HB 653: Pesticide immunity Version 2.0 — 2024
ICL's position: Oppose
Current Bill Status: Replaced
Issue Areas: Agriculture, Clean Water, Fish and Wildlife, Pesticides
[April 3, 2024 UPDATE: The House and Senate adjourned on April 3, without considering either House Bill 653 or Senate Bill 1432, meaning that the issue is dead for the year.]
[March 19, 2024 UPDATE: A New Version of the Pesticide Immunity Bill was introduced. SB 1432 replaced HB 653, with minor changes.]
House Bill 653 was introduced by Rep. Megan Blanksma (R-Hammett). The bill is an updated version of a Senate Bill 1245 that failed in the Senate on a 19-15 vote. The change from the prior Senate version would provide a “rebuttable presumption” based on “clean and convincing” evidence.
The updated bill would still provide sweeping immunity to pesticide manufacturers, so long as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved their product for use. The bill is being promoted by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical company with large phosphate mines in Southeast Idaho, and is similar to bills being advanced in Iowa, Missouri, and Florida.
In recent years, a number of studies have indicated links between exposure to certain commonly used pesticides and health ailments including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, harms to brain development, and other negative effects.
Many other countries ban the use of certain pesticides that are approved for use in the United States, and the EPA has been criticized for their unwillingness to ban pesticides, even after scientists have provided credible evidence linking pesticides to serious health concerns.
Settlements and guilty verdicts against Bayer alone have exceeded $15+ billion and other individual and class action lawsuits are currently pending against other large multinational pesticide manufacturers. The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages.
The bill would provide immunity to all pesticide manufacturers, including the China National Chemical Corporation (known as ChemChina) which produces Paraquat, a pesticide that has been linked to Parkinson’s Disease. In 2022, the US Department of Defense listed ChemChina as a Military Company with ties to the People’s Liberation Army, and an Executive Order issued by President Trump prohibited any investment in ChemChina by American companies or individuals. Why would the Idaho Legislature now seek to provide a multi-billion dollar gift to this adversary?
Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields. Another Idaho study found elevated cancer occurrence correlated to pesticide exposure. As a result, the potential threats to rural Idahoans and farmworkers appears highest. However, pesticides can also contaminate groundwater, but it’s hard to track because the Idaho State Department of Agriculture stopped issuing their monitoring report back in 2020.
Finally, proving health effects and damages in court is already a high bar, and requires substantial evidence to prove a link between pesticide exposure and human health.
The Idaho Legislature should not be limiting the ability of Idahoans to access the courts and should protect Idaho’s public health by rejecting the Pesticide Manufacturers Immunity Bill.