News
House panel debates glyphosate language as farm bill nears floor vote
The same day the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on failure to warn and glyphosate, a failure to warn provision in the skinny farm bill was debated in the U.S. House Rules Committee.
The farm bill provision sets the federal label as the standard for product warnings, stopping states from requiring stronger or different language for pesticides, and blocking failure-to-warn lawsuits.
House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson said to Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern he is supportive of the farm bill the way it’s written currently, and glyphosate has been proven safe to use.
“My opinion is not important. What is, is the opinion of the scientists. This is an issue that has come down between emotion and science. I point to the EPA. I point which have found glysophate is probably the most studied agriculture tool in the country, if not the world.”
Thompson said the bill isn’t a liability shield. House Ag Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig responded.
“Even if the majority were to fix this issue in their language, it wouldn’t fix the problem at the core, which is, in every publicly available case where EPA has penalized a lab or chemical company that submitted false data, it settled. Every single one of those doesn’t admit any fault.”
Failure to warn happens when a company makes a product and doesn’t give enough information about the dangers or risks. For years, Bayer has faced legal challenges regarding health concerns of glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide.
There was also some intense discussion on nutrition program cuts in the legislation.
The House Rules Committee is the final step in the process before a full House floor vote can take place on a bill. A rule determines the time for debate and amendments included. More than 300 amendments were submitted for the skinny farm bill.
Thompson recently told Brownfield a farm bill vote could happen later this week. Watch Monday’s discussion.
Three papers regarding glycophosphate were retracted including hallmark safety study amid corporate influence after Bayer failed to disclose that the authors received compensation from Bayer. “This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented”