I completely disagree with this "the sky is falling" reaction to the Monsanto decision. The case determined only that the state law failure to warn basis for liability is preempted by the federal regulatory warnings rules. Nothing else was at issue and injured parties remain free to make their claims for negligence or for selling a product that was not reasonably safe.
Warning labels are a dubious basis for liability in any event: created by lawyers for lawyers. No farm worker reads the warnings on a barrel of Roundup.
The larger issue the author misses is whether we should support or oppose granting to an administrative agency the fiat power to decide what we are allowed to put in our bodies and under what conditions. I would have thought it far more prudent to be very wary of that power.
My interpretation is that the Drs. Malone do emphasize that we should question the authority of the EPA and administrative agencies in these matters. I personally think that the EPA has become overly politicized and that science and politics never mix well. But which (if any) government agency decides what is "safe" in a reasonable manner and for who, what and when? Government agencies are slow to update in response to new information. People keep going to the courts to change things. The judicial system is not the best place to settle scientific debates. But where else can an individual go?
Robert, Good points but the Supreme Court is really just interpreting the law as written by Congress. Congress is the body that built a framework where Federal preemption can be claimed and the Court just affirmed that. Leaving the 10th Amendment behind (should ANY of this be Federal?) Congress could easily say that such claims are not subject to Federal preemption and that would be the end of that. Blaming the Court which everyone seems to be doing now misses the point. A one line law would fix this -- but we know that it is 100% follow the money for all politicians and the chance of them fixing this, because of the money trail, is near zero. But a concerted effort to do so at the Congressional level would be the only way to fix the incipient horrendioma you describe.
One of the basic rules followed and embraced by Republicans is "Buyer Beware". Basically it states that “Buyer Beware” is a warning that you, as the customer, is responsible for checking what you’re buying—so don’t assume the seller is being fair, honest, or giving you complete information. It often means: read the fine print (terms, fees, warranties, cancellation rules)
verify claims (especially about quality, safety, guarantees) recognize that laws and consumer protections may not cover every situation, so you should protect yourself in advance. (Pro-business stand)
In today's complex business world managed by lawyers, the buyer is at a distinct disadvantage and it is never more true in how the chemical industry publishes extensive rules of use for the chemicals they sell. EPA is the gate keeper that Ok's what they produce. Shifting the responsibility to the buyer. Essentially saying we know what we sell is toxic, but it is up to you the buyer to use it safely.
My Grandsons (twins) when they were 3 years old were exposed to glyphosates being sprayed with an agricultural sprayer in a park in a 40 mile an hour wind. The overspray killed the Gingo tree next to their sand box and one of the twins exhibited neurological damage for weeks.
My view was to sue the Park District for using it in a unsafe manner, but my daughter didn't want to do it. They were at fault, but suing Monsanto would have failed. They reversed Biden policy because Republicans embrace and endorse Buyer Beware policy which is pro business.
Today unless you are a lawyer that can read the double speak, you as the average consumer is at the mercy of the system and at a great disadvantage. Cumulative effect of trace toxins in the human body is not being addressed. Chemical industry is a driver of the medical industry. Both deny that they have any role in fixing the system and are not responsible for great harm created.
High priced lawyers keep the status quo in place. Keeps both industries highly profitable, and Bayer knew that they would prevail when they bought Monsanto.
Spot on! In the process of telling the true story about the Tylenol cyanide murders in Chicagoland in 1982, as I researched what transpired, I have become acutely aware of the role of high priced lawyers to minimize the liability created by their aggressive drug marketing. My website www.seveninnocents.com provides a overview of what truly transpired.
Class act! My Uncle had a bar with a back door open during prohibition so the Major of Chicago and the Police Chief could wet their whistle. Early 1980's we had the Greylord scandal where the judges were on the take. Not much has changed.
Mr. Malone, Don't Plaintiff's still have the right to Tort damages, for actually being damaged by Glyphosate, rather than for suing for damages because they were not warned that Glyphosate could cause damages? I don't see that being addressed in this analysis, or in the Court decision. Thanks for discussing this, it was a perplexing decision.
It seems most of the articles and positions on this matter revolve around an EPA that is static, cannot change, "is the way it is" - and mostly discusses the changes and developments in that context.
The state having less authority to regulate but that is only a problem if the EPA stays as it is. Why is that the only choice?
What if:
- EPA had a very fast process for review and analysis of developing science?
- EPA was very in tune with what's happening "on the ground" and could react quickly to threats?
- EPA was clear of any conflicts of interest or outside influence?
- EPA was capable of doing it's own testing and not constrained to rely on suppliers of product?
- EPA was constrained by the doctrine of "DO NOT HARM" and had metrics and audits to establish it was placing that as a first priority?
Would the concerns about the court decision still seem like a step backward or would it be seen as enabling a transformation of how we produce our food?
I think you're asking the wrong question ... one that tries to get to the right answer, but that's not what SCOTUS answered nor did its "decision rests on an implicit assumption: that EPA will revisit labels whenever new scientific evidence warrants it." This all sits under the umbrella one of the major loopholes in the Constitution (IMHO): the Commerce clause loophole where Congress does something extra Constitutional and justifies it by some further twisting of the Commerce clause. SCOTUS not so simply said that Congress put the EPA in charge of this issue (so suing Monsanto is the wrong party to sue). The right party is the EPA / US Government for not doing its job in a timely fashion (despite institutional capture by Monsanto).
Do not know if still, but Germany once had a very strict purity law for their beer...absolutely no additives. Seems Congress could handcuff e.p.a. by passing food purity laws making exposure to glyphosphate taboo. Seems one issue here is money trumping health issues. The gov is going to protect big companies from big monetary loses so maybe these big dollar lawsuits need to be restructured so only legal fees covered and health issues moved to the,front of the bus
Note this article informs about three items - glyphosate, aluminum and pineal gland injury - caused by the gut dysbiosis. The microbiome being at the heart of neurotoxic excesses.
Look at it all together. - Good article Drs MALONE!
I am so glad to have discovered dragons blood. The angiogenesis alone is nearly instantaneous healing of the entire endocrine system - and nervous healing.
After the Wuhan Red Death debacle, how can we TRUST that a federal government agency will know what it's doing and give we the taxpayers absolutely correct information? And keep us safe?
The EPA's "experts" might very well have their own personal profit motives in mind.
On the one hand there is the difficulty of “ equalizing” interstate commerce, on the other, “ Congress assumed…” how the agency would enforce its law— that is the real underlying issue. As science evolves, so must Congressional law become ever more specific about how agencies are to act— here Congress could revise the registration process to every five years and provide a mechanism for “on demand” reviews, which is what has basically been happening in court cases.
When EPA was created during the early 1970 many things were adapted from the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that controls a preponderance of FDA's framework and functions.
One key difference: EPA does not approve pesticides. EPA grants pesticide registrations for use under particular labeling, which is one component of the registration packet submitted by the registrant. This is profoundly different from FDA which determines safety and effectiveness of drugs for human and animal use. FDA regulation of Biologics stole a page from EPA's book: Biologics (vaccines) are not tested for effectiveness or safety.
Biologics. They are meant for human and animal consumption. Not pesticides. You cannot register a pesticide for human consumption. The FIFRA forbids it.
Pesticides are registered to kill, control or mitigate the adverse economic behavior of a TARGET PEST for which registration is granted. They are not supposed to be safe. They are supposed to be "economic poisons" that, when used per label, do not create unacceptable risk to off target situs or non-target organisms, including any organism large or small, airborne, land bound or aquatic. It's is very different from the profoundly structurally conflicted and apparently corrupt FDA and Public Health bureaucracy.
Ironically, there is considerable crossover between drug and pesticide product active ingredients and modes of action under the otherwise incompatible state and federal regulatory domains. Pesticides do not have warning labels. They use signal word based upon the toxicity and mode of action of the active ingredents. The use of any registered pesticide is only lawful within the constraints of use set forth on the registered label and labeling. There is only lawful and unlawful use, and the federal criminal penalties for using a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling are considerable and cumulative.
As for EPA registered pesticides, every household or bathroom cleaner or sanitizer is an EPA registered pesticide. Every insecticide, fungicide, bacteriostatic, sanitizer, herbicide, soil amendment and rodenticide, and more, is an EPA registered pesticide, FIFRA touches the lives and being of every property, every home, every product and person in the complex modern economy of our nation.
I have watched the Glyphosate mess for some time. I think Seneff has done yeoman's work in parsing the relationship between mammalian physiology and the toxicology and toxicological fate of glyphosate. The argument is not one of harm, but should all glyphosate registration for use be altogether pulled? EPA has this statutory power. All pesticide registrations are provisional.
What surprises me is what seems to ignore a very powerful tool. The Uniform Commercial Code has a thing called an "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose."
This may be mostly usurped by FDA regulating adulteration in foods, but that does not render the legal principle null and void. This raises questions about contaminated goods entering the channels of trade with defects (glyphosate residues) introduced into interstate commerce by various channels of production. Defects that may pose unreasonable harm may also trigger actionable novel or black letter law action by plaintiffs with standing.
All foods produced with contaminated 'feedstock' are both defective product (to the broker and processor) and adulterated to the consumer ingesting the food product sold into the channels of trade. UCC may have something to say about the former. FDA likely controls the latter.
This is one small example of why the current legal strategies and the emotional focus need to get better sorted with better and more creative thinking. "Glyphosate bad"might be entirely true, but "glyphosate hurt me" is a hard sell. This is not like a drug or vaccine argument. These are dramatically different contexts of provable harm: "Where did you get the decisive dose? From your favorite bagels, or could it be from the landscape jockey that blasted you with a invisible cloud of aerosol drift loaded with the glyphosate he was contracted by your lawyer to spray on your lawyer's office landscaping during working hours as you were walking to the front door for your appointment? Or could it have been the other contractor spraying the hospital landscaping across the street?" And whose fault was that?
And, yes, we should all be very concerned and rather alarmed about the creeping ennui of "Settled Science" and the use of legalism as a determiner of same. Credentialism is a dangerous form of bigotry. Just look back at how many innocents credentialism harmed and killed via the mRNA fiasco. Look forward too. How many have not yet realized the extent to which they have been harm by un-aspirated subcutaneous injections of mRNA experimental emergency status modified and misbranded gene therapies misrepresented to the public who were denied the opportunity for informed consent about: 1) the significance of a non-aspirated jab; and 2) the withheld origin of a repurposed and renamed experimental gene therapy class with a profound adverse risk history.
The laws are there to do what must be done. The lawyering needs to get smarter and more like the medical arts used to be before credentialism and institutionalization pervasively damaged our modern governance and social order.
At root, there only the disciplined good faith practice of the scientific method. All else is politics and commerce.
I really appreciate your knowledge and creative thinking on this topic, particularly avenues for new legal approaches. But our views appear to diverge at certain points and I'm hoping we can explore that to get some clarity.
You write that pesticides "are not supposed to be safe" but are "supposed to be 'economic poisons' that don't create "unacceptable risk." Then you say, "It's is very different from the profoundly structurally conflicted and apparently corrupt FDA and Public Health bureaucracy." This last sentence feels a bit non-sequitur, so I wonder if I'm missing some connecting thoughts. It's been a while since I delved into the EPA/Roundup issue but when I did I recall finding that the EPA exhibited much of the same structural conflict and corruption that is rampant in the FDA and Public Health, including ghost writing in prominent journals, publication bias, efforts to hide the science, revolving door hiring between the industry and the government, control of who sits on important committees, and at times an almost obsequious stance on the part of the governmental agency in relation to the industry it was supposed to regulate. Do you not find that to be the case?'
Random thoughts regarding credentialism and the "creeping ennui of 'Settled Science.'" I worry that this point, valid as it is, misses a deeper problem. RFK Jr's new ACIP is/was enormously credentialled but that did not translate into power. It was Fauci who could shamelessly claim, "I represent science." I also think the legal system plays an important role here, though I get your frustration with it. Aaron Siri deposing Stanley Plotkin is one example. A pattern with medical drugs that is repeated endlessly is another: A drug is released, marketed as safe and effective, people are harmed. Decades later through discovery and depositions, attorneys finally uncover what the drug maker new decades earlier and what the FDA had every reason to investigate, but didn't. The facts come too late for many but without lawyers they would remain buried. ("Evidence-based medicine" is another "settled science" phrase that generates instant blindness.)
"At root, there [is] only the disciplined good faith practice of the scientific method. All else is politics and commerce." The scientific method, politics and commerce can all be practiced with good faith - or not. We find ourselves in an era that demands enormous courage and integrity. At root, our fate will be determined by how well we meet that demand.
As technology becomes more expansive and complex, the need for competence, stewardship and trustee discipline become exponentially more important.
Academia and the administrative culture of our modern era seems to have failed terribly. Trivialization feigning sophistication, legalism and self-dealing have never been more dangerously present in our national institutions, for profit and non. Where is the Trustee culture? Where did it go? Has it been buried with the prior culture of scholarship (perhaps murdered?) usurped by modern academics, administrative sloth, financialization, duplicity and legalism?
Back to the central matter, Pesticides are the only "purposive pollutant" in the economy. The term "cide" translates from latin as "to kill." A pesticide has one purpose: to kill pests, harm, manage or mitigate a pest for a particular purpose and and return an acceptable economic benefit.
EPA must manage the paradox. It does so by managing the labeled allowance of Use, which will dictate both the fate and risk to non-target organisms and off target situs. This is the purpose, the controlling centrality and significance of a pesticide label when used in a manner consistent with its label or labeling.
The Label is The Law. To use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label is punishable as a federal felony, in addition to regulatory action by the registered FIFRA-designated state enforcement agency partner.
If the commercial use of the economic poison cannot be justified, or has been misrepresented, or has become economically unjustifiable, it will lose its registration to be made, sold and used in the United States.
Given what is known of or rather, the lack of transparency, efficacy, non prejudicial, biased or rather what has been construed by many as the corrupt decisions resulting the FDA and CDC … predicated everything exposed and known to have occasioned and impacted the public and public health immediately pre and post the USC, the as it was then…DoD, Gates Foundation, Fauci, NIH, EcoHealth and Big Pharma COVID scam all I can say as an outsider looking in is…. Good luck with the EPA being given the power this decision bestows.
It has become patently obvious, indeed even the dimmest amongst us must sure by now realise that the U.S in this error whereby money and wealth is worshipped and been elevated to the god like status such now enjoys, that expecting the EPA to remain benign and completely neutral, unable to be influenced is wishful thinking… grief, one need only understand the reality of recent FDA, CDC decision making to understand that because of the outsized influence of money, promises of wealth, career opportunities that U.S public oversight bodies are incapable of honest efficacious decision making, certainly as could be expected to be applied the public good… all that’s left to say is good luck with that… another revolving door agency awaits.. why not, such is de rigour the now DOWar, and aforementioned FDA and CDC, begging the question why would the EPA be any different or immune to such practice? Sad really, America deserves much better than the few benefitting over the many, a reality which unfortunately now dominates U.S statutes regulation, application of law… you really do live in a multi tiered system of governance….whatever happened to equanimity or ensuring the public good, keeping and doing all possible to ensure public safety which after all is the core function and main priority together the application thereof as required administered by any government and its agencies, be it municipal, local, state or national…. like I said, good luck.. last one out, turn out the lights… Just saying
We do indeed have a conundrum here. Let me note it was particularly exemplified a long time ago. Arizona, decided to take action against the illegal invaders. The Feds told them they must stand down. This was the Feds charge to deal with. The Feds prevailed and then did nothing.
Since the Obama years, if not before, the EPA has been (imo) a major saddle sore under our national well being. Didnt they generate the co2 ruling? Always pushing extremes in support of climate whatever.
In particular, we reassumed exective office in 2025. We met a plathora of festering issues, already at the ready to reinstall the American system for our economy. Imo, we've hardly had time to catch our breath. DJT is incredible at 80.
That said we've been faced with an (imo) an arrogant EPA, apparently wholly disinclined to engage in ongoing monitoring for needed updating of its decisions. Early on there have been warning state deviations and litigation re agricultural poisons. Add the MAHA directions and the looming industry press for protection from litigation. An issue separately around - also applicable to vaccines - the justification for liability protection.
To me Justice seems poorly prepared to handle too many issues that spring from agency actions. Also as characterized in their derelict actions as relates to the ASIP matters.
The issue re assessment of glycosate risk and need to change the labeling should have been resolved before stepping foot into a courtroom (imo). The issue of protections for industry from damages their product cause, needs to be decided before litigation.
I appreciate your point in the grand scheme of things the related responsibilities and rights of the States vs the Fed need further consideration. Once we get our houses in better order?
I completely disagree with this "the sky is falling" reaction to the Monsanto decision. The case determined only that the state law failure to warn basis for liability is preempted by the federal regulatory warnings rules. Nothing else was at issue and injured parties remain free to make their claims for negligence or for selling a product that was not reasonably safe.
Warning labels are a dubious basis for liability in any event: created by lawyers for lawyers. No farm worker reads the warnings on a barrel of Roundup.
The larger issue the author misses is whether we should support or oppose granting to an administrative agency the fiat power to decide what we are allowed to put in our bodies and under what conditions. I would have thought it far more prudent to be very wary of that power.
My interpretation is that the Drs. Malone do emphasize that we should question the authority of the EPA and administrative agencies in these matters. I personally think that the EPA has become overly politicized and that science and politics never mix well. But which (if any) government agency decides what is "safe" in a reasonable manner and for who, what and when? Government agencies are slow to update in response to new information. People keep going to the courts to change things. The judicial system is not the best place to settle scientific debates. But where else can an individual go?
Robert, Good points but the Supreme Court is really just interpreting the law as written by Congress. Congress is the body that built a framework where Federal preemption can be claimed and the Court just affirmed that. Leaving the 10th Amendment behind (should ANY of this be Federal?) Congress could easily say that such claims are not subject to Federal preemption and that would be the end of that. Blaming the Court which everyone seems to be doing now misses the point. A one line law would fix this -- but we know that it is 100% follow the money for all politicians and the chance of them fixing this, because of the money trail, is near zero. But a concerted effort to do so at the Congressional level would be the only way to fix the incipient horrendioma you describe.
One of the basic rules followed and embraced by Republicans is "Buyer Beware". Basically it states that “Buyer Beware” is a warning that you, as the customer, is responsible for checking what you’re buying—so don’t assume the seller is being fair, honest, or giving you complete information. It often means: read the fine print (terms, fees, warranties, cancellation rules)
verify claims (especially about quality, safety, guarantees) recognize that laws and consumer protections may not cover every situation, so you should protect yourself in advance. (Pro-business stand)
In today's complex business world managed by lawyers, the buyer is at a distinct disadvantage and it is never more true in how the chemical industry publishes extensive rules of use for the chemicals they sell. EPA is the gate keeper that Ok's what they produce. Shifting the responsibility to the buyer. Essentially saying we know what we sell is toxic, but it is up to you the buyer to use it safely.
My Grandsons (twins) when they were 3 years old were exposed to glyphosates being sprayed with an agricultural sprayer in a park in a 40 mile an hour wind. The overspray killed the Gingo tree next to their sand box and one of the twins exhibited neurological damage for weeks.
My view was to sue the Park District for using it in a unsafe manner, but my daughter didn't want to do it. They were at fault, but suing Monsanto would have failed. They reversed Biden policy because Republicans embrace and endorse Buyer Beware policy which is pro business.
Today unless you are a lawyer that can read the double speak, you as the average consumer is at the mercy of the system and at a great disadvantage. Cumulative effect of trace toxins in the human body is not being addressed. Chemical industry is a driver of the medical industry. Both deny that they have any role in fixing the system and are not responsible for great harm created.
High priced lawyers keep the status quo in place. Keeps both industries highly profitable, and Bayer knew that they would prevail when they bought Monsanto.
Product liability history in general falls on the consumer. (Try and catch me if you can!)
To become an injury victim of it's usage requires deep pockets to chase medical facts.
The lawyers must be extremely prudent to develop any winnable arguments in court.
Unless similar cases can prove guilt and reasonable doubt injury has been established.
Climbing Mt. Everest is probably an easier task than expecting favorable settlements.
Spot on! In the process of telling the true story about the Tylenol cyanide murders in Chicagoland in 1982, as I researched what transpired, I have become acutely aware of the role of high priced lawyers to minimize the liability created by their aggressive drug marketing. My website www.seveninnocents.com provides a overview of what truly transpired.
And to think that only 60 years ago,
All Al Capone had to do was greasy bribe all the Chicago District Judges.
Also to show up promptly, well dressed, and very polite in the court room.
Class act! My Uncle had a bar with a back door open during prohibition so the Major of Chicago and the Police Chief could wet their whistle. Early 1980's we had the Greylord scandal where the judges were on the take. Not much has changed.
Interesting take.....but it was a court of law and a legal appeal. It was about a label...or lack thereof....and not science.
Mr. Malone, Don't Plaintiff's still have the right to Tort damages, for actually being damaged by Glyphosate, rather than for suing for damages because they were not warned that Glyphosate could cause damages? I don't see that being addressed in this analysis, or in the Court decision. Thanks for discussing this, it was a perplexing decision.
What happened to the 10th amendment?
All other powers go to the states.
Nothing in the constitution describes that the federal government has a monopoly on ideas or science.
All power should remain in the most local of jurisdictions thus giving it to the people, not a single large entity that can be taken over.
It seems most of the articles and positions on this matter revolve around an EPA that is static, cannot change, "is the way it is" - and mostly discusses the changes and developments in that context.
The state having less authority to regulate but that is only a problem if the EPA stays as it is. Why is that the only choice?
What if:
- EPA had a very fast process for review and analysis of developing science?
- EPA was very in tune with what's happening "on the ground" and could react quickly to threats?
- EPA was clear of any conflicts of interest or outside influence?
- EPA was capable of doing it's own testing and not constrained to rely on suppliers of product?
- EPA was constrained by the doctrine of "DO NOT HARM" and had metrics and audits to establish it was placing that as a first priority?
Would the concerns about the court decision still seem like a step backward or would it be seen as enabling a transformation of how we produce our food?
I think you're asking the wrong question ... one that tries to get to the right answer, but that's not what SCOTUS answered nor did its "decision rests on an implicit assumption: that EPA will revisit labels whenever new scientific evidence warrants it." This all sits under the umbrella one of the major loopholes in the Constitution (IMHO): the Commerce clause loophole where Congress does something extra Constitutional and justifies it by some further twisting of the Commerce clause. SCOTUS not so simply said that Congress put the EPA in charge of this issue (so suing Monsanto is the wrong party to sue). The right party is the EPA / US Government for not doing its job in a timely fashion (despite institutional capture by Monsanto).
Do not know if still, but Germany once had a very strict purity law for their beer...absolutely no additives. Seems Congress could handcuff e.p.a. by passing food purity laws making exposure to glyphosphate taboo. Seems one issue here is money trumping health issues. The gov is going to protect big companies from big monetary loses so maybe these big dollar lawsuits need to be restructured so only legal fees covered and health issues moved to the,front of the bus
Being a Parkinson's widower, I will not look at glyphosate as an isolated poison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HApvy02Hu2cHJfyYtSrLyp8eJ4TWTatO
Note this article informs about three items - glyphosate, aluminum and pineal gland injury - caused by the gut dysbiosis. The microbiome being at the heart of neurotoxic excesses.
Look at it all together. - Good article Drs MALONE!
I am so glad to have discovered dragons blood. The angiogenesis alone is nearly instantaneous healing of the entire endocrine system - and nervous healing.
Do you buy this on Amazon?
You all have to wait until I have stockpiled my 300 year (Enoch - 365 years) lifetime supply! It may take a long time before you can order.
https://planetaromatics.com/product/dragons-blood-2/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jhc-aoMQQCOMC0ajgnntCqeb0UQIJ3iu
All seriousness aside, if I ever run out, I am going to find your distant descendants to mooch off of.
After the Wuhan Red Death debacle, how can we TRUST that a federal government agency will know what it's doing and give we the taxpayers absolutely correct information? And keep us safe?
The EPA's "experts" might very well have their own personal profit motives in mind.
On the one hand there is the difficulty of “ equalizing” interstate commerce, on the other, “ Congress assumed…” how the agency would enforce its law— that is the real underlying issue. As science evolves, so must Congressional law become ever more specific about how agencies are to act— here Congress could revise the registration process to every five years and provide a mechanism for “on demand” reviews, which is what has basically been happening in court cases.
When EPA was created during the early 1970 many things were adapted from the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that controls a preponderance of FDA's framework and functions.
One key difference: EPA does not approve pesticides. EPA grants pesticide registrations for use under particular labeling, which is one component of the registration packet submitted by the registrant. This is profoundly different from FDA which determines safety and effectiveness of drugs for human and animal use. FDA regulation of Biologics stole a page from EPA's book: Biologics (vaccines) are not tested for effectiveness or safety.
Biologics. They are meant for human and animal consumption. Not pesticides. You cannot register a pesticide for human consumption. The FIFRA forbids it.
Pesticides are registered to kill, control or mitigate the adverse economic behavior of a TARGET PEST for which registration is granted. They are not supposed to be safe. They are supposed to be "economic poisons" that, when used per label, do not create unacceptable risk to off target situs or non-target organisms, including any organism large or small, airborne, land bound or aquatic. It's is very different from the profoundly structurally conflicted and apparently corrupt FDA and Public Health bureaucracy.
Ironically, there is considerable crossover between drug and pesticide product active ingredients and modes of action under the otherwise incompatible state and federal regulatory domains. Pesticides do not have warning labels. They use signal word based upon the toxicity and mode of action of the active ingredents. The use of any registered pesticide is only lawful within the constraints of use set forth on the registered label and labeling. There is only lawful and unlawful use, and the federal criminal penalties for using a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling are considerable and cumulative.
As for EPA registered pesticides, every household or bathroom cleaner or sanitizer is an EPA registered pesticide. Every insecticide, fungicide, bacteriostatic, sanitizer, herbicide, soil amendment and rodenticide, and more, is an EPA registered pesticide, FIFRA touches the lives and being of every property, every home, every product and person in the complex modern economy of our nation.
I have watched the Glyphosate mess for some time. I think Seneff has done yeoman's work in parsing the relationship between mammalian physiology and the toxicology and toxicological fate of glyphosate. The argument is not one of harm, but should all glyphosate registration for use be altogether pulled? EPA has this statutory power. All pesticide registrations are provisional.
What surprises me is what seems to ignore a very powerful tool. The Uniform Commercial Code has a thing called an "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose."
This may be mostly usurped by FDA regulating adulteration in foods, but that does not render the legal principle null and void. This raises questions about contaminated goods entering the channels of trade with defects (glyphosate residues) introduced into interstate commerce by various channels of production. Defects that may pose unreasonable harm may also trigger actionable novel or black letter law action by plaintiffs with standing.
All foods produced with contaminated 'feedstock' are both defective product (to the broker and processor) and adulterated to the consumer ingesting the food product sold into the channels of trade. UCC may have something to say about the former. FDA likely controls the latter.
This is one small example of why the current legal strategies and the emotional focus need to get better sorted with better and more creative thinking. "Glyphosate bad"might be entirely true, but "glyphosate hurt me" is a hard sell. This is not like a drug or vaccine argument. These are dramatically different contexts of provable harm: "Where did you get the decisive dose? From your favorite bagels, or could it be from the landscape jockey that blasted you with a invisible cloud of aerosol drift loaded with the glyphosate he was contracted by your lawyer to spray on your lawyer's office landscaping during working hours as you were walking to the front door for your appointment? Or could it have been the other contractor spraying the hospital landscaping across the street?" And whose fault was that?
And, yes, we should all be very concerned and rather alarmed about the creeping ennui of "Settled Science" and the use of legalism as a determiner of same. Credentialism is a dangerous form of bigotry. Just look back at how many innocents credentialism harmed and killed via the mRNA fiasco. Look forward too. How many have not yet realized the extent to which they have been harm by un-aspirated subcutaneous injections of mRNA experimental emergency status modified and misbranded gene therapies misrepresented to the public who were denied the opportunity for informed consent about: 1) the significance of a non-aspirated jab; and 2) the withheld origin of a repurposed and renamed experimental gene therapy class with a profound adverse risk history.
The laws are there to do what must be done. The lawyering needs to get smarter and more like the medical arts used to be before credentialism and institutionalization pervasively damaged our modern governance and social order.
At root, there only the disciplined good faith practice of the scientific method. All else is politics and commerce.
I really appreciate your knowledge and creative thinking on this topic, particularly avenues for new legal approaches. But our views appear to diverge at certain points and I'm hoping we can explore that to get some clarity.
You write that pesticides "are not supposed to be safe" but are "supposed to be 'economic poisons' that don't create "unacceptable risk." Then you say, "It's is very different from the profoundly structurally conflicted and apparently corrupt FDA and Public Health bureaucracy." This last sentence feels a bit non-sequitur, so I wonder if I'm missing some connecting thoughts. It's been a while since I delved into the EPA/Roundup issue but when I did I recall finding that the EPA exhibited much of the same structural conflict and corruption that is rampant in the FDA and Public Health, including ghost writing in prominent journals, publication bias, efforts to hide the science, revolving door hiring between the industry and the government, control of who sits on important committees, and at times an almost obsequious stance on the part of the governmental agency in relation to the industry it was supposed to regulate. Do you not find that to be the case?'
Random thoughts regarding credentialism and the "creeping ennui of 'Settled Science.'" I worry that this point, valid as it is, misses a deeper problem. RFK Jr's new ACIP is/was enormously credentialled but that did not translate into power. It was Fauci who could shamelessly claim, "I represent science." I also think the legal system plays an important role here, though I get your frustration with it. Aaron Siri deposing Stanley Plotkin is one example. A pattern with medical drugs that is repeated endlessly is another: A drug is released, marketed as safe and effective, people are harmed. Decades later through discovery and depositions, attorneys finally uncover what the drug maker new decades earlier and what the FDA had every reason to investigate, but didn't. The facts come too late for many but without lawyers they would remain buried. ("Evidence-based medicine" is another "settled science" phrase that generates instant blindness.)
"At root, there [is] only the disciplined good faith practice of the scientific method. All else is politics and commerce." The scientific method, politics and commerce can all be practiced with good faith - or not. We find ourselves in an era that demands enormous courage and integrity. At root, our fate will be determined by how well we meet that demand.
As technology becomes more expansive and complex, the need for competence, stewardship and trustee discipline become exponentially more important.
Academia and the administrative culture of our modern era seems to have failed terribly. Trivialization feigning sophistication, legalism and self-dealing have never been more dangerously present in our national institutions, for profit and non. Where is the Trustee culture? Where did it go? Has it been buried with the prior culture of scholarship (perhaps murdered?) usurped by modern academics, administrative sloth, financialization, duplicity and legalism?
Back to the central matter, Pesticides are the only "purposive pollutant" in the economy. The term "cide" translates from latin as "to kill." A pesticide has one purpose: to kill pests, harm, manage or mitigate a pest for a particular purpose and and return an acceptable economic benefit.
EPA must manage the paradox. It does so by managing the labeled allowance of Use, which will dictate both the fate and risk to non-target organisms and off target situs. This is the purpose, the controlling centrality and significance of a pesticide label when used in a manner consistent with its label or labeling.
The Label is The Law. To use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label is punishable as a federal felony, in addition to regulatory action by the registered FIFRA-designated state enforcement agency partner.
If the commercial use of the economic poison cannot be justified, or has been misrepresented, or has become economically unjustifiable, it will lose its registration to be made, sold and used in the United States.
Enormously valuable and superbly written article. Many, many thanks!
Given what is known of or rather, the lack of transparency, efficacy, non prejudicial, biased or rather what has been construed by many as the corrupt decisions resulting the FDA and CDC … predicated everything exposed and known to have occasioned and impacted the public and public health immediately pre and post the USC, the as it was then…DoD, Gates Foundation, Fauci, NIH, EcoHealth and Big Pharma COVID scam all I can say as an outsider looking in is…. Good luck with the EPA being given the power this decision bestows.
It has become patently obvious, indeed even the dimmest amongst us must sure by now realise that the U.S in this error whereby money and wealth is worshipped and been elevated to the god like status such now enjoys, that expecting the EPA to remain benign and completely neutral, unable to be influenced is wishful thinking… grief, one need only understand the reality of recent FDA, CDC decision making to understand that because of the outsized influence of money, promises of wealth, career opportunities that U.S public oversight bodies are incapable of honest efficacious decision making, certainly as could be expected to be applied the public good… all that’s left to say is good luck with that… another revolving door agency awaits.. why not, such is de rigour the now DOWar, and aforementioned FDA and CDC, begging the question why would the EPA be any different or immune to such practice? Sad really, America deserves much better than the few benefitting over the many, a reality which unfortunately now dominates U.S statutes regulation, application of law… you really do live in a multi tiered system of governance….whatever happened to equanimity or ensuring the public good, keeping and doing all possible to ensure public safety which after all is the core function and main priority together the application thereof as required administered by any government and its agencies, be it municipal, local, state or national…. like I said, good luck.. last one out, turn out the lights… Just saying
Kia Kaha (Stay strong) From New Zealand
We do indeed have a conundrum here. Let me note it was particularly exemplified a long time ago. Arizona, decided to take action against the illegal invaders. The Feds told them they must stand down. This was the Feds charge to deal with. The Feds prevailed and then did nothing.
Since the Obama years, if not before, the EPA has been (imo) a major saddle sore under our national well being. Didnt they generate the co2 ruling? Always pushing extremes in support of climate whatever.
In particular, we reassumed exective office in 2025. We met a plathora of festering issues, already at the ready to reinstall the American system for our economy. Imo, we've hardly had time to catch our breath. DJT is incredible at 80.
That said we've been faced with an (imo) an arrogant EPA, apparently wholly disinclined to engage in ongoing monitoring for needed updating of its decisions. Early on there have been warning state deviations and litigation re agricultural poisons. Add the MAHA directions and the looming industry press for protection from litigation. An issue separately around - also applicable to vaccines - the justification for liability protection.
To me Justice seems poorly prepared to handle too many issues that spring from agency actions. Also as characterized in their derelict actions as relates to the ASIP matters.
The issue re assessment of glycosate risk and need to change the labeling should have been resolved before stepping foot into a courtroom (imo). The issue of protections for industry from damages their product cause, needs to be decided before litigation.
I appreciate your point in the grand scheme of things the related responsibilities and rights of the States vs the Fed need further consideration. Once we get our houses in better order?