PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,559
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
June 1, 2025
Thanks, Ginny Garner.
See here.
[snip]
Last week, the Make America Healthy Again Commission, chaired by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a report reaffirming its commitment to protecting public health and reducing toxic exposures. However, as Kennedy works to advance these values, the rest of the administration is pushing a pro-chemical, pro-corporate, pro-industrial agriculture agenda.
by Elizabeth Kucinich
May 29, 2025
.
.
A call to action for health, freedom, life and the land
If you were harmed by a product that caused cancer, infertility or liver disease, would you expect to have the right to seek justice in a court of law? Most Americans would answer yes.
No one understands that principle better than America’s farmers, who have long been both stewards of the land and, increasingly, frontline victims of chemical harm.
The chemical industry’s playbook: Liability shields, legal immunity, and the erosion of rights
The policy pattern is clear: First, preemption of local authority over pesticide restrictions. Second, the pursuit of liability protections for manufacturers of toxic substances. Third, the normalization of harm with no recourse. This is not theoretical. It is a real-time shift in the balance of power between public interest and private industry.
A coordinated effort is unfolding in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill to grant legal immunity (liability shields) to agrochemical manufacturers. This means Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Seed can hurt you, even kill you, and not just get away with it, but profit from it!
At this very moment, across America, a new wave of legislation seeks to provide legal immunity to chemical companies — removing the right to recourse for harm their products have caused. This “shield” is not just for a niche set of chemicals, but for all pesticides and chemicals regulated under federal law.
The chemical industry has created an unlivable future. Their legacy is one of ecocide and the destruction of public health.
Chemical companies are seeking liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. These are not innocent corporations. They have paid billions of dollars in damages for contaminating water, poisoning land and causing cancers, birth defects and lifelong disease.
.
.
But legal accountability is not a threat to agriculture. It is a cornerstone of a functioning market and a free society. When companies cannot be held liable for harm, there is no incentive to innovate toward safer alternatives and the costs of that harm are externalized to the public.
While the international community moves to ban or has banned many of these chemicals, the U.S. liability shield being pushed by the chemical industry and their allies in Congress is designed to protect a wide range of hazardous chemicals and the corporations that make them, likely driving further use.
Specifically, it aims to cover:
.
.
This approach also sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans, particularly those who supported the MAHA mandate, remember the liability shield granted to vaccine manufacturers and the consequences of a closed compensation system, leaving injured individuals without meaningful recourse and protecting corporations from accountability.
Liability shields, once confined to a few controversial areas like vaccine injury claims, are now being extended to the producers of herbicides, pesticides and industrial contaminants. These chemicals have been linked in peer-reviewed studies to cancer, endocrine disruption, infertility and developmental harm.
.
.
Full article:
childrenshealthdefense.org
June 1, 2025
Thanks, Ginny Garner.
See here.
[snip]
Last week, the Make America Healthy Again Commission, chaired by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a report reaffirming its commitment to protecting public health and reducing toxic exposures. However, as Kennedy works to advance these values, the rest of the administration is pushing a pro-chemical, pro-corporate, pro-industrial agriculture agenda.
by Elizabeth Kucinich
May 29, 2025
.
.
A call to action for health, freedom, life and the land
If you were harmed by a product that caused cancer, infertility or liver disease, would you expect to have the right to seek justice in a court of law? Most Americans would answer yes.
No one understands that principle better than America’s farmers, who have long been both stewards of the land and, increasingly, frontline victims of chemical harm.
The chemical industry’s playbook: Liability shields, legal immunity, and the erosion of rights
The policy pattern is clear: First, preemption of local authority over pesticide restrictions. Second, the pursuit of liability protections for manufacturers of toxic substances. Third, the normalization of harm with no recourse. This is not theoretical. It is a real-time shift in the balance of power between public interest and private industry.
A coordinated effort is unfolding in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill to grant legal immunity (liability shields) to agrochemical manufacturers. This means Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Seed can hurt you, even kill you, and not just get away with it, but profit from it!
At this very moment, across America, a new wave of legislation seeks to provide legal immunity to chemical companies — removing the right to recourse for harm their products have caused. This “shield” is not just for a niche set of chemicals, but for all pesticides and chemicals regulated under federal law.
The chemical industry has created an unlivable future. Their legacy is one of ecocide and the destruction of public health.
Chemical companies are seeking liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. These are not innocent corporations. They have paid billions of dollars in damages for contaminating water, poisoning land and causing cancers, birth defects and lifelong disease.
.
.
But legal accountability is not a threat to agriculture. It is a cornerstone of a functioning market and a free society. When companies cannot be held liable for harm, there is no incentive to innovate toward safer alternatives and the costs of that harm are externalized to the public.
While the international community moves to ban or has banned many of these chemicals, the U.S. liability shield being pushed by the chemical industry and their allies in Congress is designed to protect a wide range of hazardous chemicals and the corporations that make them, likely driving further use.
Specifically, it aims to cover:
.
.
This approach also sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans, particularly those who supported the MAHA mandate, remember the liability shield granted to vaccine manufacturers and the consequences of a closed compensation system, leaving injured individuals without meaningful recourse and protecting corporations from accountability.
Liability shields, once confined to a few controversial areas like vaccine injury claims, are now being extended to the producers of herbicides, pesticides and industrial contaminants. These chemicals have been linked in peer-reviewed studies to cancer, endocrine disruption, infertility and developmental harm.
.
.
Full article:
MAHA Movement Faces Uphill Battle as Trump Administration Wages War on Organic Agriculture
Last week, the Make America Healthy Again Commission, chaired by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a report reaffirming its commitment to protecting public health and reducing toxic exposures. However, as Kennedy works to advance these values, the rest of the administration is...
childrenshealthdefense.org
