Pesticide preemption has received an extraordinary amount of attention in the past year, as is appropriate when the Federal Government considers overriding States' rights. Litigation on this topic was discussed at the Supreme Court on Monday. A dominant pesticide manufacturer just announced a possible settlement of $7.25 billion. President Trump has invoked national security powers to mandate the production of glyphosate. There is opposition to Federal preemption of State liability laws on both sides of the aisle. Yet, the Republican majority insisted at every turn on including these provisions in what should be a bipartisan farm bill that delivers for farmers and families. This amendment is not extreme. It would not ban pesticides or require any additional regulatory burden on the manufacturers. Quite literally, it would preserve the status quo and allow the Supreme Court to examine this issue separately and the complicated legal issues at its core. The question of Federal preemption also sits next to a truly poisonous provision that would waive all other laws for registered pesticides, including the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing pesticide preemption and its implications during a debate on a farm bill.
Share
More from Chellie Pingree
This proposed rule would weaken longstanding civil service protections that promote merit-based employment, due process and the recruitment and retention of skilled workers.
We actually have had a few meetings with the Forest Service, but they’re extremely vague, and our experience has been that even the heads of departments and services don’t always know what (the Office of Management and Budget) and the…
The people impacted by this funding freeze are hardworking, rural Americans and small businesses.
We, therefore, ask you to withdraw OPM and MSPB’s proposed rule, 'Promoting Employee Accountability,' and consider alternatives that preserve federal workers’ longstanding civil service protections.





