported August 9, 2024:
Citing threats to fetuses, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week issued an emergency suspension of all registrations for a pesticide used on crops to control weeds. The move marks the first time in almost 40 years that the agency has used this kind of action. Pregnant farmworkers exposed to dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, also called DCPA or Dacthal, can experience changes to fetal thyroid hormone levels, which in turn is linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, lower IQ and impaired motor skills later in the child’s life, the EPA said in a statement on Tuesday. Some individuals who handle DCPA products can be exposed—sometimes without knowing it—to 4 to 20 times the amount considered safe for unborn babies. “DCPA is so dangerous that it needs to be removed from the market immediately,” Michal Freedhoff, an EPA assistant administrator, says in the agency’s statement. “Pregnant women who may never even know they were exposed could give birth to babies that experience irreversible lifelong health problems.” DCPA is used both in agricultural and non-agricultural settings, but it’s mostly applied to crops including broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage and onions, per the EPA. It’s also a possible carcinogen and has been banned in the European Union since 2009, according to NBC News’ Denise Chow.... Rest of article.
The bill moves on to action on the Senate Floor.
14 comments:
DIcamba?
Trial lawyers ballistic in 1...2...3
Why should they get special liability protections that no their industry gets? We have the same issue with police, they aren’t personally liable for their behavior and it’s led to a country where police aren’t accountable to the law and eroded the public’s trust of police. Sunshine is the best solution, if the company isn’t confident their product is safe, they shouldn’t have a free pass to poison people.
Quid pro quo legislation.
Mississippi Farm Bureau is the farm services organization that lobbies for this kind of $h!+. Southern Farm Bureau is a multi-state insurance company that was formed by multiple state-based Farm Bureaus (of which Mississippi Farm Bureau is one) so that rural citizens would have access to affordable insurance coverage for their rural properties where adequate emergency response is lacking. Doubtful that "Southern Farm Bureau" is involved in lobbying for this special immunity protection for billion dollar corporations. But I could be incorrect.
Correct, 3:52. Dembert’s specialty. Check those groups and their endorsements alongside the Politicians supporting this bill. Look even closer at Dembert’s campaign contributions.
Devil's advocate here. " if the company isn’t confident their product is safe, they shouldn’t have a free pass to poison people." And there's the rub. All of the regulatory agencies have said its safe for the market, post any warnings on the product. Company gets the ok to market, posts the warnings, follows all procedures.
If something changes down the line, the agencies who approved it are at fault.
Welcome to Missislippy, where legislators are for sale at bargin-basement prices.
Giving immunity to specific industries but not all others is shady. Politicians like to favor generous titans (see Big Pharma & Covid)
I'm not dumping on you, but the pharmaceutical companies have the no liability protection. If their products are tested, and proven safe, why do they need that protection?
All I read is that if the product was properly and legally labeled in accordance with standards in place at the time, they are immune from suits ALLEGING IMPROPER LABELING. I see no immunity from any other type of lawsuit.
This is common sense legislation. If EPA says a product is properly labeled, the manufacturer can’t be sued for improperly labeling it. Stand down with the hysteria and hyperbole.
Surely massive corporations selling chemicals would tell the federal regulatory agencies everything about their product, good, bad, and ugly. No way those altruistic "people" would hide the facts that might hurt their bottom line, would they?
I suspect this is a response to the Roundup litigation. Monsanto and Bayer would never lie about causing cancer. It's just those damn greedy trial lawyers causing trouble again.
Sarcasm aside, if a private industry needs governmental immunity to market and sell its products, it needs more accountability, not less.
This is akin to the vaccine manufacturers or gun manufactures getting immunity for their products. It will pass.
Post a Comment