{"id":176472,"date":"2024-11-09T18:03:37","date_gmt":"2024-11-09T18:03:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/?p=176472"},"modified":"2024-11-09T18:03:37","modified_gmt":"2024-11-09T18:03:37","slug":"pesticide-makers-want-free-pass-for-injuries-caused-by-their-chemicals-so-theyre-spending-big-to-influence-state-lawmakers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/pesticide-makers-want-free-pass-for-injuries-caused-by-their-chemicals-so-theyre-spending-big-to-influence-state-lawmakers\/","title":{"rendered":"Pesticide Makers Want Free Pass for Injuries Caused by Their Chemicals. So They\u2019re Spending Big to Influence State Lawmakers"},"content":{"rendered":"

In most states, the pesticide company employee PACs contributed to a combination of legislative leaders and emerging leaders, with emphasis on legislators who chair agricultural and environmental committees.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

As pesticide companies struggle to cap legal payouts to plaintiffs who claim they were injured by Roundup and other products, money from two political committees affiliated with major pesticide manufacturers has surged into state-level politics.<\/p>\n

In recent years, total contributions to state legislators have reached hundreds of thousands of dollars. By contrast, in 2016, the two leading agrochemical companies gave less than 5% of contributions to candidates at the state level. This year, however, state candidates received about 30% of contributions to candidates from political action committees (PACs) for employees of Bayer<\/a>, which is headquartered in Leverkusen, Germany, and Corteva<\/a>, which is based in Indianapolis.<\/p>\n

In particular, legislators in California, New Jersey, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Hawaii, North Carolina and Texas have benefited from the largesse of pesticide company employee PACs during the last two years, according to data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC).<\/p>\n

In many cases, individual candidates received small amounts from the PACs, such as $500 or $1,000, but a campaign finance expert said that all donations count.<\/p>\n

\u201cSuppose you have two people outside your office who want to go to lunch, and you only have time for one<\/em>,\u201d said Bob Stern, former general counsel of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. He said that typically, a politician would be more likely to go to lunch with the one who has made the donation. \u201cNobody wastes money<\/em>,\u201d Stern said. \u201cThere is a big reason they\u2019re making their contribution. It\u2019s not a charity<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Representatives from the companies did not answer questions about the specific political priorities of their employee committees in statehouses. Rather, they noted that the PACs allow employees to support legislators who align with the companies\u2019 interests.<\/p>\n

In many of the targeted states, legislation has been introduced that would limit companies\u2019 payouts in lawsuits that find that consumers, groundskeepers and farmers<\/a> were sickened or killed by pesticides.<\/p>\n

Other recent issues in these states include bans on neonicotinoids<\/a> and other pesticides, as well as proposals to prevent states from setting higher standards for labeling on the uses of pesticides that exceed the standards set by the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.<\/p>\n

In most states, the pesticide company employee PACs contributed to a combination of legislative leaders and emerging leaders, with emphasis on legislators who chair agricultural and environmental committees.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re definitely all people who are close to leadership<\/em>,\u201d said Anne Frederick, executive director of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action<\/a>, a nonprofit organization in Hawaii, after she reviewed the list of recipients.<\/p>\n

Contributions at the state level from employee PACs from Bayer and Corteva have quintupled in recent years. In the 2016 and 2018 election cycles, which cover two-year periods, the Bayer employee PAC gave less than $25,000 to state and local candidates. During the election cycles ending in 2020, 2022 and 2024, those contributions totaled between $70,000 and $144,000 per cycle. The Corteva employee PAC gave zero dollars to state and local candidates in the 2016 and 2018 cycles. In the years since, the PAC donations at the state and local levels totaled between $9,800 and $48,000 per election cycle.<\/p>\n

The campaign contributions represent one segment of political activity that surrounded pesticide-related legislation. In some cases, companies\u2019 efforts focused on lobbying, which is disclosed separately.<\/p>\n

Another form of influence can come by way of so-called \u201cdark money<\/em>,\u201d a mechanism by which nonprofits and shell companies donate to super PACs without disclosing the individual donors behind the contributions. For that reason, tallies of the most direct form of political influence \u2014 individual campaign contributions \u2014 may present an incomplete picture of corporate<\/a> involvement in legislative processes.<\/p>\n

On the subject of employee PACs, a prepared statement from Bayer said, in part, \u201cLike many organizations, companies and industries, BayerPAC engages and participates in the political process at both the federal and state level to help support our industry, customers and business<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

A prepared statement from the Chinese state-owned company Syngenta said: \u201cSyngentaPac is a 100% employee-funded organization that allows Syngenta\u2019s American employees \u2014 Americans working for American agriculture \u2014 to proudly support legislators who align with our mission to support the nation\u2019s hardworking farmers.<\/em><\/p>\n

We donate to campaigns of legislators who are strong advocates for American agriculture \u2014 something we need more of in Congress and in statehouses across the country. Our lobbying reporting reflects our efforts to educate these policymakers on Syngenta\u2019s mission to support American farmers<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

A statement from BASF outlined how the American campaign contribution and disclosure system works, but offered no detail on the PAC\u2019s political priorities, and representatives from Corteva did not respond to emailed questions.<\/p>\n

Companies seek to limit damage ruled in court<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the last year, massive lobbying campaigns by pesticide companies at both the state and federal levels have pushed for mechanisms that would limit damages ruled by courts in pesticide injury lawsuits.<\/p>\n

Bayer, in particular, has struggled under the weight of injury awards to plaintiffs in cases involving Roundup<\/a>, an herbicide that has been the target of more than 11,000 lawsuits because of links to cancer. According to a fact sheet<\/a> by U.S. Right to Know, \u201cthe scientific literature and regulatory conclusions regarding cancer links to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides show a mix of findings, making the safety of the herbicide a hotly debated subject<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

While Bayer has maintained that glyphosate is safe when used correctly, scientific research has linked exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma<\/a>. Also, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer<\/a> classified glyphosate as \u201cprobably carcinogenic to humans<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In comments for the company\u2019s 2023 annual report<\/a>, executives reported that the company\u2019s performance is suffering because of significant losses in legal judgments. Bayer\u2019s provision for the glyphosate litigation totaled $6.3 billion, as of Dec. 31, 2023, from lawsuits over Roundup.<\/p>\n

Bayer\u2019s stock price is down 37% in the last year.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/a> reported this year that Bayer has lobbied the U.S. Congress to pass the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act<\/em><\/a>, which would prohibit states and local governments from imposing labeling requirements<\/a> on pesticides that differ from federal labeling requirements.<\/p>\n

The Post<\/em> reported that the federal legislation \u201caims to prevent local governments and courts from being able to \u2018penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply\u2019 with rules for pesticide warnings that differ substantially from what the federal government already mandates<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Iowa, one of these bills was initially presented by Bayer\u2019s representatives as \u201can innocuous labeling bill<\/em>\u201d but, upon further examination, turned out to be a measure that would provide complete immunity for any chemical companies in all pesticide-related lawsuits, said Andrew Mertens, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice<\/a>, a trial lawyers group. Opposition mounted in part, he said, because \u201cit represents a forfeiture of corporate responsibility over to the federal government<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

A lot of Iowa legislators \u2014 particularly conservative lawmakers \u2014 had a hard time with this idea, Mertens said, because \u201cnot only would the personal rights of their constituents be eliminated, but private corporate responsibility would be forfeited over to the federal government, which they frankly don\u2019t trust<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rob Faux, communications manager for the nonprofit Pesticide Action Network<\/a>, said that he wouldn\u2019t be surprised to see liability-limiting legislation \u2014 known as \u201cfailure to warn<\/em>\u201d laws \u2014 crop up nationwide. \u201cI think you\u2019ll find that the \u2018failure to warn\u2019 legislation will take form in probably 10 or 20 different states. It might not surprise me if every state had cookie-cutter legislation appear and probably won\u2019t go anywhere<\/em>,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Under federal law, corporations are not allowed to donate money directly to candidates, and PACs that receive contributions from employees distribute donations to candidates and political committees on their behalf.<\/p>\n

In four PACs associated with pesticide company employees, top company officers exclusively made political donations to the employee PACs.<\/p>\n

Here is a partial list of those executives and their donations, according to campaign contribution records from the Federal Election Commission:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Over eight years, employee PACs for Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta, FMC and BASF have donated 62% of federal candidate contributions to Republican candidates and 38% to Democrats, according to an analysis of FEC data through Oct. 17. For federal candidates, the PACs gave Democrats $2.3 million during that period and Republicans $3.7 million. Democrats received $2.2 million during that period, and Republicans received $3.6 million, according to campaign contribution records.<\/p>\n

State-level donations and issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

U.S. Right to Know assembled a list of legislators who received funds from agrochemical company employee PACs by state, along with summaries of major pesticide-related legislation that has passed or is pending. With the exception of data from Missouri, all donations in the list come from the 2023-24 election cycle.<\/p>\n

California<\/strong><\/p>\n

In California<\/a>, major pesticide legislation in recent sessions included bills to ban the herbicide paraquat, to expand safety reviews of neonicotinoid pesticides in non-agricultural uses, to include private schools in notifications for pesticide use at school sites and to speed up pesticide registrations. All of those bills were signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, Jane Sellen, co-director of Californians for Pesticide Reform<\/a>, saw the hand of industry in the final language of the bills. The paraquat ban, she said, \u201cis not a ban. It started out as a ban, and then it got watered down to nothing<\/em>.\u201d The outcome: A state agency will now reevaluate its safety.<\/p>\n

On the new law to speed up the pace of pesticide registrations, Sellen is equally skeptical about the outcome. \u201cThey\u2019ve got a backlog of about 80 that they\u2019ve prioritized<\/em>,\u201d she said. \u201cThey\u2019ll catch up in your great-great grandkids\u2019 lifetime<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here is the list of California legislators who received donations from the employee PACs of agrochemical companies, according to FEC data:<\/p>\n

\"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

Hawaii<\/strong><\/p>\n

Because of its year-round growing season, Hawaii has been a site for experimental crops for agrochemical companies for years. Companies develop parent seed there. \u201cWe\u2019ve called Hawaii ground zero for experimental field trials<\/em>,\u201d said Frederick of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, or HAPA.<\/p>\n

In recent legislative sessions, HAPA and other environmental groups have advocated for improved disclosure of restricted-use pesticides, increased buffer zones around schools and other sensitive areas, and the re-classification of neonicotinoids as restricted-use pesticides to improve tracking of their use.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe continue to advocate for some of these provisions that the community\u2019s been asking for since 2006 or 2008<\/em>,\u201d Frederick said. She told us that most bills on these issues died without hearings in the Legislature\u2019s last session. When Frederick reviewed the list of legislators who had received contributions from Bayer, which maintains a large presence in the state, she said the recipients reflected the power players and emerging players in the Legislature. \u201cBecause there has been so much pushback on industry here, they\u2019re trying to build bridges<\/em>,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Idaho<\/strong><\/p>\n

The pesticide manufacturers started their political push into the states in recent years in Idaho, which was targeted by extensive campaigning and lobbying with the introduction of a bill to limit damages in lawsuits.<\/p>\n

The Idaho Statesman<\/em> published a detailed report on the campaign called How Idaho became the target of an influence campaign to protect pesticide companies<\/em><\/a>. According to the Statesman<\/em>: \u201cIn the three months of the legislative session, the push from the industry brought tens of thousands in public advertisements, thousands of dollars of campaign donations, free bottles of Roundup, and private calls with Bayer\u2019s CEO \u2014 all aimed at convincing legislators to seal off prominent herbicides like Roundup from most liability lawsuits<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The newspaper reported that despite the \u201cfull-court press<\/em>,\u201d the bill drew a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and failed by four votes. Lawmakers and analysts in the state expect the liability-limiting bill to reappear, according to the newspaper.<\/p>\n

Here are Idaho legislators who received money from agrochemical company employee PACs:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Illinois<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Illinois legislature recently passed bills that require notifications when pesticides are sprayed at schools and increase penalties for human exposure to pesticides<\/a>. New penalties for exposure in the state break down like this:<\/p>\n