There’s an uproar over President Trump’s recent executive order impacting a widely-used weedkiller linked to cancer. It could give immunity to makers of Roundup and dozens of other products. The debate crosses party lines with some farmers siding with the industry. But health advocate Leah Wilson says giving the pesticide industry immunity would be hazardous to our health.

The following is a transcript of a report from “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson.”
Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

Leah Wilson: What if I told you that there’s a coordinated effort to stop food reform in the U.S. and that effort is being carried out by the big chemical industry to make sure that they don’t lose their market share of the food market?

Leah Wilson heads the nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom. She says the pesticide industry is pressing hard for exemption from liability lawsuits modeled after protections the vaccine industry convinced Congress to pass 40 years ago.

Wilson: They heard a story from the industry that, ‘Look, if you don’t protect us from these really expensive lawsuits, the products are going to be sued out of existence. And that would leave America’s children ripe for disease. It would create a national security threat. So we need you Congress and you President Reagan at the time to pass a bill that says you cannot sue vaccine makers.’

The controversial National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 exempts vaccine makers from injuries, such as brain damage blamed on the childhood DPT vaccine for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus.

Wilson: What we saw after 1986 when that law was put into place to protect the vaccine industry was like I mentioned, a seismic shift in power. And what that looked like was the childhood schedule, which was what was protected, became this golden opportunity for the industry: If you can get a product on the childhood schedule, then not only can you know that you’re not gonna have the budget item to continue to make the product safer to defend lawsuits, but you also have a mandate for school children across the U.S. and that meant every year doses were being added to the schedule.

She says that resulted in an explosion in vaccines and related alleged injuries that industry now cannot be held responsible for. Today, pesticide interests are lobbying for similar laws actions that they claim are needed to protect America’s food production.

They argue that lawsuits alleging health dangers, like cancer from glyphosate in Roundup threaten food production because large-scale, efficient farming requires weed and pest control chemicals.

In February, President Trump issued an executive order under the Defense Production Act to boost production of the chemical to protect America’s food supply. It gives some immunity. Experts say it’s not a blanket shield, only for acts related to complying with the order. Its impact is uncertain.

The EPA has long insisted glyphosate is safe when use as directed and that Roundup doesn’t need cancer warnings. Yet the company recently proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement for current and future cancer claims and has already paid out over $11 billion.

New concerns for are spurred by the recent retraction of a pivotal 2000 study. It was long cited as proof that Roundup is safe. But it’s now been pulled for flaws and ethical lapses, including that Monsanto sponsored and ghostwrote wrote the study, selectively used data, then held out the results as independent.

The Modern Ag Alliance, founded by Roundup’s maker, is pressing for state and federal laws that say EPA warnings on pesticide labels are enough to avoid lawsuits.

Wilson: They’re running TV ads, they’re running commercials in these states that have the bills.

Modern Ag Alliance video: Glyphosate has probably been one of the greatest thing that has happened to the American farmer and around the world. Glyphosate is a tool that has allowed us to produce, more with less. Its actually has helped us increase our yields

Wilson: So that’s how they’ve been convincing, even conservative lawmakers that these bills are necessary because what’s on the line is starvation according to their story.

Sharyl: Are they correct that if they stop making these chemicals that are so valuable to farmers trying to grow a lot of food that we’re gonna be in trouble?

Wilson: Bayer-Monsanto has already reformulated some of their products and we know they’re capable of reformulation. The question is, will they do it? And there are also other products that farmers might be able to use. And when we talk to farmers who have transitioned from this monoculture pesticide farming to regenerative or to organic to be closer to the land or to how nature does it, they’ll tell you that it’s a transition and that it’s not easy, but it’s possible.

Sharyl: What is regenerative food?

Wilson: Regenerative is getting back to really the respect for land and nature and the symbiotic relationship as opposed to monoculture chemical farming where they do a single crop on a big field. Like they focus on things like cover crop and the symbiotic relationship with the animals and the plants and the natural way for things to feed off of and flourish together.

Sharyl (on-camera): A bipartisan group in Congress is pushing to try to reverse President Trump’s executive order and ensure that injured people can sue pesticide makers.

Wach the video here.