Meeting Public Comments

Subcommittee meeting and times are as follows:

Attendance at subcommittee meetings by lobbyists and the public is via zoom or in-person. See agenda for zoom details. Only authenticated users are permitted access.

SSB 1051

A bill for an act relating to pesticides, by providing for tort liability.(See SF 394.)

Agenda

Subcommittee members: Bousselot-CH, Bisignano, Shipley

Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025

Time: 1:30 PM - 2:00 PM

Location: Room 217 Conference Room

Comments Submitted:

The purpose of comments is to provide information to members of the subcommittee.

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

02-04-2025

Ava Auen-Ryan [CCI Action Fund]

I am writing to share my opposition to the bill and would ask all members of the subcommittee to vote no on moving SSB 1051 forward.This bill could jeopardize an individuals right to pursue a lawsuit if they are harmed by a product made by giant multinational corporations like Bayer. Whether or not a case has merit should be left up to a judge or a jury of our peers not taken away across the board by our state legislators.Please stand with Iowans who could be negatively impacted by this proposed legislation and vote no.

02-04-2025

Rachel Rovine [CCI]

02-04-2025

Brenda Brink

I am personally affected by cancer and I am appalled that such a bill prohibiting a person from taking due legal action is even being discussed. For people like myself who have leukemia, there needs to be a route to take for our day in court, should we decide that route. Who can say that this is not right? It is our right to exercise. We are a nation of laws that are there to protect us, not to protect the profits of multinational companies who have done wrong. The courts will decide and the courts should decide. To take away our ability to hold companies accountable in court is to take away our rights. The Declaration of Independence cannot be more clear "...created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I challenge anyone to say that they don't know someone suffering with cancer or who has died from cancer in Iowa. Iowa is the epicenter of cancer, the secondhighest in the nation with the highest rate of increase. To have a bill specifically protecting pesticide companies while the people of this state continue down this deadly path without legal recourse is nonsensical and wrong.

02-04-2025

Patricia Slatin

Please oppose SSB 1051. Manufacturers have a moral obligation to ensure the safety of their products. The status of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen has long been recognized, and there is ever increasing evidence of its harmful effects on human health. Citizens of Iowa deserve the right to hold Monsanto/Bayer accountable if they are harmed by its pesticides.

02-04-2025

John Clayton [None]

I request that SSB 1051 not receive support. As a farmer, I use glyphosate and other herbicides on corn, soy crops, Canadian thistles, and wild parsnip on CRP ground. Firstly, this bill would not affect the cost of my use of these chemicals. The claim that this would raise chemical prices or that discontinuing a particular chemical would interfere with my farming misrepresents the situation that agricultural chemical corporations presented. Secondly, if an Iowa citizen believes they have solid evidence to pursue a lawsuit against someone who has wronged them, they should have the right to do so. We should not create exemptions for chemical companies.Big agricultural chemical corporations argue that an EPA label would provide a fair warning. However, this is a broad generalization intended to mislead. Someone should assess a product's safety and the injury in court on a casebycase basis. For example, the Sackler family, who promoted OxyContin, lobbied the FDA repeatedly to have fentanyl labeled as safe when used as directed. However, the harmful effects and deception associated with the Sackler family ultimately led to legal judgments against fentanyl manufacturers, regardless of FDA labeling.In conclusion, SSB 1051 restricts Iowans from utilizing civil and traditional legal avenues to protect themselves from violators. The courts should remain accessible to Iowans on all topics. In conclusion, SSB 1051 prevents Iowans from using civil and traditional law to protect themselves from violators.

02-04-2025

Wanda Wendt [CCI]

I am writing to ask all members of the subcommittee to vote no on moving SSB 1051 forward. To enact this law is harmful to individual Iowans by eliminating their right to seek judgement via a lawsuit against pesticide manufacturers. The facts below support a no vote. The 2023 Cancer in Iowa Report presented data showing that Iowa has the second highest rate of new cancers in the U.S. This legislation protects pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of everyday Iowans. Even though Bayer has set aside nearly $13 billion to settle "Roundup" lawsuits, thecompanys profits since 2009 have totaled more than $33 billion. This bill isnt about helping farmers, its about protecting Bayers profits from a bad business decision. Bayer has already paid out legal claims elsewhere for the harm it has caused. Iowansdeserve to be made whole, too.

02-04-2025

Kathy Graeve

Vote NO on SSB 1051 which will take away Iowan's right to sue pesticide companies if they get sick from using their products. This bill failed in last year's session and should fail in this session as well. As you know, Iowa has the second highest rate of new cancers in the US. Glysophate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, has been classified as a probable carcinogen to humans. Due to pressure from Monsanto/Bayer, the EPA in the US has removed the standards for glysophate causing Iowans who are surrounded by acres of farmland filled with glysophate to suffer the consequences. This legislation will protect pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of Iowans. All of us know a friend, family member, or neighbor in Iowa who has been diagnosed with cancer. Bayer knows this as they have already paid out legal claims elsewhere for the harms they have caused. Iowans deserve this as well.Finally, it is the role of judges, not state legislators, to decide if a lawsuit has merit. This law takes away indivuals' rights to sue for harm. Vote NO on SSB1051

02-04-2025

Erik Cleveland

Hello Subcommittee Members,I am not in favor of this bill. This bill should not become law since it give Bayer immunity from lawsuits by individuals who may have developed health problems from exposure to glyphosates. Glyphosates can be found in our environment and even in foods. Because of this, innocent people who do not handle Roundup can be exposed to glyphosates and be negatively affected. These agriculturechemical companies should never be given immunity against lawsuits since some of these herbicides and insecticides can be harmful chemicals and if people develop health problems from being exposed to these chemicals, the companies should be responsible. Thanks you for considering my input. I pray that you will make the right decision, who that is best for the people of Iowa, not a decision that is best for Bayer.Sincerely,Erik Cleveland

02-04-2025

Kim Callahan

Cancer has come for Iowans hard. The question we should be asking is Why does Iowa have the 2nd highest and fastest rising cancer rate in the United States? Until this critical question is answered with more than "binge drinking", NO ONE should get a pass on liability for harm caused by their products. Big Ag is the next Big Tobacco and they know it. That is why BayerMonsanto is seeking immunity in state legislatures across the country. Iowa needs to lead the way in stopping this dangerous precedent. We can't keep waving from Kinnick Stadium without asking WHY are some of those kids there? How long until health insurance corporations pull out of the Iowa market just like property insurance is bailing on California?Iowa lawmakers have an obligation to 3 million Iowans, not a multinational corporation looking to protect their profits. Please do not advance this bill. Protect the Iowans you represent. Thank you.

02-04-2025

Kristin Nong

Please deny any further movement of the Cancer Gag Act, SSB 1051, formerly SF 2412. This bill strikes at the epicenter of the liability by pesticide companies who knew their wrongdoing:Hardeman v. MonsantoA California man won $80 million in damages after a jury found that Roundup caused his cancer and that Monsanto failed to warn him of the risks. Johnson v. Monsanto Co.A San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto's purchaser, Bayer, to pay $289 million in damages. The award was later reduced to $78 million, and then to $21 million. Pilliod v. Monsanto Co.A jury awarded Alberta Pilliod over $37 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Alva Pilliod was awarded over $18 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. The awards were reduced, and the Pilliods accepted the reductions. McKivison v. MonsantoA jury awarded John McKivison damages after finding that Roundup caused his cancer and that Monsanto was reckless in its disregard for human safety.Please, for Iowan's sake... Don't approve.

02-04-2025

Karen Landolt

Please do not give manufacturers free reign on poisoning us. I live next to farm land as well as a golf course and the pesticides are sprayed often. There are so many negatives about having zero accountability, but our health is so compromised by just safety from lawsuits of chemicals used. My uncle died of farmers lung, he was so young and very much suffered, and allowing these companies to produce these chemicals without accountability is wrong.

02-04-2025

Leslie Davis

I'm requesting that you do not move this bill (SF 2412) forward. This is a David vs Goliath situation. Bayer/Monsanto, a large German corporation, vs Iowans who should be able to be made whole if sickened by Bayer's herbicides. People before profits, protect Iowans.

02-04-2025

Laura Beskow

Please vote NO on SSB 1051. Iowa has the terrible distinction of having the secondhighest and fastestgrowing cancer incidence rate in the country. Glyphosates (such as Roundup) have long been recognized as probable carcinogens, with mounting evidence confirming their risks. Even Bayer acknowledges this: The company was well aware of lawsuits over Roundup when it chose to acquire Monsanto. It has already paid settlements elsewhere for the harm its products have caused and set aside billions more for future claims amounts that pale in comparison to its profits.It is outrageous that the Iowa legislature is even considering shielding this corporation from the consequences of its own business decisions at the expense of everyday Iowans. Stripping residents of their right to be heard and to have a judge decide cases on the merits is fundamentally wrong. Please stand with your constituents, not with corporate lobbyists.

02-04-2025

Thomas Reardon

I am writing to ask you to oppose SSB 1051 and preserve the rights of citizens to obtain an equitable settlement when harmed by the actions of large, multinational corporations. Iowa has the second largest cancer rate in the nation and is the only one with a rising cancer rate. Yes, Iowa is an agricultural state, but that directly benefits mostly large corporations and only relatively few citizens, whereas the costs are shared by all. Removing the right of citizens to obtain relief from the damage caused by a large corporation when they knew of or should have known of the harms their product causes is unconscionable.

02-04-2025

Steve Siegel

Why would we grant immunity to a corporation that produces a very toxic and generous product?Who is this going to protect? It certainly does not protect the average Iowa consumer.I would be embarrassed to support such harmful legislation as SSB 1051.Thank you for reading this.

02-04-2025

Diane Rosenberg

I urge you to vote NO on SSB 1051. The last thing we need in a state that has the second highest cancer rate is a bill that lets chemical companies off the hook if they cause injury. Public health officials report many of the current labels are insufficient the warning labels are either not strong enough or chemical companies may not be forthcoming with all the known risks. Harms may become evident after many years of usage. Only the active ingredients are evaluated for EPA review there can be harmful chemicals in other parts of the formulation, including PFAS. While our agricultural system depends on chemicals at present, chemical companies should responsibly work towards making them as safe as possible. SSB 1051 would give them no incentive to do that. It just gives them a pass.I've heard some elected officials claim lawsuits involving pesticide harm are frivolous. It's no small matter to pursue a lawsuit for pesticide injuries. It would be especially challenging if the person is suffering from cancer, going through chemo, radiation, surgery, and recovering from treatment. You have two state senators currently undergoing treatment for cancer. I'm sure you're aware of what they are experiencing. I ask you to imagine why anyone would file a frivolous lawsuit when dealing with a lifethreatening and energydepleting illness like cancer. And the fact that the courts have ruled against Bayer with significant judgements show they are anything but frivolous.Please put the wellbeing of Iowans first before the corporate profits of Bayer and vote NO on SSB 1051.

02-04-2025

Janet Binder

Please vote NO on SSB 1051. The 2023 Cancer in Iowa Report presented data showing that Iowa has the second highest rate of new cancers in the U.S. This legislation protects pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of everyday Iowans your constituents. Even though Bayer has set aside nearly $13 billion to settle "Roundup" lawsuits, the companys profits since 2009 have totaled more than $33 billion. This bill is not about helping farmers, it is about protecting Bayers profits from a bad business decision. Bayer has already paid out legal claims elsewhere for the harm it has caused. Iowans deserve to be made whole, too. It is the role of judges, not state legislators, to decide whether a lawsuit has merit. Impacted Iowans deserve to be heard and seek redress for harm caused. Impacted Iowans need you to support them over corporate interests. Thank you.

02-04-2025

Esther Arkfeld

I am a farmer and I'm urging you to please oppose this bill. If their product is as safe as it is, they shouldn't need immunity. I testified in opposition to this bill last year and heard their reasoning for this bill from the pesticide representatives. They admit it is due to litigation. Please choose Iowans over profit. Thank you

02-04-2025

muriel strand

As an absentee owner of 75 acres in Webster County I am totally opposed to SSB 1051.Ignoring and suppressing scientific information is harmful and should not be tolerated.It's also unconstitutional as per the First Amendment.

02-04-2025

Jennifer Turner

Please do not advance this bill. It is coming from Bayer lobbyists. I have very conservative Republican relatives who are against this bill and have heard from some very conservative Republican members of the legislature who are against this bill. My husband died of diffuse large B cell lymphoma, the specific one link to glyphosate, at age 43, when our son was 7. While he wasn't a farmer, he used Roundup in the yard, had landscaping jobs in college, and lived here in Iowa where our pesticide saturation matches up with cancer density. Speaking of our cancer problem, my brother, age 49, just a week ago had to have 2/3 of his femur removed because of bone cancer. Let's go the right direction, not the direction of the lobbyist money.

02-04-2025

Professor Paul Schultz

Please vote no SSB 1051 is a disastrous bill that would provide virtual immunity to pesticide manufacturers whose products have caused injury and illness, has passed out of committee and will soon be up for a vote of the full Senate. SSB 1051 provides, in part, that for any pesticide registered with the United States environmental protection agency, the label approved by the United States, environmental protection agency in registering the pesticide, or a label consistent with the most recent human health assessment performed under the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or a label consistent with the United States environmental protection agency classification for the pesticideshall be sufficient to satisfy any requirement for a warning regarding health or safety.

02-04-2025

Michelle Lawlor

1. Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. 2. Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection. 3. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?

02-04-2025

Emily Pritchard

Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide.Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection.Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?

02-04-2025

Stacey Schueneman

Hold these corporations liable for their products! Talk to farmers and families who have dealt with the effects of these toxic chemicals! Keep Iowans safe! Do not let them throw their weight around and definitely do not take any contributions (aka BRIBERY) from them! Put Iowans FIRST!

02-04-2025

Brooke Gunderson

I am opposed to this bill and ask all members of the subcommittee to vote no on moving SSB 1051 forward. My grandfather suffered from cancer and was killed from glyphosate. Iowa citizens should have the right to receive compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused? Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection.

02-04-2025

Jacqueline Brower-Fincel

Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. 2. Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection. 3. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?

02-04-2025

Jacqueline Brower-Fincel

Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. 2. Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection. 3. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?

02-04-2025

Paige Seeser

02-04-2025

Karen Caligiuri

This is an incredibly dangerous bill that prevents vulnerable Iowans from seeking justice against multinational conglomerates like Bayer and Syngenta. As our cancer rates rise, it is baffling and unconscionable for our legislators to prioritize protecting the profits of pesticide companies over protecting the lives of Iowans. Please vote no on this bill.

02-04-2025

Amanda McClanahan

Please vote NO on SSB 1051. This bill is strictly a bill for Bayer, their lobbyists, shareholders, and partners. Bayer has paid out 11 billion dollars in damages from lawsuits involving Round Up/ glyphosate, and has 60,000 new claims. Iowa is the number 1 user of glyphosate in this country, and the second state in new cancer diagnosiss. To give Bayer civil liability is a slap in the face to every single Iowan who has no idea how they ended up with blood cancer, like my brother in law. This bill should immediately be struck down, and any legislator who is for the bill does not deserve to sit in those chairs, while claiming to be for the people. Absolutely NO IMMUNITY FOR BAYER and their TOXIC, CANCER CAUSING glyphosate.

02-04-2025

Bruce J. Hanson

We have lost two farming neighbors to cancer in just the past few years. We also have neighbors who have survived bone cancer and lymphoma, likely related to their exposure to Roundup during the days that we were all walking beans and riding bean bars. Iowa is a hotbed of cancer, likely related to the farm chemicals that we were sold for years.Chemical companies should not get a free pass. Those affected by their exposure to harmful farm chemicals should be able to litigate their cases.

02-04-2025

Kristine Pfab

This bill should not go forward.Do not support limiting product liability for pesticide/herbicide manufacturers.These companies have a responsibility to make their products safe. If these chemicals are safe, these manufacturers should not need immunity. 4 of the people who grew up on our farm have or have had cancer.

02-04-2025

Jeffrey Hedquist [Prairie Song Farms]

Please vote NO on SSB 1051. This bill will remove any Iowan's right to sue pesticide companies if they become ill from using their products or if they are exposed to the toxicity from a nearby farm. Iowa has the second highest rate of new cancers in the US. Glysophate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, has been classified as a probable carcinogen to humans. This legislation is crafted to protect billion dollar pesticide manufacturers at the expense of Iowans. This law would remove individuals' rights to sue for harm. Vote NO on SSB1051

02-04-2025

brenna seeser

02-04-2025

Mary Kirkpatrick

I am vehemently opposed to SSB 1051 and hope that your committee will not support it. You are elected by the voters of Iowa and our interests need to be your top priority. My uncle who was a farmer sprayed his own pesticides on his cropland. He died of lymphoma which is strongly linked to pesticides. Please vote to protect the people of Iowa rather than big corporations that care about profits, not people. Thank you!

02-04-2025

Roger Leahy

There should be no limits to damages caused to persons who are injured by a company's products!Government's roll should be to protect the People, not to protect companies that do them harm!1. Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide.2. Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection.3. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?Roger Leahy

02-04-2025

Jeanna Lichtenberg

Please OPPOSE SSB 1051.1. Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. 2. Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection.3. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?

02-04-2025

Jenn Masters

I am writing to share my opposition to SSB 1051. Manufacturers need to be responsible for the chemicals they use in pesticides that cause sickness and disease. They need to be held accountable, not given freedom from liability.Please oppose this bill.

02-04-2025

Patti Naylor

I am writing to ask you to oppose SSB 1051. As a farmer, I see and smell the pesticides that are sprayed on Iowa fields. We all know that Iowans are suffering from high levels of cancer and other diseases linked to pesticides. That cannot be denied. The pesticide labels are not enough to protect us when research conducted by multinational corporations are used by the EPA to create these labels. Bayer is pushing for this bill to protect its billions of dollars in profits and using social media to convince Iowa's farmers that this bill is necessary. It isn't. It is the role of judges, not state legislators, to decide whether a lawsuit has merit. This law takes away our rights to protect ourselves from the harms of pesticides.

02-04-2025

Judy Jenkins

I strongly urge all to vote no. Pesticide companies MUST be accountable for harm their products cause now and always. I ask you to look at this like it was you or your family member cronically ill or dying from pesticide effects. Please. Thanks for serving the people and whats best for them.

02-04-2025

Karla Damiano

I urge you to reject SSB 1051. It is the duty of manufacturers to ensure their products are safe for consumers. Glyphosate has been recognized for years as a likely carcinogen, and the mounting evidence of its dangers to human health is undeniable. Iowans should have the right to hold Monsanto/Bayer responsible if they suffer harm from its pesticides.

02-04-2025

Violet Ahrenholtz

Please vote against SSB 1051SSB 1051 is a disastrous bill that would provide virtual immunity to pesticide manufacturers whose products have caused injury and illness.Passage of SSB 1051 into law would make it almost impossible for there to be a successful personal injury lawsuit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. A Chemical giant that stands to benefit from SSB 1051 is ChemChina formerly Sygenta, the manufacturer of the herbicide Paraquat; there are thousands with Parkinsons disease involved in litigation over Paraquat being the cause of their illness, with the number of litigants steadily growing.

02-04-2025

Sydney Landstrom

This legislation is extremely unjust as it will enhance injuries caused by multinational chemical companies. As this bill proposes to protect these companies, it seeks to prevent residents from seeking legal action for their injuries caused by the companies products. This bill gives further power to rich corporations and steals from our communities.

02-04-2025

Zachariah Ahrenholtz

Vote against SSB 1051. Iowans deserve better. Farmers deserve to be protected by our agricultural state. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused? It doesn't make common sense to back this bill.

02-04-2025

Michael Farley [retired]

SSB 1051 is legislation conceived, written by Bayer. Since when does the Iowa Senate represent a foreign company??The people of Iowa have let you know loud and clear that they are opposed to this legislation. Listen to the people!If this bill is allowed to become law, what good will it do? The air and water pollution will continue apace; corportate agriculture and factory farms will continue to hollow out rural Iowa, and some Iowans will pay with their lives. Be assured: We will attend the sub committe hearing tomorrow; we will protest between now and any floor debate on this bill. Your words will come back to haunt you and we will remember. Vote no on SSB 1051!

02-04-2025

Jan Corderman [Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Des Moines Branch]

Iowa has the second highest cancer rate in the nation and is the only state where the number of cancer cases is rising. Now called the Cancer Gag Act, Senate Study Bill 1051 (formerly SF 2412) would provide chemical companies immunity from lawsuits filed by individuals injured while using pesticides.BayerMonsanto already lost numerous lawsuits with verdicts in the billions of dollars brought by plaintiffs who used glyphosate and were later diagnosed with cancer. SSB 1051 would stem additional losses for a company that manufactures a pesticide that the World Health Organization deems a probable carcinogenic, despite the EPAs claims to the contrary.

02-04-2025

George Naylor [Center for Food Safety, Family Farm Defenders]

I've farmed our family farm for 48 years and seen the evolution of farming leading to very few farmers and destroyed rural communities. Roundup Ready technology made weed control so easy, it accelerated the loss of family farms and provided the cheap corn and soybeans for CAFOs and giant feedlots that stole livestock production from family farms. The loss of parity price supports as in New Deal farm programs led to this destruction of Iowa's rural culture. Agribusiness ideology supported by politicians and the Farm Bureau paved the way for this disastrous outcome. It's time to stop Monsanto, et.al. in their tracks. It should be clear that the profit motive of multinational corporations is bound to override caution for public safety. It's in their interest to hide potential damages to people's health, the environment, and society. Our only hope of avoiding these deadly costs, is for our elected officials to hold these liars accountable. With their mastery of chemistry and genetic engineering, glyphosate is only the beginning of more to come. Artificial intelligence will be put to the task of building new molecules and altering the building blocks of life with no concern for the public good. Monsanto and glyphosate are only symptoms of an agricultural system that is destroying nature and the quality of life in Iowa. An ISU Weed Guide says, "A weed control program that depends solely on chemicals is bound to fail." Our system of agriculture depends soley on chemicals and it is bound to fail. It is failing and you don't even realize it.We shouldn't have to tell you that passing SSB 1051 is wrong, wrong, wrong.

02-04-2025

Anita Christensen

I oppose SSB 1051. The job of elected representatives is to protect and represent their constituents not private companies. As you know, Iowa has the 2nd highest rate of cancer in the US. Please protect the rights of Iowas citizens and vote NO on SSB 1051.

02-04-2025

Cindy Kruthoff

Please vote no on SSB 1051 regarding tort liability for pesticides.This bill would provide almost iron clad immunity to pesticide companies whose products have already caused damages to people. If a company is scared of liability claims, then produce a safer product. They should not be shielded by government.Again, please vote NO on this bill.Thankyou.

02-04-2025

Richard Betts

Pertaining to SSB 1051:There is absolutely no reason to pass this bill. Farmington chemicals are a primary cause of making Iowans sick and ultimately die. My expectation is you ensure that IA is a safe state to live in for all residents. To have such a bill on the docket shows ignorance of those who wrote the bill. It is as if the chemical companies are providing payment for law makers to pass legislation that provides chemical companies more profit. Stop the insanity! Think about how all agriculture chemicals cause disease and illness. I have seen in my practice how people are affected by these horrible chemicals. Do not pass this. Dont even consider it as it does nothing for human or animal life. It amazes me them legislation is working through the system to get rid of chem trails which dump chemicals into the Iowan skies but this legislation would stop Iowans from suing chemical companies. Seriously? This is insane.

02-04-2025

Anita Christensen

02-04-2025

Kim Pinegar

I fully support this bill. Chemical companies who make BILLIONS in profit from their products should have liability for the safety of their products. No liability gives them zero incentive to make sure their product is actually safe. Much like other giant companies that are poisoning us (ahem, big pharma).

02-04-2025

John Muehlman, PhD [Sustainable Energy Inc]

Iowans deserve to the right to seek compensation in the courts due to negative impacts from dangerous agricultural products. An example is Roundup, which contains glyphosate, a likely carcinogen.1) In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the world's foremost cancer authority with the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as a probable carcinogen to humans.2) Bill SF 2412 was introduced to prevent Iowans from suing pesticide companies if they got sick from using their products. This legislation protects pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of everyday Iowans.3) Bayer has already paid out legal claims elsewhere for the harm it has caused. Iowans deserve the same redress of grievances.4) The EPA judged glyphosate far more critically in the 1980s, when the agency designated it as a possible carcinogen and identified harmful effects to the liver, kidney, and reproductive systems. The agency removed these standards after pressure from Monsanto/Bayer.5) Its the role of judges, not state legislators, to decide whether a lawsuit has merit. A law like SF 2412 would take away Iowans right to sue for harm caused by any poisonous product used in agriculture.Conclusion: Impacted Iowans deserve to be heard and seek redress for harms caused. Vote "no" on bill SF 2412.

02-04-2025

Berleen Wobeter [IFU]

My husband and I live on the farm where he has farmed for the past 50 years. Bayer has been regularly promoting on Facebook that unless this legislation is passed farmers will be hurt and food prices will go up. They avoid mentioning anything about cancer or the fact they are protecting their bottom line knowing full well they bought a company with a product already causing lawsuits. These deceptive ads tell me Bayer is not able to justify their position on this issue without misdirecting. Please do not be fooled. Do not protect a German company and leave our Iowa citizens unprotected.

02-04-2025

Ashley Miles

As an Iowa citizen, I ask the subcommittee to vote NO on SSB 1051. Pesticide manufactures must be held accountable for injuries resulting in consequences of their own products. Citizens are the ones who need their rights protected to hold the corporations accountable for products, rather than corporations having protection against consequences of the products they sell. EPAapproved labels are inadequate protection against pesticides. In general, Iowa citizens no longer want pesticides around negatively affected water supply, soil, and food quality from the youngest to the oldest even those who do not use them. The big issue is this: even those who never purchase or use these products (therefore never see the label or warnings) are STILL affected negatively from pesticides in immense ways. Many more remain unaware of the most recent research and warnings against pesticides & carcinogenic glyphosate, and we must protect their right to hold product manufacturers accountable, just as it should be for any business. If a corporation feels they have too many lawsuits, then in a free and fair competitive market, their own business solution should be to change products or discontinue sales for a clearly harmful product, not to use protectionism. Saying no to SSB 1051 represents the desires of the majority of Iowa citizens.Gratefully,Ashley Miles

02-04-2025

Karen Ahrenholtz

I do not support SSB 1051SSB 1051 is a bill that would provide virtual immunity to pesticide manufacturers whose products have caused injury and illness. Passage of SSB1051 into law would make it almost impossible for there to be a successful personal injury lawsuit against a company that has an EPAregistered pesticide. Another chemical giant that stands to benefit from SSB 1051 is ChemChina formerly Sygenta, the manufacturer of the herbicide Paraquat. There are thousands with Parkinsons disease involved in litigation over Paraquat being the cause of their illness, with the number of litigants steadily growing.Please vote NO to SSB 1051.

02-04-2025

John Muehlman, PhD [Sustainable Energy Inc]

My comments first submitted 15 minutes ago are with regard to SSB 1051, not SF 2412. My comments are submitted correctly below.Iowans deserve to the right to seek compensation through the courts due to negative impacts from dangerous agricultural products. An example is Roundup, which contains glyphosate, a likely carcinogen. Vote "no" on bill SSB 1051.1) In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the world's foremost cancer authority with the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as a probable carcinogen to humans.2) Bill SSB 1051 was introduced to prevent Iowans from suing pesticide companies if they got sick from using their products. This legislation protects pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of everyday Iowans.3) Bayer has already paid out legal claims elsewhere for the harm it has caused. Iowans deserve the same redress of grievances.4) In the 1980s, the EPA judged glyphosate far more critically. At that time, the agency designated it as a possible carcinogen and identified harmful effects to the liver, kidney, and reproductive systems. The agency removed these standards due to pressure from Monsanto/Bayer.5) Its the role of judges, not state legislators, to decide whether a lawsuit has merit. A law like SSB 1051 would take away Iowans right to sue for harm caused by any poisonous product used in agriculture.Conclusion: Impacted Iowans deserve to be heard and seek redress for harms caused by dangerous agricultural products or methods. Vote "no" on bill SSB 1051.

02-04-2025

Andrea Lawrence

02-04-2025

Lori Krei

The citizens of Iowa voted for their representatives to do the BEST to support Iowans. Bill SSB 1051 is absolutely not in the best interest of Iowans. It is in the best interest of chemical companies. Why would our representatives vote positively for such a bill? Please vote NO on this bill. Thank you.

02-05-2025

Gina Folsom

I oppose the bill that would prohibit persons from filing lawsuits against companies whose products have harmed them in any way. The corporations that produce toxic chemicals should in no way be held by our elected officials to be more important than the people they represent!

02-05-2025

Gina Folsom

02-05-2025

Gina Folsom

02-05-2025

Gina Folsom

02-05-2025

Kjersti Christensen

Please vote NO on SSB 1051. We have been Iowa residents for three years now. We have met the most wonderful people, but I have been extremely concerned about the health of my children, my spouse, and myself because we live surrounded by corn and soybean fields that are sprayed regularly with glyphosate. There are many studies that show how harmful it is to the health of everyone and everything involved (ie soil quality), etc. Before we moved to Iowa I had only met one older man with Parkinson's disease in my lifetime. In our town of 100 residents there are THREE elderly men with Parkinson's! All were farmers and all had heavy exposure to glyphosate. We cannot have another repeat of something similar to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, where companies are not held liable for their harmful products.Thank you.

02-05-2025

John Gunderson

I am opposed to this bill and ask all members of the subcommittee to vote no on moving SSB 1051 forward. Iowa citizens should have the right to receive compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused? Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection.

02-05-2025

Richard Long [N/A]

I do not support passage of SSB 1051.Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide.Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?These poisonous chemicals, namely glyphosate, are ubiquitous in our environment and the wide spread, rampant use of them needs to be stopped!

02-05-2025

Anne Tabor

Wow! Unbelievable. The legislature wants the power to decide who can bring forth a lawsuit and who can be sued? Vote NO to SSB 1051. I was born and raised on a farm in Iowa and as so many farm families we have loss family to cancer. Now you want to restrict our ability to try to find answers in front of a judge and jury of our peers? Are you blatantly saying you want to protect companies that rake in millions of dollars in profits every year instead of protecting the citizens of Iowa? Let the judiciary system do their work you do your workpass bills that PROTECT every person living in Iowa.

02-05-2025

Jenny Trail

As an Iowan women working in ag I ask you to NOT support bill SSB1051. It is your duty to protect the Iowan rights and by NOT supporting SSB 1051 you have an opportunity in front of you to do just that. Stand with individual Iowans not foreign companies. Thank you, Jenny Trail

02-05-2025

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson [Modern Ag Alliance]

My name is Elizabeth BurnsThompson, here on behalf of the Modern Ag Alliance, a coalition of more than 90 ag organizations working to safeguard farmers' access to crop protection tools. Many of our Iowa partners youll hear from today, including the Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean Association, Agribusiness Association of Iowa, and the Iowa Seed Association. As a proud native of eastern Iowa and someone thats spent my career working with and for Iowa farmers, I'm honored to have the chance to speak today in support of SSB 1051.Agriculture drives Iowas economy, generating $43 billion a year and supporting 1 in 5 jobs in the state. Farmers rely on crop protection tools to control weeds, maximize yields, and implement important conservation practices. For example, here in Iowa 73% of soybean acres and 60% of corn acres depend on glyphosatebased herbicides, the most commonly used crop protection chemistry in the world. This product alone saves Iowa farmers an estimated $611.7 million annually. Without it, their input costs could more than double, and those increases would be passed down to consumers, driving up food prices at a time when Iowans are still reeling from historic inflation.We all have seen the economic strain in the farm economy. Nationally, net farm income is expected to decline by $11.4 billion in 2025. The loss of glyphosate alone would add another $2.89 billion or more in yearly losses for farmers. Given agriculture's central role in Iowas economy, losing these essential tools would have serious financial consequences for farmers and ripple effects throughout the state.Crop protection chemistries undergo extensive regulatory scrutiny as part of a strict, sciencebased review process that takes an average of 12 years before a pesticide can be approved for use. Once on the market, these products are reevaluated every 15 years to ensure they meet safety standards, while federal agencies continuously review new scientific data and collaborate with global regulators to uphold the highest health and environmental protections. For example, glyphosatebased herbicides have a more than 50year safety track record in the field, backed by more than 1,500 studies and numerous rigorous scientific reviews by regulators in the U.S. and around the world, conducted as recently as 2023. Despite their proven safety record and clear benefits, legislative and regulatory uncertainty around product labeling is putting farmers' continued access to these critical tools at risk. States like California have attempted to regulate in a way that ignores the comprehensive scientific record and the law. Meanwhile, the litigation industry has initiated a relentless and devastating barrage of often meritless lawsuits that allege concerns that no leading regulator anywhere in the world has found.SSB 1051 would ensure any pesticide registered with the EPAand sold under a label consistent with the EPA's own determinationswould satisfy health and safety warning requirements. Importantly, this legislation would provide certainty and consistency in pesticide labeling regulations without removing anyones right to seek legal remedies in a court of law. It simply upholds the United States consistent, sciencebased process and protects the availability of the tools Iowa farmers rely on to safely, affordably, and effectively control invasive weeds. This should not be controversial. States all over the country, from Missouri to Wyoming, Florida, and more, are considering similar legislation, recognizing how critical these safe and innovative products are for Americas food supply. In fact, just two weeks ago, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed nearly identical language that is in front of you today, unanimously on the floor in an overwhelming, bipartisan statement of support for their states farmers. Agriculture is the engine of this great state, and our farmers already face enough challenges keeping their operations competitive today. SSB 1051 helps provide regulatory consistency and certainty, so they can focus on growing the food, fuel, and fiber we all rely on.Thank you for your time and support for Iowas farmers. Id be happy to entertain any questions.

02-05-2025

Jaime Jager

I do not support Saab 1051. Tired of seeing friends, neighbors and loved ones being affected and by these poisonous chemicals that are sprayed non stop in our community. I lost my 10 year old son after a 2 year battle with cancerand have seen many other with soft tissue cancers, Parkinsons disease at a much higher rate than in other regions.

02-05-2025

Amanda Caraballo

As an Iowa resident, I urge the members of this subcommittee to vote NO on SSB 1051 and not allow it out of subcommittee.This legislation protects pesticide manufacturers at the expense of everyday Iowans, especially our farmers.According to the 2023 Cancer in Iowa Report, our state is now the 2nd highest in the country for new cancer rates. Introducing a bill like this right now is irresponsible and not in best interests of Iowans.

02-05-2025

Linda Egenes [Freelance Writer]

My father dies of nonHodgekins lymphoma after using Roundup on his property for decades. He thought it was safehe believed what the manufacturer said. But research shows strong evidence that glyphosate in Roundup causes his type of cancer. Please oppose SSB 1051. Manufacturers have a moral obligation to ensure the safety of their products. The status of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen has long been recognized, and there is ever increasing evidence of its harmful effects on human health. Citizens of Iowa deserve the right to hold Monsanto/Bayer accountable if they are harmed by its pesticides.

02-05-2025

Lisa Lombardo

I urge you to vote NO on SSB 1051. Iowans should have the right to sue for harms caused, and it should be up to judges to determine if their lawsuits have merit. This legislation protects pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of everyday Iowans, including farmers.

02-05-2025

Aloysius Klingelhutz [University of Iowa]

I am writing to express my opposition to SSB 1051. I am a researcher who studies how environmental toxins cause diabetes and cancer. Pesticide exposure is linked to many of the cancers that are on the rise in Iowa. The companies that make these chemicals know this. They are promoting this bill because they want to escape liability. It is no better and, in fact, even worse, than the tobacco manufacturers trying to escape responsibility for their role in promoting cigarette smoking when they knew fully well that tobacco use causes cancer. Different from tobacco use, the pesticides and herbicide exposures are not limited to individual users or those closely associated with them. The pesticides and herbicides spread throughout the environment and all of our communities, including pregnant women and children are susceptible to exposure. The EPA has become a political entity, now more than ever, and we can no longer rely on it to give truthful guidance on the safety of chemicals. You need to oppose this bill. The pesticide and herbicide manufacturers must be held accountable for their actions.

02-05-2025

Courtney Collier

Vote NO on SSB 1051We must not protect corporations from the liability for their products. It matters not that a label says EPA certified or discloses lack of safety. Those regulatory agencies make mistakes and can be bought out. A corporation must be liable for its product otherwise what incentive do they have to make them safe? What other manufacturers do we permit to sell products without liability? Only one vaccine manufacturers. Since 1986 theyve been without liability. Its disastrous. They passed the liability to us the consumer and its resulted in human suffering and death.

02-05-2025

Christina Veen

Hello, please stop SSB 1051 from passage through the Senate. This is a dangerous bill that would allow consumers to be harmed in many ways without any recourse. Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogen, which is an example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection. Thank you for your attention in this important matter. Sincerely, Christina Veen

02-05-2025

Edith Perry

SSB 1051 is a disastrous bill that would provide virtual immunity to pesticide manufacturers whose products have caused injury and illness.Passage of SSB 1051 into law would make it almost impossible for there to be a successful personal injury lawsuit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide.

02-05-2025

Lawrence Ginter [CCI ]

The bills plan to prevent litigation against chemical companies reflects the same callousness and obtuseness that ordered and allowed the use of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese people and the jungle environment. The bills terrible lack of humanitarianism reflects the war crime use of Agent Orange. Nothing more nothing less.

02-05-2025

Dan Valentine

I am writing to share my opposition to the bill and would ask all members of the subcommittee to vote no on moving SSB 1051 forward. The big chemical companies do not need protection from Iowans who have been damaged by the products these companies manufacture. The courts need to decide the merits of damage claims, not the legislature.

02-05-2025

Zindy Coss

Please deny SSB 1051 as it has been proven Glysophate and other chemicals cause cancer. If you approve it, you are in cohort with a criminal corporation along with its evil plan of mass depopulation! NO ONE, including you, are safe if SSB 1051 is approved!

02-05-2025

Barbara MacGregor

Iowa citizens should have the right to get compensation against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by their products. Passage of SSB 1051 would make it almost impossible to have a successful civil suit against a company that had an EPAregistered pesticide. Products containing glyphosate do not have a warning about cancer despite many studies concluding that glyphosate is a carcinogenan example of why reliance on EPAapproved labels provides inadequate protection. Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?

02-05-2025

Carole reichardt [Sargent Farms]

I STRONGLY OPPOSE SSB 1051! The purpose of our legislative actions should be focused on the best interest of Iowans, not what is the in the best interest of the large powerful industrial ag chemical companies! So you understand, I am not anti AG, I own 6 family farms(over 2000 acres) in Iowa that I manage and am a lifelong Iowan. Our state government should focus on protecting the health of our children and all citizens. Agriculture can coexist with our citizens if done safely. Big ag chemical companies should be held accountable for their products and their safety, and litigation issues may make them turn their lobby dollars into research and development for safer healthier alternatives to current chemicals. I lost my 26 year old nephew to non Hopkins lymphoma a few years ago, an Iowa State graduate. I have lost other family members to cancer all at younger and younger ages. Especially now, when Iowa leads the nation in increasing cancer rates and is 2nd overall in cancer our legislators need protect the health and lives of Iowans over protecting chemical company profits.Glyphosate does not have a warning about cancer despite numerous studies concluding it is a carcinogen! There are more studies being released in 2025.There are thousands studies that show Syngenta's herbicide Paraquats connection to Parkinson's disease.Please protect Iowan's!Carole Sargent Reichardt

02-05-2025

Jamie Fowler [26,281.70]

As the daughter of a farmer and a citizen of Iowa, I oppose SSB1051. I urge the subcommittee to vote no. As cancer rates in our state continue to rise, advancing this bill would indicate that the profit made by a multinational corporation is of greater concern than the people you are elected to represent. Please vote NO.

02-05-2025

Carole reichardt [Sargent Farms]

02-05-2025

Deanna McClanahan

Hello Subcommittee Members,I am not in favor of this bill. This bill should not become law since it give Bayer immunity from lawsuits by individuals who may have developed health problems from exposure to glyphosates. Glyphosates can be found in our environment and even in foods. Because of this, innocent people who do not handle Roundup can be exposed to glyphosates and be negatively affected. These agriculturechemical companies should never be given immunity against lawsuits since some of these herbicides and insecticides can be harmful chemicals and if people develop health problems from being exposed to these chemicals, the companies should be responsible. Look it is all about accountability and this company should take full responsibility for their product. Thanks you for considering my input. I pray that you will make the right decision, one that is best for the people of Iowa, not a decision that is best for Bayer. Respectfully, DeeMac, cancer survivor

02-05-2025

Jen Bata

Cancer rates in Iowa are consistently higher than the national average, and continue to rise. Iowans should have every right to compensation. EPA approved labels DO NOT provide adequate protection. Farming families are the backbone of our country and deserve protection from injury caused by toxic pesticides!!Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?

02-05-2025

Oliver Bardwell

I strongly oppose SSB1051, which protects pesticide manufacturers at the expense of Iowa farmers, families, and rural communities. This bill shields corporations from liability, even if their products cause cancer, neurological damage, or environmental harm. By blocking statelevel warnings and lawsuits, it strips Iowans of their right to hold these companies accountable when new evidence reveals serious health risks.Iowa already faces some of the highest pesticide exposure rates in the nationwe should be strengthening protections, not eliminating them. This bill prioritizes corporate interests over public safety and removes a critical legal tool for those harmed by pesticide exposure. I urge you to vote NO on SSB1051 and stand with the people of Iowa, not the pesticide industry.

02-05-2025

Gilbert Gillespie

As a retired academic with expertise in U.S. regulatory processes as shaped by the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 (as amended) and other aspects of Federal laws and legislative processes. I was appalled by the argument made for SSB 1051 by Senate President Amy Sinclair in the January 31st edition of Iowa Press.While I certainly agree with her that people and business entities following "the law" should have protection from lawsuits, this issue is far more complicated than that. In grossly oversimplified terms, in the U.S. system, entities seeking to market substances and certain types of devices (e.g., medical) that have been deemed through legislative processes to require demonstration of safety and efficacy, have to present evidence of safety and efficacy to the regulatory agencies to gain approval to be able to market their "products." This obviously imposes a "regulatory burden" on the applicant, but do we REALLY want anyone to be able to put on the market products and devices that prove to have serious adverse sideeffects even if such a device or product is "effective" and its sale adds the Gross National Product.This situation has various implications: First, entities (companies or individuals) have no incentive to go through the regulatory process for anything that cannot be patented or otherwise protected from the sale of the same product or device by other entities, introducing a strong bias for technologies that are commercially viable (but not necessarily beneficial for the public, its health, or the environment). Second, the entities have strong incentives to carefully select the researchers and the types of research studies to "improve" their prospects for gaining regulatory approval. The results of any research study or other kind of assessment (e.g., literature review) are a product of the assumptions, theory (which includes certain aspects of the "world" and omits others), the sources and types of "data" used, and the time frame considered. In a situation of strong financial incentives for obtaining regulatory approval, this aspect is very important. Considerable evidence exists for entities being able to get the results they need to get regulatory approval. Third, the entities seeking approval "own" the results of the research they either conduct in house or contract out and thus they can chose to omit unfavorable results in their application to the regulatory body. Forth, since many adverse side effects of technologies become apparent only either some number of years after a technology has been adopted or when it has been widely adopted due to cumulative effects. In the complex world in which we live and in which a myriad of new substances are being introduced, sorting out the adverse effects of any one of them (particularly in the case of a chemical) is a real challenge, especially given the limits to reporting of adverse effects. Fifth, "regulatory capture" is another serious issue in our contemporary regulatory system, so many applicants seeking approval of their substances or devices face very sympathetic regulators, especially in political contexts characterized by antiregulatory ideology. Sixth, once a product gains regulatory approval withdrawing that approval is difficult, even with strong evidence of adverse impact.As I have tried to show in my comments in the previous paragraphs, the structure of the regulatory process behind the regulation of agricultural chemicals is such that the producers of such chemicals have a great deal of responsibility for both the approvals and the content of the labels. They also have great financial incentives to exclude or downplay any information that would decrease the probability of gaining approval. As I see SSB 1051, it would protect the very entities that can be shown to have "written the rules" governing their product. SSB 1051 would be another step beyond the usual double bind strategy of "blaming the regulators" for making the regulatory process overly challenging and then, when problems arise from something after is approved, "blaming the regulators" for their failure to identify the problem with something offered by an innocent entity that was just trying to solve a problem.While I think that the kind of protection offered by SSB 1051 would be appropriate for farmers and even commercial applicators, I think that it would be a travesty for the people in Iowa.

02-05-2025

Reuben Delao

The fact I even have to write about this bill is shameful. Oppose SSB 1051. With Iowa having the second highest cancer rates in the country and Governor Reynolds wanting to do research as to why, this bill is a smack in the face to Iowans and farmers alike. As someone who lost their grandmother to cancer, which can be correlated to Talc powder which Johnson and Johnson LIED about its safety; I find it appalling that we are even considering a bill that would prevent Iowan's from being able to have their day in court or justice if we found that pesticides cause more harm than we already know. Glyphosate is a known carcinogen and yet we are going to protect Bayer and other fertilizer companies from being held liable for knowingly selling a product that could kill Iowans? This is despicable! This bill is nothing more than a gag order on Iowan's to protect the bottom dollar of companies like Bayer. Senator Schultz should be ashamed of himself for even introducing this bill and I pray that this subcommittee will put people over profits.

02-05-2025

Jackie Armstrong

Personal responsibility and accountability for our actions are bedrock values. This bill violates those values and leaves Iowa citizens harmed by pesticides without protection. The courts do a fine job of sorting out valid from frivolous claims. This bill is an overly broad attempt to protect the pesticide industry. Vote it down and stand with the rights of your constituents for due process.

02-05-2025

M D

No. (1) Providing liability protection in Iowa will set precedence for other states. (2) Companies must be held accountable for their actions just the same as yourself should you decide to vote yes. (3) Take a close look at the 2019 US Geologic Survey map and note the highest estimated us is all around our Great Lakes.

02-05-2025

Sandra Alper

I oppose SSB 1051, BayerMonsantos Cancer Gag Act. This bill would prevent victims of Bayers known carcinogenic products from seeking legal remedy by suing the company. Bayer has known about the cancer causing effects of their products for years. They have prioritized profit over human welfare. Iowa has the second highest cancer rate in the country as one result.Passing this bill is a little like allowing the fox to guard the hen house or giving guns back to known shooters.The courts, not the legislators, should determine the merits of lawsuits.Please put the wellbeing of your constituents over Bayers profits and do not forward this bill.

02-05-2025

Cheryl Johnson

Along with most families in Iowa, my immediate family has had to deal with a cancer diagnosis. Thanks to early detection and excellent healthcare my family member survived. Many Iowans dont. Those who do survive have had to undergo painful testing and grueling treatment and often face a diminished quality of life. Even considering a bill such as SSB1051 is a dereliction of your duty to serve your constituents and protect their rights. Iowa has the second highest cancer rate in the country and the fastest rate of growth of cancer cases. With statistics like that, why would anyone want to move here? Why would young people want to stay here? What can you be thinking? Do the interests of pesticide manufacturers matter more to you than the health and safety of your own constituents? SS1051 isnt about helping farmers. Its about ensuring Bayers profits continue to soar while Iowans continue to suffer. Vote NO on SSB1051.

02-05-2025

Jeanne Bancroft

Please do not support SF 2412. Do not cut Bayer a break. They have paid out in other states and Iowans deserve the same. Pesticide manufacturers are rich and do not need the Iowa Legislature to protect them. The Iowa people need the protection.

02-05-2025

Diane Duncan-Goldsmith

I am strongly opposed to SSB 1051. This bill provides protection to chemical manufacturers from civil liability associated with the use of pesticides registered with the United States environmental protection agency. It is a fact Iowa has become ground zero for cancer and perhaps heavy use and over use of farm chemicals is a contributing factor. It is also a fact Roundup is the most widely used weedkiller. According to USDA and Iowa State University, Iowa farmers spread nearly 54 million pounds of pesticides annually, an amount higher than many other states. In 2023, the Iowa Cancer Registry reported that Iowa has the second highest cancer rate in the country. Iowa is also the only state where the rate of new cancers increased significantly.In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the world's foremost cancer authority with the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as a probable carcinogen to humans.Science is always changing and new discoveries continue to be made, especially in the field of cancer research. Giving chemical manufacturers a free pass in being able to avoid any liability from taking responsibility as to what negative impacts their chemicals might have on the health of Iowans is simply irresponsible. If passed, this bill will most certainly negatively impact the health of Iowans for years to come.

02-05-2025

Sue Dever

Please vote no. As cancer rates in our state continue to rise, advancing this bill would indicate that the profit made by a multinational corporation is of greater concern than the people you are elected to represent. If chemicals are EPA regulated there should be no reason for this. Please vote NO.

02-05-2025

Tawni Hammans

I am writing to urge the subcommittee to not advance SSB 1051. Companies should be held accountable for the products they produce. If the ingredients used to produce those products are found to be harmful to humans regardless of what is listed on a label, this should not prevent an Iowan the right to pursue litigation. Chemical companies have the ability to develop new products which are less harmful but so far have chosen not to do so. Maybe its time to put them on notice. We look to you, our representatives to put the common good of Iowans first and foremost regardless of pressure from corporations who are profiting from your constituency.

02-05-2025

Sharon Kendall Dunn

As a constituent, it is shocking that Iowa legislators are giving any consideration to SSB 1051. It is critical that farmers and landowners are good stewards of our environment that we all share and to utilize the best conservation practices available that are sustainable both economically and more importantly environmentally. No farmer wants to intentionally cause harm to their neighbors or the public, but despite good intentions, Iowa finds itself in a unique situation that has been in the making for decades putting farmers in an unsustainable and difficult position in how they operate. But SSB 1051 only complicates the problems in Iowa and serves no purpose in protecting public health. Here are some facts to consider:In Iowa, 92% of our land is for agricultural productionIowas ag industry applies a vast amount of pesticides, nearly 54 million pounds EACH YEAR, exceeding any other stateIowa does not diversify its crops; production is designed for corn and soybeans. The majority of our corn grown is not to feed the world, but to feed state mandated ethanol production. Iowa taxpayers subsidize the ag industry. Iowa grows subsidized corn and soybean crops to the tune of $39.6 billion from 19952021, only behind Texas at $44.5 billion. Nearly a fourth of Iowa legislators are farmers and personally benefit or their relatives benefit from farm subsidies. Its a conflict of interest for all these legislators Costello, Driscoll, Edler, Green, Rosenboom, Shipley, Sweeney, Zumbach, Grassley, Collins, Deyoe, Harris, Hora, Kaufmann, and Wulf to promote misguided legislation such as SSB 1051 for chemical companies to continue to profit at the high cost to public health. If the products are so safe, why the need for legislative overreach to protect them? I know its an extreme notion, but how about trying to put people before profits for once?Current studies detect various ag chemicals in our Iowa streams and rivers impairing the majority of our water. Naturally, this raises concerns about potential health impacts such as cancer, developmental disorders and other preventable illnesses. For the last three years, Iowa has the 2nd highest incidence rate of cancer of ALL U.S. states. Its very politically convenient to blame cancer patients for their lifestyle choices in getting cancer in the first place. Everyone knows lifestyle choices matter such as abstaining from alcohol and smoking, losing weight and being active. But its highly misleading to put so much focus on our high cancer rates to this while ignoring the obvious and most likely environmental factors that are known to cause cancer. The role of State government at the very least, is to not cause harm to the public and to implement policies and laws that are in the best interest of the public. SSB 1051 does neither of those things, rather, it removes Iowans guaranteed right to a trial by jury as stated in the 14th Amendment. Theres a lot of talk in Iowa about conservation efforts but the reality is the current management practices in place do very little to promote a healthy landscape, improve air, water and soil quality. Its an unregulated playground for chemical companies to profit from by selling vast amounts of chemicals to corporate farms and then further profiting by selling the pharmaceuticals to the public that have had their health harmed by these chemicals. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest and conflict of values. Instead of subsidizing the polluters, how about subsidizing healthy policies for Iowans?Iowa legislators should dump SSB 1051 in the trash where it belongs. Instead, you all should be working to finally fund the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund that the public voted for in 2010. Legislators should pass a land use tax, so landowners have accountability. Legislators should listen to Iowans concerns and not line their pockets with money from groups outside of Iowa who only care about their bottom line.

02-05-2025

Edith Jacobsen

02-05-2025

Christen Sherwood

To the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee,Concerning SSB 1051I want to state my opposition to this bill.Costs for injuries or illness caused by pesticide exposure can last a lifetime, potentially bankrupting affected individuals; why should companies like Bayer and ChemChina with deep pockets (each has over $100 billion in assets) not have to pay compensation for injuries their products have caused?Please do not pass this bill. Protect your citizens and not BIG Business!Do the right thing!Thank youChristen Sherwood

02-05-2025

Travis Crew

By removing liability from manufactures of any products. We are removing any personal protections we may be granted by product liabilty. This opens the door, to physical and biological harm without repercussion. By removing liability we are not protecting Iowans, nor the ground we live on, nor the water we drink. Agriculture is not more important than clean water nor clean air. All manufactures should be held liable for all products manufactured.

02-05-2025

Diana Krystofiak [Retired]

I live next to a farmers field. As you know Iowa has the 2nd highest cancer rates in the U.S and it is rising. We need independent research and we need to be able to hold those responsibility accountable. Iowans should not be physically and financially responsible.

02-05-2025

Sallie Morgan

A bill, SF2412, introduced this past legislative session, protects pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of everyday Iowans.The 2023 Cancer In Iowa Report presented data showing that Iowa has the second highest rate of new cancers in the U.S.A law like SF2412 would take away individuals' right to sue for harm caused across the board. Impacted Iowans deserve to be heard, and seek redress for harms caused.

02-05-2025

Pat Bowen [Iowa CCI 100grannies Food and Water Watch and Sierra Club]

I oppose this legislation. The Cancer in Iowa Report in 2023 presented data showing that Iowa has the second highest rate of new cancers in the U.S. it is your job and obligation to protect the people of the state of Iowa not Bayer or any other company that is infringing on our health and attempting to avoid legal action due to the role they play in causing harm. As legislators you should be creating laws that would help Iowans avoid cancer, not protecting companies that do harm . This legislation protects pesticide manufacturers that are worth billions of dollars at the expense of everyday Iowans.Its the role of judges, not state legislators, to decide whether a lawsuit has merit. A law like SF 2412 would take away individuals right to sue for harm caused across the board.Impacted Iowans deserve to be heard, and seek redress for harms caused.

02-05-2025

Patricia Boddy

Opposed. One of the few ways we have to hold corporations accountable for insufficient product research and/or care is through litigation. This disempowers citizens to secure improved health outcomes and allows corporations to ignore public health concerns and value profits only. This is shifting responsibility in the wrong direction. Please dont pass this out of committee.

02-05-2025

Collin Kueter

Vote NO! In her Condition of the State Address, Governor Reynolds quoted statistic of Iowa being in the top states for new Cancers. Agrichemicals have known carcinogens, how does this bill do anything but make Iowa, and Governor Reynolds, a hypocrite. Protecting big businesses at the expense of our citizens.

02-05-2025

Betsy Fickel

A NO vote on this bill giving special protections to chemical companies. Those chemicals are in the ground and then seep into the plants. Thereby, all the potential to spur illnesses in the general public by a slow build up in the body. In accordance with the Iowa Constitution, there are to be NO special protection (immunity) privileges to any person or class of persons. It is written in very plain, easy to understand language. Art. 1, Sec. 6. It should be up to the courts to decide if a lawsuit has merit. That's what our governing system is designed to do.

02-05-2025

Karla Selby [Health for Iowans, for ALL]

Vote NO on Bill SSB 1051 (formerly SF 2412. Bayer/Monsanto Glyphosate kills insects, earthworms, pollinators and people. Glyphosate poisons Mother Earth and her waterways. On behalf of all people, all sentient beings, we deserve to have voice and say about what happens to one another. Conglomerates are not people and care not about the harm they cause. Government, do your job for the people and for the planet. Vote NO on Bill SSB 1051.

02-05-2025

Steven Paulsrud

Vote NO on this bill. Iowans and any person who lives in the US deserves compensation/protection from chemicals that may harm them. I believe the high cancer rate in Iowa is related in pasrt to chemical exposure. Let's stop this!

02-05-2025

Jenny Conner

I am opposed to passing SSB 1051 bill, the Cancer Gag Act (the name speaks volumes to the issue). My family and I live adjacent to big ag crop land. Not a day goes by that I dont consider moving of worry and concern for my family. Its obvious to anyone paying attention that pesticides are the elephant in the room in Iowa. We elect people to oversee health and well being of PEOPLE not corporations. I urge you to reject this harmful bill.

02-05-2025

Lori Southard Howe

Perhaps one of the worst bills to ever consider. This does nothing to protect Iowans only rves as cover for large companies. At a time we are investing 1 M in research to understand what is driving Iowas rising cancer rate, this make absolutely no common sense.

02-05-2025

Christina Boeck Crew

This bill would overstep checks and balances, and it is unconstitutional at both the state and federal level. Article one, section 9 of the Iowa Bill of Rights states that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.(I was waiting on Zoom to speak, but was kicked and then now unable to join because I was removed by the host.)

02-05-2025

Victoria Graves

This is absurd!!! Not only is Iowa number 2 in the nation for fastest & highest cases of cancer, now we wont be able to sue the manufacturer!? Make it make sense. Our nation (including children) are the sickest and unhealthiest we have ever been. The more we move away from nature, the more sick we become. We shouldnt even be spraying pesticides in the first place. Glyphosate is acting like an antibiotic is the gut and causing so many issues. My mom passed away from Cancer and it is now more than ever expensive, exhausting and overwhelming just trying to stay healthy. Add this on top of all the things just adds more stress. This is disgusting and it is time we start putting HEALTH over profits. These manufactures deserve to go out of business if they cant make something safe.

02-06-2025

Kim Watson

Dear Legislators,We are opposed to this bill. We do not believe that pesticide makers should have any exemption from liability if they are harming people or animals with their products. We have health concerns now about our exposure to glyphosate and DDT in the past, and have discussed with health professionals. We therefore do not want further protection from manufacturers to produce products without regard for health because traditionally when protected, they just expand more and more and benefit with even greater profits. There was recently a front page article in the Ringold Co Paper(next to us) that it is a hotshot for cancer. Pesticides was listed as a potential reason for this large number of cancer cases. We are fully on board with the Make America Healthy Again premise and this seems the opposite of it. We are shocked that it is even before you here in Iowa.Thank you,Kim and Kimberly Watson408 Illinois Bedford IA

02-07-2025

Jennifer Sinkler

This bill prioritizes profits of huge corporations and sacrifices the health of the people living in Iowa and far beyond. Passing this bill would be against the best interests of human life. Do not sacrifice Iowans lives by removing possibilities to seek legal recourse when people get sick!

02-07-2025

Amy Wilder

All Iowans, and people everywhere for that matter, value the ability to eat safe food and drink clean water.If pesticide usage causes harm such as cancer, there absolutely should be a path for recompense. This state already has the second highest rate of cancer in the nation. We need to value the lives of those negatively affected by exposure to pesticides over the profits of corporations. That is a moral imperative.Please rewrite this bill to allow for true protection to those affected by cancer caused by pesticide exposure. Otherwise this bill, if it becomes law, will harm Iowans and allow corporations to stay enriched at the expense of those harmed.

02-07-2025

Deb C [Common Sense]

America Needs Farmers and Iowa Needs Our Rights We Maintain. Curious that this is happening after news shows that it is pretty clear that Iowa has higher cancer rates than essentially all other states (second in the nation!) and the rates are GROWING. Legislators who are for this bill should be ashamed of themselves.

02-13-2025

Mary Buchanan

I do not support giving pesticide companies immunity from lawsuits related to the health hazards of their products! What incentive would they have to protect human and environmental health when they only focus on profit.