MUST READ by Dr. Nass on the Dangerous Pesticide Bill ya gotta read this but please do not grind your teeth to powder!

Knowledge is power: realize this is going on,

Dr. Meryl Nass has been into vaccines and what is going on with drugs and chemicals as long as I have in hormones.

She is a voice to listen to.

She writes:

This is what is really going on:

Bayer bought Monsanto (glyphosate being its #1 product) in 2018.

Both Bayer and Monsanto were infamous for being especially crooked companies.

Bayer even owned its own concentration camp during World War 2, and admits to working 25,000 people to death there.

You may recall how Monsanto spied, collected samples, and tried to bankrupt many farmers whose neighbors’ RoundUp Ready crops blew into their fields and mixed with their traditional crops, because they had not purchased a license and seed from Monsanto! The Percy Schmeiser case is a prime example of Monsanto’s tactics.

Glyphosate was patented over 40 years ago. It came to be the most widely used herbicide used in the world. Though now there is considerable weed resistance to it. For which the company encourages farmers to use more.

But when Bayer bought Monsanto, it also bought Monsanto’s liabilities, chiefly due to the proof that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a deadly cancer, which was not known when EPA approved the product and its label. The warning was never added to the label after it became known.

My neighbors still spray with Round Up which is glyphosate, as they do not want weeds. But who wants cancer?

A number of court cases have been won against Monsanto/Bayer for “failure to warn” of this known, serious side effect on the label.

Below is a Reuters article from April that explains that Bayer’s CEO Bill Anderson considered this litigation the biggest threat to the company, whose stock price has taken a 70% dive due to major losses from this litigation.

He planned to do everything possible to stop hermorrhaging money from court cases in the US, of which many thousands are still pending. He asked shareholders to let him put aside $9 billion dollars to deal with this problem.

And CEO Anderson built a six-pronged strategy (6 separate methods to rid themselves of liability) by hook or by crook. His boldest move is to attempt to get legislation enacted by Congress that would prevent warnings from being added to labels for ALL pesticides, and disallow lawsuits for failure to warn. He also brought similar bills into state courts, and Georgia and North Dakota have already enacted them! This man is extremely serious.

Naturally, success at the federal level requires a number of stealth moves and convoluted legal language. But he has 9 billion dollars to play with.

The first step in getting Bayer’s “get out of jail free” card for all pesticides is to get the language included in an appropriations bill, then in another bill (probably the Farm Bill that is expected to be taken up in September), have them pass (with the pesticide label language remaining) in the House, and then pass the Senate. Then have the President sign it.

The Interior subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee included Bayer’s language in its so-called mark-up of the bill yesterday. There was no horse-trading; the bill was left as is and passed on a strict party-line vote—so far.

However, the next step for Bayer is to get the bill passed, without being amended to remove the Bayer rider (giftcard) by the full Appropriations Committee. The committee’s website does not include the date of their meeting, but it is expected to occur before the House leaves for vacation on July 25, when they will recess until September 2.

Stand For Health Freedom has informed us that at this committee meeting, occurring during the next 9 days, amendments will be offered and so there will be a vote specifically on the Bayer giftcard as long as a member of the full committee offers an amendment to get rid of it.

Here are the 63 members of the committee.

We need a member to offer an amendment to remove the Bayer rider, and we need some Republicans to vote against it along with the Democrats.

While there are some false claims (including from Congressional offices) that this bill is no big deal, that is fake news. This is at least as big a deal as the bill that removed liability from vaccines, and worth many billions to the industry. In fact, it is ONLY the industry that will benefit from such a bill, which is designed to withhold knowledge of side effects of pesticides from the public and the EPA. Well, lobbyists and maybe some lawmakers will benefit, bigtime. Certainly not the public.

Make no mistake, this is an attempt to pave the way for shoddy, dangerous products to roll out, often using faked science to justify a license, and once licensed, nothing could stop them.

They could be made as sloppily and dangerously as possible, but there will be no recourse for the injured parties, nor for the EPA to do anythng about it.

Here is what Attorney Daniel Hinkle, from the American Association for Justice, had to say about this:

I had someone ask how this bill creates total immunity and it was a great question. It forced me to really grapple with the way the bill works and revealed an additional point that may be worth making.

First, the legislation prohibits EPA from taking any action that is "inconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion of (a) a human health assessment performed (under FIFRA); or (b) a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide."

This means that the EPA could not update a label to reflect the latest science. EPA could not add a cancer warning to glyphosate-based herbicides, nor a birth defect warning to neonicotinoids, nor a Parkinson's warning to Paraquat, and so forth.

Note, this prohibits the EPA from updating a label to reflect the latest science EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY ASKS THEM TO. EPA couldn't update labels on their own either. Further, by stopping the EPA from taking "any regulatory action" it takes away the EPA's ability to go after a company who commits fraud in procuring a label—the EPA would be forced to complete an entirely new Human Health Risk Assessment if they wanted to update it which could take years or decades, and be subject to litigation by the company.

It shifts the blame for misbranded pesticides from the product manufacturer, to the EPA. And no, you cannot sue the EPA for harm caused by a regulated product.

Second, this amounts to total preemption of state claims related to the pesticide label, at least as it relates to human health impacts.

Right now, companies must provide accurate labels, or a pesticide is "misbranded" under federal law. State laws consistent with misbranding--such as product liability claims--are enforceable. But, companies cannot unilaterally add health risk warnings to their label. To resolve this surface level conflict, the Court has held that the company can always ask the EPA to update the label to reflect the risks. If they don't, then individuals harmed from misbranded pesticides should be able to hold them accountable for hiding that critical information.

Bayer has never asked the EPA to add a cancer warning to Roundup, nor has ChemChina asked for a Parkinson's warning for Paraquat, and so forth.

If EPA cannot approve an updated label, then state laws consistent with misbranding cannot be enforced--the surface conflict becomes an actual conflict with federal law, which makes them preempted under the Constitution's supremacy clause. Bayer would, instantly, say that because EPA cannot approve of an updated product label that reflected the current science, they therefore are immune under state law from failure to warn claims. The label—and EPA approval—becomes a shield against any other claim.

The way that this prohibits a label change - regardless of the implications on lawsuits - is a big deal though. We all agree that the best possible outcome here is that no one is harmed by pesticides.

Taking away an right from individuals who have suffered catastrophic harm to hold companies accountable by crippling the EPA from updating warnings on pesticides as the science emerges is an unbelievably cruel and dangerous approach to chemical safety.

New point:

It locks in outdated science — even when new dangers are discovered.
This bill would prohibit the EPA from updating pesticide labels or take "any regulatory action" to reflect new health risks — even if the science is clear and the company asks for the change. No cancer warnings. No birth defect disclosures. No updates for Parkinson’s. Even when the science is clear, the label would stay frozen unless EPA restarts a full review, which can take years or decades.

That means dangerous products could stay on the market with misleading labels — even if the company lied about the risks and covered up critical safety data. No one could be held accountable. It’s not just immunity from lawsuits. It’s immunity from the truth.

You saw what a liability shield did for Pfizer, Moderna, J and J and Novavax.

They were able to roll out so-called vaccines with particles of metal in them, with simian virus 40 code that increased the risk of cancer and mutations, and that were not disclosed or served any medical purpose.

The risk of their products was much greater than the benefit.

But they did not care!

No one could sue any of them for deaths or damages. So why not keep making money? There are no ethics when $BILLIONS are at stake.

If you don’t want this outcome for pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides now and in future, consider a call to your representatives and tell them to vote NO on “every” bill that includes a “Bayer liability shield” or “labeling shield”.

If possible, ask them to submit an amendment to get rid of the Bayer rider. The full Appropriations committee of 63 members will probably meet this Friday or next week to vote on their bill. Please help get that bill amended at their meeting.

---

Subscribe to Meryl’s CHAOS letter (Critical Health Analysis and OpinionS)