Right now, in fact, on and since New Year's Day, our elected officials have been and are scheming to give chemical companies complete immunity from lawsuits.

Do you want chemical companies, including pesticide companies, to have the same, if not even worse, immunity than vaccine companies?
Do you think that chemical companies should get away with not being held accountable for the safety of their products?

Do you think our elected officials would be working for US if they disallowed your father or mother from suing a chemical company for compensation after getting cancer from using Roundup or any herbicide?

If you answer NO to any of these questions, then we need you to say YES to sending a quick letter to your Senator TODAY.

We hope you see how critical it is to tell your Senator that no matter what the chemical company lobbyists are saying about adding law changes for pesticide regulation into the Senate Appropriations Bill, they are LYING if they imply that it does not prevent successful lawsuits against chemical companies. Their language for law changes DOES create de facto immunity from lawsuits for chemical companies, and here's how:

1. Bayer's lobbyists have preferred language that prevents the EPA from updating its labels for cancer warnings unless it has conducted a full human health assessment, which takes 15 years. The last such assessment for glyphosate was conducted in 1993, 32 years ago. This means that 32 years of SCIENCE will be disregarded, and no updates to the label of glyphosate, for instance, will be allowed, even though a recent study shows it causes over 10 types of cancer.
   
   
2. Because the label will not be updated to warn users that it is carcinogenic, when a plaintiff files a lawsuit for failure to warn, the defendant (Bayer) can say, "We could not warn you because the EPA's label is the law and they won't let us warn you!" Therefore, the case will not go forward, the plaintiff cannot win.

Even though your Senator’s staff may say that this language does not prevent citizens from filing lawsuits against agrochemical companies, and technically they are correct - anyone in America can file paperwork for a lawsuit- they are, however, incorrect in implying that section 453 will still allow citizens to win lawsuits against Bayer or others. Preventing lawsuits from being won is exactly what it does, and that is exactly why Bayer/Monsanto and ChemChina/Syngenta are pushing so hard to manipulate our laws. Chemical companies want to prevent further lawsuits against their companies for cancer and Parkinson's disease from glyphosate, paraquat, and other agrochemicals.

Remind your Senators that Monsanto/Bayer perpetrated fraud on the American people, as exposed in the Monsanto Papers, time and time again, lying about the safety of their product buy conducting junk science, colluding with EPA members to hide detrimental scientific studies, attacking and character assassinating activists, and manipulating public perception with misleading advertising.

Please educate your Senators on how important it is to vote no on any spending bill that preempts states' rights to protect citizens TODAY and prevent a massive injustice to the American people.

Which Senators are most likely to be influenced to support Big Chem companies?

Top recipients (House) — Ag & Food–related PAC money (2024 cycle, “so far this cycle” in octubre 2024)

Republicans (House)

• Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA) — $158,106
• Rep. Mike Johnson (LA) ( amounts not available)
• Rep. Tom Emmer (MN)
• Rep. Adrian Smith (NE)
• Rep. Michelle Fischbach (MN)

Democrats (House) — named as top recipients (all on House Ag Committee)

• Rep. Jim Costa (CA)
• Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA)
• Rep. Angie Craig (MN)
• Rep. David Scott (GA)

Top recipients (Senate) — ag & food–related PAC money 

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN) — $101,000 (led all Senate candidates in that dataset/timeframe) ws
• Sen. Jon Tester (MT) — $50,500 (ranked 3rd in Senate contributions in that report)
• Sen. Tammy Baldwin (WI) — $42,500

Want to remind them that they work for YOU?