There will be an important vote tomorrow, Tuesday, July 22, by the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee on an amendment to block the adoption of Section 453.
If Section 453 is passed, it will be an important step toward giving the pesticide industry immunity from liability. As we have seen with the vaccine industry, immunity from liability is a ticket to exponential growth and profitability,
One thing the autism and vaccine injury communities know better than just about any other is that the right to go to court, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is one of our most precious rights. Congress had no authority to deny our Constitutional rights when they gave the vaccine industry liability protection, and they do not have the authority to give it to the pesticide industry.
We have also seen multiple studies over the years that have shown a correlation between autism and pesticide exposure, but as we have seen with all other possible environmental contributors to autism, research has been extremely limited.
See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-018-0200-z
TAKE ACTION
Use the panel to the right to send a message to your member of the US House of Representatives.
Please call your US Representative and let them know that you do not support Section 453 and giving liability protection to the pesticide industry. His or her contact information should appear below:
Please call the office of House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Tom Cole at (202) 225-6165 and let the staff know that you oppose Section 453.
How Section 453 will give the Pesticide Industry liability immunity
According to Alexandra Munoz, Ph.D., this is how Section 453 would create liability immunity for the pesticide industry:
“When someone sues a company for the harmful impacts of their product, they file a lawsuit in the state where they reside, and sue the company for failing to warn under the state's product liability law. But with Section 453 in place – federal law will preempt (or override) the state law that was making them accountable for not warning people – and companies will be able to say – “we weren’t allowed to update the label” – "we complied with the federal law". It is called "impossibility preemption"— state law requires them to warn you about a risk, but federal law says the EPA needs to approve all warnings and those warnings can't be inconsistent with the last health assessment, and then, by law, the company cannot warn you about anything that isn't in that health assessment. The case will be dismissed - because they legally were not allowed to update the label with the proper warnings!”