Iowa Republicans’ chemical romance could be bad for your health

Corrected to reflect that Rep. Miller-Meeks’ spokesperson did provide comment to The Des Moines Register.

Iowa Republicans at the state and federal level are playing around with chemicals again. It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt. Or gets cancer.

First, we go under the Golden Dome of Wisdom, now redder than a warning label.

Senate Republicans approved legislation this past week shielding agricultural chemical companies from “failure to warn” lawsuits if their products carry a federally approved warning label. Senate File 394 was ordered up by Bayer, the global chemical and pharmaceutical corporation that bought Monsanto in 2018.

When Bayer bought Monsanto, it was actually buying a lawsuit machine. Monsanto’s well known weed killer Roundup has been the subject of tens of thousands of lawsuits by users who suffered health effects, including cancer, after prolonged exposure. They contend Bayer didn’t inform them of potential health risks.

As of last October, Monsanto had reached settlements in 100,000 lawsuits and paid $11 billion, while 54,000 active lawsuits remain. Just more than a week ago, a Georgia plaintiff with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was awarded a $2.1 billion jury verdict.

So, Bayer is pushing for state-level liability protection. And the Iowa Senate, deeply moved by the plight of a massive German conglomerate, is riding to the rescue. Bayer even ran ads in Iowa advocating for the continued availability of glyphosate.

“Billboards, pop up ads, half and full-page ads in newspapers, including ads thanking legislators. If this all sounds familiar, it should. It's the very same playbook the tobacco industry used for years,” said Senate Democratic Leader Janice Weiner during Senate floor debate. All Democrats and six Republicans voted no.

But the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded glyphosate, the most widely used and effective herbicide, carries no cancer risk. Some courts and juries have begged to differ. Studies have been mixed.

In 2020, a study by scientists from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measured the glyphosate level in urine samples from farmers. Farmers with high concentrations showed signs of “oxidative stress,” a condition that can cause DNA damage. Oxidative stress is a characteristic of carcinogens.

Regardless of what science says today, it seems shortsighted to give glyphosate civil immunity.

Roundup would not be the first farm chemical believed safe that eventually was found to harm human health. DDT is one example. The science could change, but Iowa law would remain the same.

What if Bayer unloads Monsanto into the hands of a company that cares even less about Roundup’s risks? They would still get protection from “failure to warn” lawsuits in Iowa.

So, the future is unknown. And it may turn out glyphosate isn’t as safe as lemonade.

Yes, many farmers use the product, but why deny them their future day in court? That’s not pro-agriculture. It’s yet another law that helps a large agricultural corporation sell its inputs in Iowa with no worries about the consequences, for health or the environment.

But roughly the same bill passed the Senate last year and was shelved by the House. There’s a decent chance that will happen again.

Miller-Meeks rides to the defense of TCE

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Capitol, mendacity is overcoming toxicity.

U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miler-Meeks has curiously signed onto an effort to reverse an EPA ban on trichloroethylene, or TCE. It is some nasty stuff linked to multiple forms of cancer, Parkinson’s disease and birth defects.

But in our Trumpy world, the ban is just another big government overreach, protecting us from cancer. This is about freedom, or something.

After decades of evidence showing TCE’s health dangers, the Biden Administration finally banned the chemical in December.

TCE, produced since the 1920s, is used in cleaning and furniture care products, in tire repair and brake cleaners, according to the EPA. Its commercial uses include vapor degreasing mechanical parts. It’s also used in battery separators used in electric vehicles as well as security, transportation and defense systems. The total list of uses is far longer.

Pour TCE over ice cream and it will form a chocolate shell. OK, I made that one up.

EPA found TCE is linked to “liver cancer, kidney cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It also causes damage to the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, immune system, reproductive organs, and is dangerous for fetal development. These risks are present even at very small concentrations of TCE.”

Wow, we ought to ban the heck out of that stuff. But not so fast.

U.S. Rep. Diana Harshbarger, a Republican from Tennessee, filed a resolution of “congressional disapproval” to reverse the ban. Her lone co-sponsor is Miller-Meeks, who represents Iowa’s 1st District.

According to a ProPublica report on the TCE saga published this past week, U.S. Sen John Kennedy of Louisiana filed a similar Senate resolution because the “Biden administration waged war against America’s chemical producers.” Harshbarger said the ban is “one of many examples of the Biden Administration’s overregulation.”

Can you overregulate a carcinogen?

Harshbarger, according to ProPublica, said a company in her northeast Tennessee district, Microporous, makes batteries and faces an “existential threat” from the ban. Never mind that the use of TCE for batteries isn’t banned until 2044.

So, what has Miller-Meeks said to explain her role in this chemical romance? The ophthalmologist and former state public health director has declined some requests for comment by news organizations. But she did offer comment to the Des Moines Register.

"Their actions leave science behind in favor of alarmist arguments that effectively bans TCE, without a replacement, threatening U.S. battery manufacturing, letting the Chinese Communist Party win," her spokesperson said.

She owes her constituents an explanation.

After all, among Iowa’s 17 EPA Superfund sites, TCE and a related chemical, PCE, are contaminants of concern in most of them.

Miller- Meeks did receive $21,000 in campaign contributions from the chemical industry, according to opensecrets.org. But that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in our crazy world of big money politics.

OK, I hate to confuse you with scientific jargon, but this is messed up.

We elect people to represent us and our best interests in Des Moines and Washington, D.C., or at the very least to care about our safety. Instead, they side with corporations and lobbying groups that care about shareholders and profits.

If they harm some people, that’s just the cost of doing business. Liability protection lowers that cost but doesn’t make anyone safer or products less harmful.

This is a state with the fastest-growing rate of new cancers. It ranks second highest in cancer rates compared to other states, according to the Iowa Cancer Registry. How does any of this fit into an effort to address those tragic numbers?

Bayer had a rough year financially in 2025. But CEO Bill Anderson has promised investors this year will be “pivotal.” The company is really hoping to see increased sales of the cancer drug Nubeqa.

(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com