Greetings from Missouri … or, as I think of it, the state where destructive legislation is being tested before being introduced in YOUR state. In a recent Missouri Senate committee, senators heard testimony on two potentially human-health-and-rights-endangering bills, both promoted by Missouri industries and championed by the industrial agriculture world. The strategies used by industry to pull the wool over our eyes is instructive for YOU because, as I said, Missouri is where destructive legislation is being tested before coming to YOUR state.
This year, 2024, showed more bills introduced than any before, so examples abound. Many of these, observers agree, are introduced simply to show that lawmakers are hard at work in an election year. So let’s focus on two subjects that have gotten enough traction to be heard in committee. When I say “gotten enough traction” I mean, obviously, promises from lobbyists to Republican lawmakers.
Make no mistake: These bills aim to take away our rights and to kneecap regulations put out by federal regulators, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. The obfuscations take three forms: (1) State lawmakers say they are seeking to make definitions consistent; (2) lawmakers say they seek sustainability; (3) they say that agriculture has tremendous challenges to feed growing populations. These three arguments provide sound bites for lawmakers answering the criticisms. And, oh yeah, there’s a new argument that goes like “if we don’t provide relief to our struggling industries, China will …” I offer these arguments to help you identify bills as they waddle towards your statehouse.
We’ve had many bills introduced to amend legal definitions of “Waters of the State.” These definitions were codified by the federal government in the 1972 Clean Water Act. The CWA regulates mostly waters that cross state lines. Such as the Mississippi River. Bill supporters argue that, if a body of water stays within state lines, the CWA doesn’t affect it. A body of water that stays within state lines is, for example, a farm fishing lake.
A hydrogeologist talking to a packed hearing room about the varied nature of waters said that the definition put out by Missouri lawmakers would define waste lagoons, which my neighbors call “turd-ponds,” the same as the definition for a fishing lake. A turd pond could collapse over a cave system, flood the underground caverns and become part of the ground water that floods into, say, Arkansas. That ground water might provide for wells. The hydrogeologist added that the wording in the bill confuses aquifers with ground water and shallow “perched” waters that exist just below the land surface. He offered to meet and explain further but the committee ignored him.
The bill sponsor concluded the hearing by saying that as a former school bus driver he took kids to visit many a stream and because he could be stuck on a bus for hours he always took note of where he could stop and pee. The anecdote got a big laugh.
Missouri lawmakers have also introduced bills to reduce liabilities to industry. Please note that decreasing industry’s liabilities means increasing liabilities to citizens. Here’s a bill we might call the “Bayer Crop Science Protection Act” a.k.a. SB 1416. It seeks to build on the label restrictions on glyphosate, commonly marketed as Roundup. Lawsuits against Roundup owner, Bayer, have become “un-sustainable” as Bayer loses in court to users stricken with non-Hodgkins lymphoma or other cancers after exposure to glyphosate. The idea is that Missouri can create a label that proclaims, in no uncertain terms, that Roundup is not a carcinogen. To understand why Missouri is the first state to hear a bill about this potential outrage, you need to know that Missouri is a headquarters for Bayer research and development.
Testifying against this bill was an attorney who reminded the committee that EPA, while it creates labels, does not have money for independent testing. For claims that it doesn’t cause cancer, EPA depends on studies from Bayer.
I love the testimonies around this bill so much that I want them on a billboard. One senator admitted “I don’t remember stuff very well …” and asked for clarification on the number of studies that proclaim Roundup is not a carcinogen, then went on to say that, “God provided them (chemical companies) with this opportunity …” to kill weeds.
Fair enough. The God card provides #5 on the list of obfuscation in support of a bill.
There are a few more hoops to jump through before any of these bills move to a vote, but here’s the thing: Let’s say Bayer gets the label restrictions in Missouri, and then in your state, and your cousin’s state and so forth, where does it stop? Does Philip Morris run studies that ban restrictions on cigarette labels? Asbestos? Mustard Gas? Other proven health hazards? Or those in the future that might take decades to appear.
The mind reels.
Margot Ford McMillen farms near Fulton, Mo., and co-hosts “Farm and Fiddle” on sustainable ag issues on KOPN 89.5 FM in Columbia, Mo. Her latest book is “The Golden Lane: How Missouri Women Gained the Vote and Changed History.” Email: margotmcmillen@gmail.com.
From The Progressive Populist, April 1, 2024
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us