Where It Stands in the Iowa Legislature - and How We Can Work to Stop It
by Diane Rosenberg | Executive Director
Even though 89% of Iowans oppose the pesticide immunity bill, aka the “Cancer Gag Act,” the bill is moving forward in the Iowa State Legislature. SF 394 passed in the Iowa Senate with a 26-21 vote on March 26 and will now move on to the Iowa House. The bill would protect pesticide companies from personal injury lawsuits as long as a product has an EPA-approved warning label. Companies would still be protected if the label is inaccurate or doesn’t fully disclose all risks.
The chemical giant Bayer is lobbying heavily for this bill, and it has a lot to gain if the bill passes. Bayer purchased Monsanto in 2018, the manufacturer of Roundup who misled regulators and the public about glyphosate’s associated cancer risks. Since then, Bayer/Monsanto has faced approximately 165,000 glyphosate lawsuits, paying out massive verdicts totaling over $13 billion so far. There are 54,000 active cases remaining with more expected every year.
Bayer also is working to get the pesticide immunity bill passed in at least 21 states, and currently there is some version of the bill in seven states. The bill has been defeated in three states after public backlash.
At the February 28 Cancer Listening Post in Fairfield, State Representative Megan Srinivas (District 30) said Bayer is especially concentrating on getting the pesticide immunity bill, also called a failure to warn bill, passed in Iowa in order to make it easier to pass it in other states. In trying to move public opinion, Bayer organized the Modern Ag Alliance, a 92-member national coalition that’s spending millions of dollars nationwide to ram this bill through Iowa and other state legislatures.
Bayer was surprised by Iowa’s pushback. But is that really surprising in a state with the second highest number of cancer cases in the nation and the only state where the rates of cancer are rising?
What’s the Status of the Iowa Bill?
SF 394, (formerly SSB 1051), passed out of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee with a 2-1 vote on February 5. It went on to pass in the full Senate Judiciary Committee on February 20 with
an 11-7 vote. Senator Adrian Dickey (District 44), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted to move the bill forward.
The bill was debated on the Senate floor on Wednesday, March 26 and passed with an amendment by a 26-21 vote with 3 absent. This was closer than last year's vote that passed SF 2412 by 30-19 in 2024.
The amendment proposed by Bayer would not "prohibit a cause of action based on any other provision or doctrine of state law." However, advocates opposing the bill say the amendment doesn't affect the way SF 394 would work as a defense in a lawsuit and does not, in fact, fix the bill.
A House version of the bill is expected to be introduced now that the Senate bill has passed. Organizers feel there may be a better chance of stopping the bill in the Iowa House since there is opposition on both sides of the aisle.
What Makes Glyphosate So Toxic?
Agricultural economist Dr. Chuck Benbrook spoke about glyphosate’s toxicity at February’s Cancer Listening Post. He explained that glyphosate’s formulation contains polyethoxylated
amine (POEA), a surfactant that allows the pesticide to more effectively penetrate into weeds. When glyphosate comes into contact with human skin, POEA also causes glyphosate to directly penetrate into the human body and subsequently the DNA.
Industry Arguments for the Cancer Gag Act vs The Facts
Chemical company lobbyists are fueling legislators with numerous talking points supporting the pesticide immunity bill and are manipulating farmers with scare tactics. Here are statements you may be hearing accompanied by the facts.
The federal government prohibits putting stronger labels on pesticides so a chemical company can’t be sued for doing something the government says can’t be done.
FALSE. This is what Senator Dickey said during both the January and March legislative forums, so we talked with Max Sano, Senior Policy & Coalitions Associate at Beyond Pesticides, to better understand Sen. Dickey’s comments and how pesticide regulations work.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), chemical companies can re-register a product and update its label if they find additional harmful risks associated with the product. In fact, Bayer is currently undergoing a product re-registration for a new formulation of Roundup.
FIFRA also contains a provision that allows states to require additional, supplemental warning labels to the EPA-approved label if they determine a need, especially to protect specific crops. You also may have seen California Proposition 65 warnings associated with some of your purchases.
Eleven states are trying to eliminate this allowance with a petition filed with the EPA that would characterize any additional state labeling as misbranding—IF the petition were to be adopted.
Glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer; therefore, the federal government can’t require labels to list that.
MISLEADING. In 2015, the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) labeled glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen” based on its review of over 1,000 studies. The following year, the EPA said glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant for human health risk assessment.” So, who’s right?
A study published by Dr. Benbrook in 2019 found the EPA and IARC used different criteria for evaluating glyphosate’s toxicity. The IARC primarily used peer-reviewed studies, and the EPA used registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, i.e., studies conducted by pesticide companies. The EPA itself does not conduct testing.
Also in 2019, University of Iowa-Seattle assistant professor and environmental health scientist Dr. Rachel Shaffer reported that the EPA’s scientific panel that reviewed the EPA’s 2016 draft assessment “raised a number of concerns with EPA’s process and conclusions, including that the agency did not follow its own cancer guidelines and made some inappropriate statistical decisions in the analysis.”
Shaffer is the co-author of a study on the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma that found glyphosate increases the risk of this blood cancer by 41%, one of many studies with similar findings. (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
Although there is significant evidence of the link, the pesticide immunity bill would provide immunity to pesticide companies if the EPA were to ever reverse its assessment of glyphosate’s toxicity.
Further, the EPA only requires warning labels on a product’s active ingredients. Many ingredients in a pesticide’s formulation, such as PFAS, may be equally or more toxic.
Glyphosate won’t be available to farmers if the Cancer Gag Act is passed.
FALSE. This is an industry scare tactic being used to manipulate farmers and to elicit their support. The pesticide immunity bill DOES NOT prohibit the production of glyphosate.
On March 7, Bayer announced it might stop selling Roundup in the US unless it has stronger legal protections against litigation. However, this appears to be another attempt to intimidate farmers into opposing the pesticide immunity bill. Bayer controls 40% of the international market for glyphosate sales and holds an exclusive patent on Roundup-resistant seeds. It’s unlikely, and would be foolhardy, for Bayer to walk away from such a large market.
The EPA permitting process provides for robust testing and leads to safe products.
FALSE. For decades, the agency’s pesticide registration process has been anything but robust. There are documented examples of companies withholding critical information. In one case, Investigate Midwest reported in 2020 that Monsanto and BASF worked together to develop dicamba-resistant seeds and withheld information on the way the pesticide would drift.
“For years, Monsanto struggled to keep dicamba from drifting in its own tests,” wrote the report's authors. “In regulatory tests submitted to the EPA, the company sprayed the product in locations and under weather conditions that did not mirror how farmers would actually spray it. Midway through the approval process, with the EPA paying close attention, the company decided to stop its researchers from conducting tests.”
Instead, Monsanto and BASF blamed the pesticide drift on farmers.
An investigative article published by The Intercept in 2021 found the EPA is failing to adequately protect the public from pesticide harm. It interviewed over two dozen pesticide regulation experts, including 14 who worked for the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs.
The report’s author wrote the EPA, “is often unable to stand up to the intense pressures from powerful agrochemical companies, which spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying each year and employ many former EPA scientists once they leave the agency. The enormous corporate influence has weakened and, in some cases, shut down the meaningful regulation of pesticides in the U.S. and left the country’s residents exposed to levels of dangerous chemicals not tolerated in many other nations.”
The pesticide immunity bill doesn’t stop lawsuits from being filed. Injured parties could still file a lawsuit using other causes of action.
MISLEADING. Yes, lawsuits could be filed with other causes of action. However, the pesticide immuntiy bill would remove the failure to warn cause of action that has been the foundational legal argument successfully used in thousands of previous cancer cases and the leading cause of action in pending cases. It’s an effective argument, and Bayer wants it eliminated.
We Can Work Together to Stop the Cancer Gag Act
The pesticide immunity bill benefits no one but Bayer and harms those that are most vulnerable to pesticide injury: farmers and other pesticides users.
NOW: The pesticide immunity bill is on the verge of being passed in Georgia, where on March 23 Bayer was ordered to pay $2 billion in punitive damages in a glyphosate lawsuit. Please sign this letter urging Georgia Gov. Kemp to VETO the bill. This will help support efforts and generate momentum to stop the bill in Iowa, too.
COMING SOON - In the Iowa House: We are expecting the pesticide immunity bill to be introduced in the Iowa House where we have a much better chance at stopping the bill. JFAN is working with the Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture on another 4 CALLS Call-in Lobby Day that will take place soon targeting key House legislators. Stay tuned for announcements.
In the meantime, we always recommend you talk with your state representative to let them know you oppose this bill.
Bayer is pressing hard, and from many different angles, to remove their liability for pesticide injury. So, we have to work from many different angles, too. Rep. Megan Srinivas said the bill was stopped last year because Iowans spoke out loudly. Let’s again keep those voices speaking out loud and strong to stop the Cancer Gag Act once and for all.
This article has been updated to reflect the most current status of the Cancer Gag Act.