Bill Description: House Bill 303 would create a liability shield for pesticide and herbicide manufacturers and sellers as long as their products include any government-mandated warnings.
Rating: -3
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 303 would create Section 6-1411, Idaho Code, to create a liability shield for pesticide and herbicide manufacturers and sellers as long as their products include any government-mandated warnings.
The bill says, "The common law duty of a United States manufacturer or seller of a product that is used in growing food or fiber to warn a consumer or the public about the risks associated with the use of the product shall be presumed to be satisfied when:
(a) An Idaho or federal statute, rule, regulation, or government order issued thereunder requires a manufacturer or seller to provide a warning to accompany the sale or use of a product;
(b) The authority requiring such warning provides or approves a specific warning that is based on scientific evaluation of the risks of using that product; and
(c) Such warning is actually given as required by statute, rule, or regulation."
The purpose of this legislation is to prevent consumers from suing corporations (such as Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto) and alleging that their products (such as glyphosate) have caused cancer or other harms.
Under this bill, "Such presumption can be rebutted only by a showing that the clear weight of scientific evidence does not support the scientific basis on which the required warning is based; and the manufacturer or seller knows or should have known at the time the product was sold that the required warning was not supported by the clear weight of scientific evidence."
This is already an incredibly high bar, but the bill goes on to say, "At minimum, evidence that the warning provided is not adequate shall be academically peer reviewed, published in a recognized academic journal, capable of replication, and reflect a reliable application of scientific principles and methods to the risks associated with the use of the product."
The bill references the "common law duty" for providers of products not to peddle poison to unsuspecting customers, and this duty has long been recognized across all sectors of the economy. Yet, the bill tries to whittle away this duty to mere compliance with labeling mandates, effectively outsourcing the duty of care from the manufacturer to federal regulators.
Individuals have a right to seek redress and restitution under the law when they suffer harm due to factors that the manufacturer or seller of a product fails to disclose. It is inappropriate to suspend this right simply because a corporation is in compliance with FDA labeling requirements.
(-1)
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws that discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
In addition to infringing on the right of individuals to seek redress and restitution under the law, House Bill 303 would create a special legal carve-out for manufacturers and sellers of "a product that is used in growing food or fiber," which is not available to most other manufactures and sellers.
Such protections are not extended to most corporations (other than vaccine manufacturers) and it is inappropriate for the government to create special liability shields for powerful corporations who are seeking to avoid legal accountability.
(-1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
One of the conditions for the liability shield created by House Bill 303 would be compliance with any applicable "federal statute, rule, regulation, or government order issued thereunder."
In addition to the other problems with this bill, incorporating generic references to undefined federal laws and regulations into Idaho code subordinates state law to both current and future federal edicts.
The Idaho Legislature (and Idahoans in general) cannot reasonably determine if federal safeguards and labeling requirements are sufficient when they are neither specifically defined nor fixed in time.
(-1)
