Iowa’s proposed state bill HSB 737 centers on protecting pesticide companies from lawsuits if their product labels follow U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines. While the bill does not specifically name glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—it brings attention to a broader debate about pesticide safety and potential health risks.
Key points to understand:
- What it does: HSB 737 shields manufacturers, like Bayer (Roundup's producer), from legal claims provided their product labels comply with federal EPA guidelines.
- The broader impact: Supporters say the bill provides clarity and consistency for businesses. Critics argue it limits accountability and undermines individuals’ ability to seek justice.
What is HSB 737?
HSB 737 is a proposed Iowa state bill designed to protect pesticide manufacturers from legal liability if their product labels meet one or more of the following criteria.
- Approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
- Consistent with the latest human health assessment under federal pesticide law.
- Aligned with the EPA’s classification of the pesticide’s carcinogenicity.
In short, the bill proposes providing legal protection for manufacturers if their product labels align with EPA guidelines, even as independent research like the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) raises concerns.
The safety debate: EPA vs. independent research
At the heart of the issue is a divide between federal regulatory standards and independent global research—a conflict that raises broader concerns about how safety is defined and evaluated.
The EPA’s stance: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic” based on its 2017 Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential. The EPA’s conclusion is primarily drawn from studies submitted by pesticide manufacturers during the registration process under federal pesticide law (FIFRA).
These studies assess glyphosate’s carcinogenic risk through:
- Long-term animal studies
- Epidemiological research (studies of human populations)
- Mechanistic data (how glyphosate behaves in the body)
In The Glyphosate Issue Paper, the EPA determined that “the available data at this time do not support a carcinogenic process for glyphosate,” a stance that underpins its labeling regulations and is frequently cited as evidence of glyphosate’s safety.
The IARC’s conclusion: In contrast, the IARC classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in Volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.
The IARC’s evaluation draws from:- Independent, global studies
- Links between occupational exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
- Limited human evidence and sufficient animal evidence
Legal challenges and public skepticism: Adding complexity, U.S. courts have repeatedly awarded significant damages to plaintiffs who allege glyphosate exposure caused their cancer. These rulings challenge the EPA’s conclusions and amplify public distrust amid conflicting findings.
This ongoing divide raises critical questions:
- Who defines safety—federal regulatory agencies or independent global researchers?
- How is evidence weighed—are manufacturer-funded studies given more weight than independent findings?
- Do current regulatory frameworks adequately address public health risks, or do they prioritize corporate compliance?
By highlighting these discrepancies, the debate over glyphosate becomes a larger conversation about trust, accountability and the role of regulatory agencies in safeguarding public health.
Why supporters and critics disagree
Supporters of HSB 737 argue:
- Regulatory compliance: It protects businesses that follow EPA-approved guidelines from varying legal standards across states.
- Clarity for manufacturers: It ensures companies have a clear framework to operate within, relying on federal standards to avoid conflicting regulations.
Critics contend:
- Lack of accountability: The bill restricts individuals’ ability to file claims if they believe pesticides caused harm.
- Potential bias in research: The regulatory process prioritizes industry-funded studies over independent research, raising concerns about potential bias in safety conclusions.
- Independent evaluations downplayed: In a 2016 letter, U.S. Senator Cory Booker criticized the EPA for relying on manufacturer studies required under FIFRA while dismissing independent evaluations.
- IARC perspective: The IARC highlights this discrepancy, emphasizing its reliance on independent, publicly available research as opposed to the EPA’s industry-funded data.
- The exclusion clause: The bill notably excludes products made by state-owned enterprises of the People’s Republic of China from certain liability protections. Specifically, it denies protections for Chinese state-owned pesticide manufacturers while shielding domestic producers. Critics argue this raises questions about selective protections. It overlooks risks posed by foreign products like paraquat—a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.
Why this matters beyond Iowa
Although HSB 737 is specific to Iowa, its implications could extend nationwide:
- A legislative precedent: Critics warn that if Iowa passes HSB 737, it could inspire similar laws in other states, further limiting individuals’ ability to seek legal recourse. Sen. Bill Dotzler emphasized Iowa’s role, stating: “Lawsuits from Iowa make up 1% of the Roundup exposure cases against Bayer... Do you think, for one minute, that [Bayer] is going to quit making this because Iowa doesn’t pass it?”
- A state, not federal issue: While the EPA’s federal position on glyphosate is central to the debate, HSB 737 operates within Iowa’s legal system and would only affect lawsuits filed within the state. However, the bill’s passage could set a precedent for similar legislation in other states, creating a ripple effect beyond Iowa.
The growing debate: Industry protection, public health and legal rights
HSB 737 brings to light a larger societal conflict: balancing corporate protections with public health accountability. While supporters emphasize shielding industries critical to Iowa’s economy, critics warn the bill undermines individual rights and public safety.
Supporters’ perspective
Proponents argue the bill protects businesses from costly, unfair lawsuits:
- Senate President Amy Sinclair defended the legislation, stating: “Iowa feeds the world... We need partners, who aren’t constantly under threat of lawsuits for following the very laws governing the way they do business.”
-
Supporters argue that avoiding unfair lawsuits stabilizes agriculture and prevents disruptions caused by inconsistent legal outcomes.
Critics’ concerns
Opponents argue the bill sacrifices public health and individual justice:
- Public health impacts: Critics, including Sen. Pam Jochum, point to risks associated with pesticide exposure, such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease: “This bill is stripping away legal protections for Iowa farmers... getting diseases like cancer and Parkinson’s from chemicals we know [are] causing it.”
- Corporate influence: Public health advocates highlight the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and emphasize concerns about independent research being overlooked.
- Broader corporate critique: Environmental advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticized the bill, stating: “This is the apogee for corporate socialism. It’s a license for chemical companies to poison Americans with NO liability.”
Conclusion: Balancing trust, policy and accountability
HSB 737 highlights the complexities of balancing public trust, scientific findings and regulatory decisions. Conflicting conclusions from the EPA and independent research fuel uncertainty, raising questions about accountability and transparency regarding safety.
In addition to Iowa, similar bills have emerged in states like Missouri, Idaho and Florida. At the same time, CropLife America, the pesticide industry’s trade association, is advocating for a federal law to block states from enacting their own pesticide restrictions. This highlights the broader, nationwide implications of the ongoing debate.
