JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A contentious issue has been making headlines across Missouri and beyond. It revolves around a proposed Missouri bill which could grant pesticide manufacturers immunity for failing to adequately warn consumers about potential health risks.
St. Louis-based Leon Smith said he has been directly impacted. He looks at weeds differently nowadays.
“I think weeds are misunderstood. Weeds are our friends. Roundup is the enemy," said Smith, a plaintiff against Roundup.
He’s talking about what’s considered the most popular weed-killer on the market -- a spray he believes caused a scary diagnosis back in 2010.
“They took some blood tests, and then, they discovered, ‘Oh, this looks like cancer," he said.
It was non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which attacks the immune system.
"What I went through was heartbreaking," he said.
Now, he’s one of tens of thousands of cancer survivors nationwide suing the agricultural biotech company Monsanto, the maker of Roundup. Bayer — with a hub in St. Louis — acquired the company in 2018. The overarching complaint: The company failed to warn about health dangers.
“No corporation should get away with anything like that," Smith said.
But a newly proposed bill in Missouri could give protection. Missouri is now one of three states where bills to shield pesticide makers from lawsuits have been filed this year alone. The states are Idaho, Iowa and Missouri, according to attorneys at the American Association for Justice, a nonprofit advocacy and lobbying organization.
The I-Team tried multiple times to get in touch with the sponsor behind Missouri Senate Bill 1416, State Sen. Justin Brown (R-16th District). He did not return our emails or calls.
Environmental advocates and attorneys told the I-Team that lobbyists with the pesticide-maker are pushing lawmakers nationwide to pass this legislation. They said the goal is to protect the company from billions in legal bills. In response, a Bayer spokesperson told the I-Team they support the legislation because the future of American farming depends on it.
Bayer was not available for an interview by our deadline. A Bayer spokesperson told the I-Team through email: “Bayer has deep ties to the St. Louis community with thousands of employees, helping local farmers produce crops that feed the world. Bayer stands behind the safety of our glyphosate-based products which have been tested extensively, approved by regulators and used around the globe for 50 years. Leading health regulators globally have repeatedly concluded that our glyphosate-based products can be used safely according to the product label directions… The plaintiffs’ lawyers are looking to disregard the findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulators around the world – one based on decades of scientific studies and data. We support state legislation alongside dozens of other agricultural organizations because the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA."
You won’t find the word “cancer” on a Roundup label.
Health dangers of pesticides spark debate
At the heart of the issue is a fierce debate over whether weed-killer is dangerous, specifically, Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. Pesticide industry sources say glyphosate-based products are the most widely used and extensively studied products of their kind.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said it’s safe when used as directed. According to the EPA after an evaluation of available data for glyphosate, the agency determined there are no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate. It noted that glyphosate products used according to label directions do not result in risks to children or adults. "EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC)," the agency noted.
Proponents of the legislation tell the I-Team that proposed state legislation would help protect the integrity of the regulatory process and ensure that the EPA’s conclusions are adhered to. They say the legislation would help ensure that any pesticide registered with the EPA – and sold under a label consistent with the EPA’s own determinations – is sufficient to satisfy requirements for health and safety warnings. Proponents of the legislation say the Missouri bill only affects the health and safety warning labels that already have an extensive regulatory process in place to warn of known potential harms caused by a pesticide.
Pesticide industry sources say the information and use directions on approved pesticide product labels are based on comprehensive, multi-year scientific risk assessments and studies conducted by experts at regulatory authorities. In the U.S., this is the responsibility of the EPA.
However, Mark Berns, an attorney with St. Louis-based Onder Law, who represents numerous plaintiffs against Bayer, said these studies only evaluate the “active ingredient,” glyphosate, which the IARC has already determined is a probable carcinogen in reference to the EPA approval process. “Aside from glyphosate, Monsanto’s own documents show that the formulate product, Roundup, is comprised of ‘non-active’ ingredients, including 1-4 dioxoane, arsenic, formaldehyde and other known cancer-causing agents,” he said.
In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined California’s Proposition 65 warning for glyphosate — a warning that states certain chemicals are known to the state of California to cause cancer — to be unconstitutional. The court ruled that because there is a debate on whether glyphosate causes cancer, the warning was overreaching.
Push for changes on warning labels
Many have said the proposed legislation would offer a dangerous level of immunity to companies.
“I call it unethical, because it doesn't protect Missouri citizens," said Tony Simon, a St. Louis attorney.
Simon represents Smith and about 1,000 others who’ve used Roundup and have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
“I think they should put a warning on the product that tells people use of this product increases your chance of getting cancer," Simon said. “Just like the cigarette companies.”
Melissa Vatterott, a spokesperson with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, agreed. She said Bayer is refusing to put more transparent labels on weed-killing products because they believe their products are safe.
“I like to compare it to the concept of smoking cigarettes," she said. "Cigarettes, we now know with certainty, have harmful chemicals. Ultimately we feel there is enough evidence that suggests Roundup and weed-killers like it can harm people. When you are in the business of selling an inherently dangerous product, this is the cost of doing business. You either put a label on your product or you risk lawsuits."
“Products with their roots in WWII chemical weapons have been the bread and butter of American agriculture research and development for 50 years … Reliance on pesticides is a major health issue impacting rural communities in America," said Christina Stucker-Gassi with nonprofit Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides.
If passed, Missouri Senate Bill 1416 would let the EPA have the final say on pesticide label warnings. Critics argue the agency should not be trusted because it does not conduct its own studies, instead relying on the company to submit data. Attorneys at the American Association for Justice argue the data is not only flawed, but decades old, based on data before 1993. Legal sources say an appeals court ruled in 2022 the EPA did not follow its own cancer guidelines when it found the main ingredient in Roundup did not pose a risk. The agency was ordered to redo its analysis.
“So this entity that's supposed to be protecting all the consumers didn't even do its job," Simon said.
He also called the EPA too slow.
“And just a few days ago, the EPA finally officially banned asbestos in the United States … Asbestos is banned in over 50 countries. And it took the EPA 30 years to ban it in the United States … Our position is the EPA can't even do its job right.”
So, Smith said it’s his job to sound the alarm.
"I have not purchased any weed killer since 2010," Smith said.
Environmental advocates fear laws giving pesticide manufacturers immunity would allow them a free pass. They say it will lead to no warnings about other dangerous chemicals.
Daniel Hinkle, senior state affairs counsel with the American Association for Justice, said in a statement: "Cases against foreign manufacturers like Bayer and ChemChina allege that these companies have long histories of reportedly using deception and fraud to prioritize profit over the American people. If states change their laws to give big corporations a free pass, they're allowing pesticide manufacturers to escape responsibility while putting the public at risk."
Bayer stands by the safety of Roundup and the credibility of the EPA. This ongoing debate over pesticide immunity legislation carries huge implications for both public health and consumer rights.
If you’ve got a tip for Paula, leave a voice message on 314-444-5231, email tips@ksdk.com or use the form below.
To watch 5 On Your Side broadcasts or reports 24/7, 5 On Your Side is always streaming on 5+. Download for free on Roku, Amazon Fire TV or the Apple TV App Store.