Authored by Brooke Miller via The Brownstone Institute,
As caretakers of the land and guardians of our country’s food sources, farmers and ranchers have a profound moral duty – to produce the safest, healthiest, and most nutritious food available. It’s not just a job; it’s a responsibility to future generations.
This is why I am writing today with serious concern about the Pesticide Liability Protection Act that is currently being considered in Congress.
If this bill is passed, it could have devastating consequences—not only for the health of farmers and ranchers who work directly with these chemicals, but also for the general public who unknowingly consume their residues.
The Dangerous Path of Corporate Immunity
This legislation could pave the way for a new generation of pesticides and herbicides created by agrochemical giants—products that might be even more harmful than those currently in use. By providing legal protection to these corporations, it eliminates their last incentive to ensure the safety of their chemicals.
We’ve seen this scenario play out before. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granting pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability for vaccine-related injuries. The outcome was swift and concerning: a flood of new products rushed to market without proper testing, leading to a significant increase in chronic health conditions in both children and adults. It was a turning point in public health, and not for the better.
The similarities to our current situation are striking. Take the case of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup. Bayer (the parent company of Monsanto) has been inundated with over 177,000 lawsuits related to the weedkiller and has set aside $16 billion for settlements. More than $11 billion has already been paid out in Roundup lawsuit settlements, with individual jury awards reaching as high as $2.1 billion in recent cases.
These massive settlements highlight the true human cost of inadequate oversight of chemical safety. Even more concerning is the widespread exposure we are seeing in our most vulnerable population: children. CDC analysis shows that about 87 percent of 650 children tested had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine. Research indicates that children have higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than adults, and recent studies suggest that higher levels of glyphosate residue in urine during childhood and adolescence are linked to an increased risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood.
Repeating the same mistake with our nation’s food supply would be unacceptable.
Why the Pesticide Liability Protection Act Is Unconstitutional
The Pesticide Liability Protection Act fundamentally violates several core Constitutional principles that are the foundation of American law:
-
Due Process Violations (5th and 14th Amendments): This Act denies citizens their fundamental right to seek justice in courts for injuries caused by dangerous or defective products. It erodes substantive due process by removing a basic property right—the right to compensation for harm—without adequate justification or alternative remedies.
-
Equal Protection Concerns: The legislation creates an arbitrary distinction between victims of chemical company negligence and other victims of dangerous products. There is no logical reason why those harmed by pesticides should have fewer legal rights than those harmed by other hazardous products.
-
Separation of Powers: By shielding an entire industry from legal scrutiny, Congress interferes unconstitutionally with the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes and determining liability. This represents an overreach of legislative power into the judicial branch’s constitutional responsibilities.
-
Takings Clause Violations: The Act essentially confiscates private property—the right to seek legal recourse—without fair compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to access courts as fundamental, and any law that bars certain types of claims must meet strict constitutional standards. The Pesticide Liability Protection Act does not pass this test.
A Call for Leadership
Therefore, I urge all agricultural organizations—from cattlemen’s associations to farm bureaus, from organic growers to commodity groups—to publicly oppose the Pesticide Liability Protection Act. We must issue statements and press releases declaring our stance against corporate immunity for chemical manufacturers. This is not just an agricultural issue; it is a matter of public health, environmental protection, and ethical leadership.
Furthermore, I urge agricultural organizations to support Senator Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) proposed legislation, which aims to hold chemical producers accountable and prioritize the safety of both producers and consumers. This is a unique opportunity to take a stand on an issue that will shape the future of American agriculture.
The Choice Before Us
The agricultural community is at a crossroads. We can prioritize short-term convenience and corporate profits, or we can prioritize the long-term health of our land, our communities, and our food sources.
The history of corporate liability shields teaches us a valuable lesson: when companies are shielded from accountability, public safety suffers. We cannot allow the same corporate immunity that harmed the pharmaceutical industry to take root in agriculture.
Let us be remembered as the generation that took a stand to protect our land, our people, and our food, rather than turning a blind eye.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Loading recommendations…