Oppose H653 Do Not Protect Profit Over People

Oppose H653 Do Not Protect Profit Over People

If enacted, this H653 would absolve pesticide manufacturers of any accountability for harm caused by their products, regardless of the evidence of harm. Just two weeks ago, this crucial bill was defeated by a full Senate vote. Yet now, it resurfaces under a different number. Why the sleight of hand? To shield manufacturers from the repercussions of their unsafe products, placing profit above safety. Supported by Bayer, the company behind Monsanto’s Roundup, which has been embroiled in countless lawsuits due to its glyphosate-containing herbicide. Despite a staggering $10.9 billion settlement in 2020, H 653 seeks to grant sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers.

We staunchly oppose this bill as it blatantly disregards public health in favor of protecting corporate interests.

“If we have learned anything over these past few years, it is to not blindly trust the so-called experts; the mere fact that something has been designated as EPA compliant does not mean it isn’t causing cancer. I am hopeful that, with the preservation of the common citizen’s right to his day in court, the truth of actual health impacts will organically come to light through evidentiary proceedings.

Ben Toews Idaho State Senator District 4 (about the previous immunity granting bill sb1245 voted down in the Senate.)



Then the bill will be heard in the HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

Do you have more to say on this bill?
Send a personal email to the committee members:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


Granting immunity to large corporations through legislation is a betrayal of justice. When profit is prioritized over human life, accountability and informed consent is abandoned. Let’s demand that companies prioritize safety over dollars and uphold the sanctity of every individual’s well-being.

Miste Karlfeldt, Health Freedom Idaho

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced numerous lawsuits related to its product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of $10.9 billion to resolve about 125,000 lawsuits related to Roundup23. The settlement was intended to resolve approximately 75% of the claims made against the company, with individual plaintiffs estimated to receive between $5,000 to $250,000, depending on their circumstances and the strength of their cases.

The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages. Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields.

The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.Read More Here

Communities with larger populations, such as Caldwell and Nampa, are also exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. A study conducted in Idaho revealed an increased occurrence of cancer linked to pesticide exposure. Consequently, the threat extends beyond rural areas to impact urban residents, where neighborhoods often border agricultural fields. Recent reports highlight that individuals living in Nampa and Caldwell are exposed to these chemicals simply by residing near these fields.

Testimony from Senator Brian Lenny

Idaho’s has a bill on deck that basically throws a giant, indestructible shield around Big Pharma, (in this case, Bayer) RE: their cash cow, glyphosate in Roundup. Are you kidding me?! Where’s the accountability? Where’s the protection for the little guy… the everyday person who trusts these products are safe? Are we trading crops for cancer? Slamming the door on this one isn’t just a no; it’s a HELL NO. Corporate immunity on this level isn’t just over the top; it’s a leap into a realm where consumer safety takes a backseat to profit. And that’s a ride I’m not willing to take.

Senator Brian Lenny

Key Concerns:

  1. Lack of Accountability for Harmful Products: H653 essentially grants blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the harmful effects their products may have on human health. This undermines the principle of corporate responsibility and leaves affected individuals without recourse for seeking justice.
  2. Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Exposure: Numerous studies have linked exposure to certain pesticides with serious health ailments, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological disorders. By shielding manufacturers from legal consequences, H653 disregards these well-established health risks and prioritizes corporate interests over public health.
  3. International Discrepancies in Pesticide Regulation: While many countries have banned certain pesticides due to their harmful effects, the United States continues to approve their use. H653 further exacerbates this discrepancy by preventing affected individuals from seeking legal redress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of harm.
  4. Financial Implications: The bill shifts the burden of covering damages associated with pesticide exposure onto Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and affected individuals. This not only undermines accountability but also imposes additional financial strain on already vulnerable populations.
  5. Environmental Impact: Pesticides not only pose risks to human health but also contaminate groundwater and harm wildlife. The lack of accountability for pesticide manufacturers perpetuated by H653 exacerbates environmental degradation and threatens the long-term sustainability of Idaho’s ecosystems.


In conclusion, Health Freedom Idaho urges the Idaho Legislature to reject H653. By opposing this bill, legislators can uphold the principles of public health, corporate accountability, and environmental protection. It is imperative that Idahoans retain the ability to seek legal recourse for damages caused by pesticide exposure and that pesticide manufacturers are held accountable for their actions. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting health freedom including freedom from toxins for the health and well-being of all Idaho residents.

MORE TO READ: https://healthfreedomidaho.com/gut-wrenching-dangers-of-glyphosate/


The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.



Research conducted by Boise State University, as reported in various sources. The study found that pregnant women living near agricultural fields in southern Idaho had significantly increased concentrations of the pesticide glyphosate in their urine, especially during the spraying season. The research team collected 453 urine samples biweekly from 40 pregnant women for this study24.

Several countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. Some of these countries include:

  1. Austria: The Austrian parliament voted unanimously on a partial ban of glyphosate, prohibiting its use on “sensitive” areas and for private use13.
  2. Belgium: Banned the individual use of glyphosate3.
  3. Germany: Has banned glyphosate in public spaces and plans a total ban by 202424.
  4. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium: Glyphosate is banned for household use2.
  5. Mexico: The Supreme Court denied appeals from major agrichemical corporations, affirming the country’s glyphosate ban14.
  6. Vietnam: Is the only country in Asia to have fully banned the use of glyphosate15.

These bans and restrictions are often due to concerns about the potential link between glyphosate and health issues, including cancer and environmental impact

Leave a Reply