I have been fighting big polluters and the corrupt "agency capture" that has prevented effective government action on environmental threats for my entire career. In effect, that agency capture has made the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a partner in crime with the corporations that poison our environment and endanger our health.
A blockbuster new documentary, "Into the Weeds," tells the story of groundskeeper Dewayne "Lee" Johnson and his legal battle against Bayer-Monsanto after a terminal cancer diagnosis because of his exposure to their product RoundUp/Ranger Pro. RoundUp's active ingredient, glyphosate, is the world's most widely used weed-killing herbicide. Much of the evidence in scientific literature has found that glyphosate is likely carcinogenic in humans, and responsible for other health effects including microbiome, liver and kidney, and endocrine disruption, as well as detrimental effects on biodiversity.
The documentary reveals evidence that Bayer/Monsanto knew about the toxicity of their product. For 40-plus years, Monsanto has rigged the science by financing ghostwritten articles and peer-reviewed studies downplaying Roundup's adverse effects on health. But Lee Johnson would never have been able to take this giant multinational corporation to court if a bill currently being considered by Congress had been the law of the land.
The innocuously named Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (HR 4288) purports to be a bill "to ensure uniformity of labeling standards for pesticides that are backed by sound science and approved by the EPA." In reality, it is a blatant industry strong-arm move to prevent state and local efforts to regulate toxic pesticides—and to overturn decades of Supreme Court precedent in the process. It's also a bald-faced attempt to preempt a federal court-ordered FDA reassessment of glyphosate, mandated last year when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the agency failed to adequately consider the potential cancer-causing effects of the chemical.
A little history: After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the authority of state and local governments to restrict pesticides in 1991, Big Ag and pesticide industry lobbyists descended on state capitals across the nation to pass legislation designed to prohibit localities from taking action to protect their residents and the local environment from pesticide poisoning and contamination. In many cases, they were successful: In only seven states do cities and localities retain the ability to enact laws and regulations to protect the public from toxic chemicals and slow the decline of biodiversity. In those seven states that still retain local control, the effort to protect the public from toxic chemicals is robust, with over 150 local policies enacted.
Recently, in an effort to prohibit state and local regulation of pesticide use, big-money ag and pesticide industry lobbyists have focused their efforts on the U.S. Congress. The way these things work in Washington is that lobbyists are able to sneak controversial bills into huge appropriations measures as amendments, hoping to escape notice. The "Farm Bill" is one such enormous appropriations measure, only coming up for reauthorization every five years. This year's Farm Bill is expected to cost more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
During the 2018 Farm Bill deliberations, similar efforts by the pesticide industry to limit state control were narrowly rejected in the House-Senate Farm Bill conference committee. So this year, there is an effort to slip in HR 4288 (the so-called "Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act") as an amendment to the overall Farm Bill appropriations, subject to an up-or-down vote on the House floor.
There are several important things to keep in mind about this bill, cosponsored by Representatives Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Jim Costa (D-CA), both recipients of significant donations from the big agribusiness lobby.
In August 2023, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent Congressional leadership a letter supporting HR 4288 signed by 360 national, state, and local business and agriculture organizations. The groups asked legislators to ensure that states "cannot impose labeling or packaging requirements in addition to or different from the science and risk-based conclusions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
Among the many problems HR 4288 creates for American citizens: First, though it purports to be a "uniformity in labeling" bill, it actually constitutes a blanket prohibition of local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the current EPA determination. Sold as a measure to ensure clear and consistent "labeling and packaging," HR 4288 goes well beyond that, mandating that states and localities "may not issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling that is inconsistent with ... the conclusion of the Fungicide Act or a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide performed pursuant to such act." So despite the harmless language in the press releases, the bill would completely preempt any state or local law attempting to protect the public from toxic pesticides.
The second issue to keep in mind is just how anti-democratic this measure really is. Not only would HR 4288 nullify the state and local attempts to establish requirements affecting the use of pesticides, it would have a chilling effect on lawsuits seeking compensation for harm caused by pesticide exposures—like the ongoing litigation against Bayer/Monsanto brought by Lee Johnson. "If the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the state law claims are preempted by the federal FIFRA statute," states environmental attorney Aimee Wagstaff, "claimants' lawsuits nationwide will be over."
"FIFRA" is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, a federal statute enforced by the EPA. One of the key parts of H.R. 4288 is the links to the FIFRA and their "carcinogenicity classification" standards as per the Act (7 U.S.C 136 et seq). Scientifically FIFRA has a lower bar to pass than the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and California's Proposition 65, which automatically lists a product as linked to cancer if the IARC finds a widely used chemical linked to any cancer under its four group classifications.
Ironically many conservatives who give lip service to fighting an overbearing federal government that usurps state and local prerogatives suddenly become silent when it comes to opposing legislation backed by big corporate interests.
All those concerned about the corporate capture of our federal government should see "Into the Weeds" to understand just how harmful our corrupt regulatory system has been to public health. And all of us should oppose this latest stealth attempt by corporate lobbyists to make an end run around the democratic process, embodied in the so-called Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for President as an Independent.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
