Latest / Beyond Labels Premium / Episode #255: The Glyphosate Liability Shield: Not As It Seems?

Transcript

Episode #255: The Glyphosate Liability Shield: Not As It Seems? · Beyond Labels Premium

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: The basic idea that this is a carte blanche liability shield for the chemical companies is not true.
• 0:06
  SPEAKER_00: It's a very narrow liability ruling that you can't sue under.
• 0:15
  SPEAKER_01: Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Beyond Labels.
• 0:18
  SPEAKER_01: I'm Dr.
• 0:18
  SPEAKER_01: Cena McKella, and I'm here with our favorite farmer, Joel Salatin.
• 0:23
  SPEAKER_01: So, Joel, I'm sure you've heard the Supreme Court has handed down a landmark 7-2 decision and the highly anticipated case.
• 0:33
  SPEAKER_01: This is Monsanto versus Durnell.
• 0:36
  SPEAKER_01: And basically, the majority of justices decided that the federal regulation overrides and preempts state-level um you know consumer lawsuits when it comes to the glyphosate label.
• 0:55
  SPEAKER_01: So I want to break this down with you and talk about what does this actually mean?
• 1:02
  SPEAKER_01: Is it constitutional?
• 1:03
  SPEAKER_01: And actually, I want to talk about the implications because it's not just applying to pesticides as I want to talk about, it's also applying to other aspects of our food supply.
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_01: So in essence, what happens and what happened in plain English is that the EPA, um, if the EPA reviews a chemical like glyphosate, one of the active ingredients of Roundup, and the EPA decided, it decides that it doesn't need to have a cancer warning label.
• 1:33
  SPEAKER_01: So basically on the label of Roundup, it doesn't say this product may cause cancer.
• 1:38
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 1:39
  SPEAKER_01: So if the EPA makes that decision, the Supreme Court has now said that citizens are blocked from suing that company in state court for a quote, failure to warn of the health risks.
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_01: So you can't sue based on failing to warn.
• 1:58
  SPEAKER_01: This means it probably wipes out all of those like thousands and thousands of court cases that have been mounting against Monsanto Bear based on the premise of failure to warn.
• 2:11
  SPEAKER_01: So basically, the citizens were saying, hey, the company knew that it caused it could cause cancer, and they failed to warn me with by putting a label on this product.
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_01: So now there's the Supreme Court has basically ruled and saying that they don't have to put that label on the product because the federal EPA trumps any um warning labels that a state may mandate.
• 2:35
  SPEAKER_01: And so you can't sue them under that premise.
• 2:39
  SPEAKER_01: It doesn't mean you can't sue them, but it means you can't sue them under that premise of failure to warn.
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, so that that is one of the more fascinating things about this.
• 2:50
  SPEAKER_00: I I think, I mean, you and I are not attorneys, but uh, but we're also not complete novices.
• 2:57
  SPEAKER_00: And I think one of the things that is hard to kind of wrap your head around with the Supreme Court is so many of their rulings are extremely narrow.
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_00: In other words, they didn't rule that if glyphosate causes cancer, uh if uh that that if you think glyphosate caused your cancer, you can't you can't sue Monsanto.
• 3:18
  SPEAKER_00: That's not what they said.
• 3:20
  SPEAKER_01: Uh that's right.
• 3:21
  SPEAKER_01: They didn't rule it all whether or not it causes cancer.
• 3:25
  SPEAKER_00: So so the basic the basic idea that um that this is a carte blanche liability shield for the chemical companies is not true.
• 3:36
  SPEAKER_00: It's a very narrow, it's a very narrow liability ruling that you that you can't sue under failure to warn.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_00: And and I and I think I think it's important for folks to understand that the burden, the burden of proving that this product caused my cancer is almost impossible to prove.
• 4:02
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, I I'm I think I'm right.
• 4:04
  SPEAKER_00: You helped me see through this, Cena, but uh from from a you know from a data, from a data standpoint, establishing direct causality from a product to uh to a cause is very, very difficult.
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_00: Could you could you unwrap for us and for me and for our listeners why the burden, the burden of proving that let's just let's just stay with glyphosate, the burden of just outright proving glyphosate caused my cancer versus proving that the company's failure the uh uh a label without a warning um well it's not causing my cancer.
• 4:57
  SPEAKER_00: Um you see where I'm going with this.
• 5:00
  SPEAKER_00: It's it it why is it why is it why have the plaintiffs in this uh against Monsanto, why have they chosen to go at it from a labeling standpoint rather than just a direct cause standpoint?
• 5:17
  SPEAKER_00: I guess that's what I'm asking for.
• 5:19
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, that's a really good question.
• 5:20
  SPEAKER_01: So it is really difficult to prove um a cause of any chemical causing a disease, right?
• 5:30
  SPEAKER_01: Any chemical causing an illness.
• 5:31
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and this is one reason why we get so many uh loopholes, and one reason why we have so many, possibly 10,000 different chemicals in our food supply that have not been adequately tested for long-term safety and have certainly not been tested for cumulative exposure.
• 5:47
  SPEAKER_01: So, what happens when you mix one chemical with the next?
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_01: You know, like you're eating your Doritos with your soda.
• 5:56
  SPEAKER_01: We don't know what happens um in when you mix these chemicals because no one tests for it.
• 6:01
  SPEAKER_01: One reason why is because it is so difficult to prove that one chemical causes a disease.
• 6:08
  SPEAKER_01: Uh, there are chem companies can easily argue that you're exposed to lots of different potential triggers um, you know, in the environment.
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_01: And so the and our system is not set up like over in Europe, for example, they kind of assume that a chemical is guilty until it's proven innocent, right?
• 6:32
  SPEAKER_01: They have they they operate on the precautionary principle.
• 6:34
  SPEAKER_01: We do not do that in the United States.
• 6:37
  SPEAKER_01: So our our kind of protection comes from, first of all, you're purchasing power, so not consuming that product in the first place, but then also it comes from suing for damage.
• 6:52
  SPEAKER_01: And so that's one of the things that's so damaging about this.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_00: Is it is it is it is it fair to is it fair to say Europe operates on the precautionary principle that you're um uh that that you're guilty until proven innocent, and the US operates on a smoking gun principle that you're innocent until proven guilty.
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I would say for the companies, the yeah, the chemicals, I would say that personally, after going through and figuring out like how they do grass and food additives and whatnot, it does seem to be you can declare it to be innocent.
• 7:32
  SPEAKER_01: And then somebody has to come along, the consumer, and prove that it's guilty.
• 7:38
  SPEAKER_01: So it's it's the opposite.
• 7:40
  SPEAKER_01: You know, I'm sure from a legal standpoint they would argue against me, but that is from a consumer standpoint, the perception at least, is that that seems to be how the system is set up.
• 7:50
  SPEAKER_01: That's why we have all these metacemicals in our food supply that Europe doesn't have.
• 7:56
  SPEAKER_01: So um, okay, so you have a great question.
• 7:58
  SPEAKER_01: So I want to unpack this a little bit.
• 8:01
  SPEAKER_01: So to understand why they went on the label and how this is impacting our food supply, we have to ask the question is is the ruling constitutional?
• 8:14
  SPEAKER_01: Right?
• 8:15
  SPEAKER_01: So part of this is based on the supremacy clause.
• 8:20
  SPEAKER_01: It says that federal laws and state laws, when they bump heads, the federal law is going to win every single time.
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_01: So the federal law is the Supreme Court, supreme law of the land.
• 8:30
  SPEAKER_01: So in this particular case, the majority of the justices looked at the federal pesticide law that was passed by Congress.
• 8:38
  SPEAKER_01: And that law says that states are not allowed to force companies to change their labels or their packages in a way that is, quote, different from what the federal government requires.
• 8:50
  SPEAKER_00: So wait Wait a minute, wait a minute.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_00: Unpack that one that a state a state is prohibited from doing that?
• 8:57
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 8:58
  SPEAKER_00: So that a state is prohibited from adding adding a warning that the EPA does not endorse.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_01: So this is um this is part of the uniformity clause of what's called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
• 9:22
  SPEAKER_01: It's I call it FIFRA, F-I-F-R-A.
• 9:25
  SPEAKER_01: So this is part of the uniformity clause under FIFRA.
• 9:29
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so this is something that has Congress has established.
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_01: Once again, just like the grass loophole came from the food additive amendment amendment.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_01: It was something that Congress established.
• 9:43
  SPEAKER_01: So there's this uniformity clause, this part of FIFA, and it says that states are not allowed to alter or add to a product safety label.
• 9:56
  SPEAKER_01: So that was actually one of the key questions that the Supreme Court was asked to address.
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_01: They had to interpret the uniformity clause under FIFRA and say, does it allow states to alter or add to a product safety label?
• 10:14
  SPEAKER_01: And it doesn't.
• 10:15
  SPEAKER_01: Like it's not actually legal for them to do that based on FIFRA.
• 10:20
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, so in that sense, so if a so if a state like California um if if they determine that this product um may cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma, they cannot add a cancer warning um phrase onto that label because it would not be uniform with the other 49 states who are conforming with the EPA language.
• 10:56
  SPEAKER_01: That's right.
• 10:58
  SPEAKER_01: It doesn't go along with uniformity.
• 11:00
  SPEAKER_01: That's the whole point of the uniformity clause.
• 11:02
  SPEAKER_01: It's that basically once a federal agency sets a uniform national standard, then this the state courts are basically locked out of it.
• 11:10
  SPEAKER_01: The state can't actually change um any of that that labeling law or any of the label that's on that product.
• 11:19
  SPEAKER_01: So otherwise you would have 50 different labels, and that's that's a big burden on the on the company.
• 11:26
  SPEAKER_01: So you can only have one label and the states can't change it.
• 11:29
  SPEAKER_01: So you can already see where I'm going with this.
• 11:32
  SPEAKER_01: For example, um, this may block California's Prop 65.
• 11:37
  SPEAKER_01: So California has um that they wanted to force manufacturers to state that glyphosate is known to the state to cause cancer.
• 11:48
  SPEAKER_01: But this ruling that the Supreme Court just came down with on glyphosate might actually trump 60 Prop 65.
• 11:58
  SPEAKER_01: So we're expecting companies to now challenge existing Prop 65 enforcement on other chemicals as well, like titanium dioxide and acrylamide.
• 12:08
  SPEAKER_01: So this is but this ruling is having a is going to have a big impact on the food supply and on states' rights, um, which I want to get into.
• 12:17
  SPEAKER_01: So if the federal regulators disagree with the state's scientific conclusion that a chemical is like toxic, for example, the state cannot use its own warning claim, right?
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_01: And that's that's what the majority of justices said, and that's how they interpret that uniformity clause.
• 12:38
  SPEAKER_01: So I want to emphasize what the majority is saying and then what the dissent is saying.
• 12:43
  SPEAKER_01: So the majority says the EPA is the federal agency.
• 12:47
  SPEAKER_01: The EPA officially decided the Glyphosate State does not need a cancer warning on the bottom on the bottle.
• 12:52
  SPEAKER_01: So if a state jury hits Monsanto with a massive fine because they didn't put a cancer warning on the bottle, the jury is trying to force a new rule on that company because that state rule will contradicts the federal rule.
• 13:07
  SPEAKER_01: So the Supreme Court says that the state lawsuit violates the constitution.
• 13:11
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, that's what the majority of the justices said.
• 13:15
  SPEAKER_01: Now there's been pushback from the dissenters.
• 13:18
  SPEAKER_01: Uh, this decision was not unanimous.
• 13:21
  SPEAKER_01: The pushback was actually kind of in a rare move.
• 13:25
  SPEAKER_01: It was a liberal and a conservative justice.
• 13:28
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 13:29
  SPEAKER_01: Which I personally really like that.
• 13:32
  SPEAKER_01: So they teamed up to write what I thought was a pretty fierce pushback.
• 13:38
  SPEAKER_01: Um, they argued that the majority got the law completely wrong, and they broke it down into three main points.
• 13:44
  SPEAKER_01: The first point is that suing sues are not rules.
• 13:48
  SPEAKER_01: So they pointed out um that paying money to someone you to like if a company pays money to someone that they injured, it's not the same thing as passing a labeling law.
• 14:00
  SPEAKER_01: So if a jury finds that Roundup hurts somebody, Monsanto isn't being forced by a lawmaker to change the physical bottle, like to change the label.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_01: They do have a choice.
• 14:11
  SPEAKER_01: They can ask the EPA to change the label, or they can leave the label exactly as it is and just pay for the damages that their product caused to the to the person.
• 14:21
  SPEAKER_01: So they the dissenters argue that the Supreme Court is protecting the corporation and they should not protect them from paying for harm that the company's actually caused themselves.
• 14:34
  SPEAKER_01: The second dissent is that the EPA isn't perfect, essentially.
• 14:39
  SPEAKER_01: They're saying that the federal law states that it's illegal to sell a pesticide that is misbranded, meaning the label is misbranded if it's missing warnings that are required to keep people safe.
• 14:53
  SPEAKER_01: And they pointed out that this farmer, John Dernell, was arguing the exact same thing, that the label was missing a massive safety warning.
• 15:01
  SPEAKER_01: So just because the federal bureaucrats at the EPA um gave Monsanto a temporary pass, it doesn't mean that the company's innocent and the product is safe.
• 15:13
  SPEAKER_01: So they're selling, they're saying that um that the product can actually be passed by EPA, but actually misbranded.
• 15:26
  SPEAKER_01: And so the consumer needs to be have have the right to actually sue.
• 15:31
  SPEAKER_01: And the third point was in terms of the suing, was that for over 100 years, if a federal agency fell behind on the science, if they ignored the data, or they were in bed with you know the manufacturer or too cozy to corporate lobbyists, citizens could use the state courts as a safety net to get justice.
• 15:55
  SPEAKER_01: And they warned that by turning an EPRIA approval into like an absolute, um, almost almost an absolute immunity shield, that the Supreme Court could lock down the courthouse doors where regular citizens were stripped of their rights, and states are now stripped of their rights to protect their own citizens from toxic chemicals.
• 16:18
  SPEAKER_01: So this one I find fascinating for two reasons.
• 16:21
  SPEAKER_01: One is because this is what you and I talk about all the time on this show, is that basically the unelected bureaucrats are regulating these, you know, regulating our food supply.
• 16:37
  SPEAKER_01: These are unelected bureaucrats, meaning they're hard for us to get out of those positions.
• 16:43
  SPEAKER_01: You know, the FDA, EPA, the USDA, we don't vote for them, we don't elect them.
• 16:49
  SPEAKER_01: And so we don't have a lot of recourse when they do things like say that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.
• 16:58
  SPEAKER_01: And so what the Supreme Court ruling just did was give more power to the bureaucracy.
• 17:03
  SPEAKER_01: It basically is, in my opinion, it's taking power in one sense from the people and from the states, and it's shifting it to these bureaucratic agencies, to the EPA, FDA, and USDA, so that now, whatever their right rule and regulation is, right?
• 17:25
  SPEAKER_01: Whatever their conclusion is, whether it's a pesticide or a grass chemical or some kind of additive like titanium dioxide, it carries a much bigger weight now.
• 17:37
  SPEAKER_01: It's like they have the final decision.
• 17:40
  SPEAKER_01: Um, so they're taking away our recourse.
• 17:42
  SPEAKER_01: Um, but also, this is interesting because it's ironic for Kennedy, right?
• 17:51
  SPEAKER_01: Remember, he was a prominent environmental trial lawyer and he spent decades using these types of state tort law failure to warn claims to hold these large chemical and industry corporations accountable.
• 18:04
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, he was he was on the trial team for one of the groundbreaking cases against glyphosate, and they used California tort law to argue that Monsanto knew the risk of glyphosate, but they failed to include a warning label on Roundup.
• 18:19
  SPEAKER_01: So he himself utilized these state laws in this same capacity that now you can't do anymore, and now he's stuck kind of in the middle of it.
• 18:29
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 18:29
  SPEAKER_00: So so Cena in in the in the California uh case where this originated in order to in order for that jury to rule against Monsanto Beyer on Roundup, wasn't didn't it have to be proven uh beyond a shadow of a doubt?
• 18:51
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, it's the jury, you know, beyond um that that Roundup did cause cancer.
• 18:57
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, wasn't that the wasn't that the crux of the case?
• 19:01
  SPEAKER_01: Uh so I I'm looking this up just to confirm.
• 19:06
  SPEAKER_00: I mean you can't you you can't yeah you can't you can't sue they should have put a warning on if you can't prove that there was that that that the warning was um that that that that there was harm done.
• 19:20
  SPEAKER_00: You can't you can't say they failed to warn if there was no if there was no harm.
• 19:27
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, so what I'm finding is yes, they they first had to had to prove causation.
• 19:34
  SPEAKER_01: Can this chemical cause cancer?
• 19:36
  SPEAKER_01: And they brought in a mountain of scientific evidence and independent toxicologists, um, the World Health Organization's 2015 founding uh finding that it's a probable human carcinogen.
• 19:48
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and I you know what I do remember also the the lead toxicologist for Monsanto was key in these cases because the lead toxicologists admitted um, you know, under oath that that Monsanto had never actually tested glyphosate or Roundup itself, had only tested glyphosate.
• 20:11
  SPEAKER_01: So they admitted that Monsanto had never tested Roundup for carcinogenicity.
• 20:17
  SPEAKER_01: So they never tested if it caused cancer.
• 20:20
  SPEAKER_01: They'd only looked at glyphosate itself.
• 20:22
  SPEAKER_01: So that was actually admitted.
• 20:23
  SPEAKER_01: Uh what's what's the difference?
• 20:25
  SPEAKER_00: What's the difference between glyphosate and Roundup?
• 20:28
  SPEAKER_01: So actually, it glyphosate is much more dangerous, according to the statistics, if once it's in its complete formulation, once you have the cofactors in there, like the um, you know, the surfactants and whatnot, it it actually becomes it's somewhere maybe between like 10 and 15 times more dangerous once it's in the full formulation.
• 20:51
  SPEAKER_01: And this is one of the big problems with all of the agencies, whether it's FDA or EPA, whatnot, because they test things in isolation.
• 21:00
  SPEAKER_01: So they approved glyphosate, but not Roundup.
• 21:03
  SPEAKER_01: Meaning the company had to just uh submit data on glyphosate itself, but didn't have to submit safety data on the full formulation that is actually used on our food crops and sprayed on lawns and at playgrounds and in parks and now natural net our national forests or some forests.
• 21:23
  SPEAKER_00: So it was never so so so when you so when you get up when you get a gallon of Roundup and the first item is active ingredients, that's glyphosate.
• 21:33
  SPEAKER_00: And it'll it'll be whatever, you know, five percent, four percent, something like that, generally.
• 21:41
  SPEAKER_00: So you have 95% that's other stuff.
• 21:45
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, inactive ingredients.
• 21:46
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
• 21:48
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, like you said, surfactants.
• 21:49
  SPEAKER_00: Surfactants are things that that make the plant accept it better, uh like like the break surface tension of water, things like that.
• 21:57
  SPEAKER_00: So, so um So what they're testing is the glyphosate itself, that active ingredient, but not when it's put in a cocktail in the cocktail of application under the brand name Roundup.
• 22:17
  SPEAKER_01: That's exactly right.
• 22:18
  SPEAKER_01: So what you would walk into, like well, now previously you could walk into the hardware store and buy a container Roundup, a contained glyphosate in it, but that formulation, the total formulation was never tested.
• 22:30
  SPEAKER_01: Or at least if it was tested, no, we know we don't know about it.
• 22:36
  SPEAKER_01: But the point is it doesn't have to be tested.
• 22:51
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 22:52
  SPEAKER_00: Could be grass, but again, nobody has tested the cocktail.
• 22:58
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, it's the same problem where they just don't test any any of these chemicals combined.
• 23:03
  SPEAKER_01: It's it's coming back to the same question that you asked me.
• 23:06
  SPEAKER_01: How hard is it to prove that it something causes cancer?
• 23:09
  SPEAKER_01: This is why it's so hard to prove because many chemicals do interact with each other.
• 23:14
  SPEAKER_01: Um, so yeah, it in in that California case, they had to show that it could cause cancer, and then they had to show or at least present that it could have caused Dwayne Lee Johnson's cancer.
• 23:33
  SPEAKER_01: Let's see, they said that doctors and medical experts testified that his direct exposure was a substantial factor that contributed to his illness.
• 23:42
  SPEAKER_01: So they had people that testified it and they had studies documenting it.
• 23:47
  SPEAKER_01: Um now, the Supreme Court in this recent case with Monsanto versus Darnell, they obviously didn't look at any of this, right?
• 23:55
  SPEAKER_01: Because they they didn't care if that jury said the California jury said that the Roundup caused cancer or not.
• 24:02
  SPEAKER_01: They were um and they weren't even worried about if you could prove that the chemical could give you cancer.
• 24:10
  SPEAKER_01: They were literally just answering the question about the warning label.
• 24:14
  SPEAKER_01: Um, like could a state have its own warning label?
• 24:17
  SPEAKER_01: So so this is uh so this is one reason why I'm saying they don't have total immunity now.
• 24:25
  SPEAKER_01: It's not 100% immunity.
• 24:27
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, this ruling seems to be in in the immediate favoring the pesticide manufacturers and big food, right?
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_01: It favors big food and big ag.
• 24:38
  SPEAKER_01: But it's like they lock the front door and now there's a side window that could be opened.
• 24:43
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so so it's not all doom.
• 24:46
  SPEAKER_01: Here's a here's a couple positives, okay, or things that could be positive.
• 24:51
  SPEAKER_01: So you can still sue for certain things, for example, um if the chemical itself was like defective by design, um, so you can't sue over the label, but you can you can sue if you can if you can kind of provide enough evidence that the chemical formulation of the product is unsafe to human health, right?
• 25:16
  SPEAKER_01: And Kennedy already did that in court, so you can still do that.
• 25:21
  SPEAKER_01: You can still sue if there's um if they like accidentally contaminated a batch of weed killer, uh the company is not immune to that.
• 25:35
  SPEAKER_01: You can also sue on kind of this fraud on the agency uh standing.
• 25:41
  SPEAKER_01: So the Supreme Court decision relied on the idea that the EPA is the ultimate expert making the safety rules.
• 25:49
  SPEAKER_01: But if there's a future lawsuit or even an investigation that can prove that the chemical company lied to the EPA, maybe hid scientific data, manipulated test results to get the product approved, then this shield is dropped.
• 26:05
  SPEAKER_01: The citizen can, in my understanding, sue a company for fraud and um misrepresentation.
• 26:12
  SPEAKER_01: And that goes back to one of the points of the dissenters, where they're saying that there's mislabeling, um, you know, that the VAPA is not the end-all be-all, that you can still have misbrounding, misbranding or mislabeling.
• 26:28
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and that's where you can actually come in with with a lawsuit.
• 26:32
  SPEAKER_01: All right, does that make sense?
• 26:34
  SPEAKER_01: I know this is this is kind of complicated.
• 26:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, well, well, it is.
• 26:37
  SPEAKER_00: Well, well, what what what complicates it is that that the narratives in this space, um, you know, other podcasters and the and the what the press releases going out from you know from Maha or moms across America or whatever, um they they they tend to not want to get into the weeds like this.
• 27:05
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah and so they they broad brush it.
• 27:08
  SPEAKER_00: And and and and I'm guilty, okay.
• 27:11
  SPEAKER_00: I um I I can be taken in uh easily, oh it's a liability shield, you know, um poison verse people, all this stuff.
• 27:19
  SPEAKER_00: And um and the the the the fact is that the uh the uh ability uh to uh um to get remediation at its most fundamental level is still there.
• 27:42
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, you just can't do it based on failure to warn.
• 27:45
  SPEAKER_01: Like that's that's really what you know in a in a simplified kind of dummy down one take-home message, which is not entirely accurate, but the the one take-home message is stop suing under failure to warn.
• 27:59
  SPEAKER_01: Like and it's and if you look, you know, um, I I love I love that you brought this up because you're absolutely right.
• 28:06
  SPEAKER_01: Like we are a headline society, and so I saw all these fear-based headlines flying across my computer screen, um, and you know, a lot of outraged people, and you know, that's okay, be upset about it because obviously none of us want this on our food, or none of us listening to this podcast want us on this food, I would bet.
• 28:27
  SPEAKER_01: But at the same time, it's important to not do the broad stroke because number one, you're just inciting fear, right?
• 28:38
  SPEAKER_01: And anger.
• 28:39
  SPEAKER_01: Yep, and so it works for them for the message that's clickbait, right?
• 28:43
  SPEAKER_01: And get that get the base angered up, but it's not good for the cause because you're not helping the people actually understand how the system works.
• 28:52
  SPEAKER_01: That's why our podcast is so different, Joel, is because we want to help people learn how to think about the food supply and what's happening, and not be, you know, not do clickbait and be feared into compliance or feared into anger.
• 29:10
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 29:11
  SPEAKER_01: So there is an article on children's health defense that I was actually really glad that they published, and it was from a lawyer who was actually who was going through this case, and she was saying, I'm angry, I'm disappointed, on and on and on.
• 29:27
  SPEAKER_01: Like I understand, but let's actually break down what they did, what the Supreme Court justices did.
• 29:34
  SPEAKER_01: And she walks you through it.
• 29:35
  SPEAKER_01: If you want to check that out, it's it's a it's a good condensed version, and she is saying that the court's holding is ostensibly correct.
• 29:47
  SPEAKER_01: Like I just walked you through it.
• 29:49
  SPEAKER_01: The uniformity clause of the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rotendicide act says that the states can't um alter or change the product safety label.
• 30:01
  SPEAKER_01: That is a federal government issue.
• 30:04
  SPEAKER_01: She also went on to say that the court's decision does not confer blanket immunity to Monsanto.
• 30:11
  SPEAKER_01: The same thing that I'm telling you.
• 30:13
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, they they just saying, and and by the way, you don't want a Supreme Court that is going to um bend the law, even if it's in your favor.
• 30:26
  SPEAKER_01: You don't want that, right?
• 30:28
  SPEAKER_01: You want them to have a correct constitutional reading of the law, and this is what Congress set up.
• 30:34
  SPEAKER_01: So the bigger problem comes back to Congress again.
• 30:37
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, so so so the so so the so I think I'm hearing you saying the two dissenters are wrong.
• 30:45
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, so let me let me say it this way the do the two dissenters are wrong uh are wrong that the that this that the majority got it right on the the technical aspect of the question before the court, but the dissenters wanted the court to understand that if you rule this way here are the here here is the fallout.
• 31:19
  SPEAKER_00: Um if you if you rule this way.
• 31:23
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, is that is that fair?
• 31:26
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so mostly yes.
• 31:28
  SPEAKER_01: So I so listen, so I 70% fair.
• 31:34
  SPEAKER_00: All right, I'll take it.
• 31:35
  SPEAKER_00: I'll take it.
• 31:36
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, so and that's what I'm saying, it it does get complicated.
• 31:39
  SPEAKER_01: So um in a simplistic way, hopefully, um, if you're just looking at that uniformity clause, that's correct.
• 31:49
  SPEAKER_01: There were three key questions the Supreme Court was asked to address.
• 31:54
  SPEAKER_01: That was the first key question, and that one I do think they got right based on the reading of that uh uniformity clause.
• 32:02
  SPEAKER_01: Um, they also have to determine whether the EPA's formal determination, the glyphosate, does not require a cancer warning, counts as a federal labeling requirement that triggers the supremacy clause and overrides state-level lawsuits.
• 32:16
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so that's where um the dissenters are saying they got it wrong.
• 32:23
  SPEAKER_01: Um, the third thing is the court had to decide whether a state court jury verdict awarding damages to somebody who was injured legally functions as an impermissible state requirement for a different label.
• 32:37
  SPEAKER_01: So this is where the dissenters got it right.
• 32:40
  SPEAKER_01: So I agree with the majority in the first interpretation of the uniformity clause.
• 32:47
  SPEAKER_01: It does seem to be what that clause states.
• 32:50
  SPEAKER_01: I disagree with them on the other counts.
• 32:52
  SPEAKER_01: In that sense, I agree with the dissenters.
• 32:55
  SPEAKER_01: It should not take away our right to sue at the state level, and it should not take away a state's right.
• 33:02
  SPEAKER_01: Um, you know, so so here's the thing: the state doesn't have the right to change the label.
• 33:11
  SPEAKER_01: That is what the court ruled.
• 33:13
  SPEAKER_01: However, in that same act, it states that a state can entirely ban a pesticide.
• 33:26
  SPEAKER_01: So that's one thing that I think is a silver lining here is that hopefully, just like Florida's been doing, exercising its states' rights, Texas has been trying to do that.
• 33:38
  SPEAKER_01: I'm hoping this will ignite the states to start exercising their rights.
• 33:47
  SPEAKER_01: Because, like I said, they can't change the label, but they can ban these some chemicals.
• 33:53
  SPEAKER_01: So this is a this is another little nuance.
• 33:58
  SPEAKER_01: So, you know, Texas, we talked about this before, Texas had that make Texas healthy again bill that passed, and titanium dioxide and 44 other chemicals were on their list, and these chemicals are grass, and pretty much what they said was we want a warning label on products that have these chemicals in them, and their basis was that these chemicals have been deemed to be you know toxic or harmful in other countries.
• 34:28
  SPEAKER_01: So we want these labeled.
• 34:29
  SPEAKER_01: They've already were getting pushback, as we've talked about before, but now one of the consequences potentially of the Supreme Court's ruling here on glyphosate is that Texas can no longer have that warning, right?
• 34:42
  SPEAKER_01: Right?
• 34:43
  SPEAKER_01: So that that warning is gone because this will also apply to the FDA.
• 34:49
  SPEAKER_01: It doesn't just apply to the EPA.
• 34:51
  SPEAKER_01: So the FDA has said that like grass chemicals, for example, if it has grass status, it's safe.
• 34:57
  SPEAKER_01: Well, even though those chemicals that Texas wanted to warn against are grass, now it can't because the FDA has already said that they're safe.
• 35:05
  SPEAKER_01: So what Texas can potentially do now is just ban them.
• 35:10
  SPEAKER_01: Like, so that's where we're gonna see this going.
• 35:13
  SPEAKER_01: Well, I'm I'm I'm predicting that we're gonna see states coming up with workarounds since they can't mandate a warning label.
• 35:20
  SPEAKER_01: They're gonna start doing this workaround where they could ban the sale, manufacturing, and distribution of chemicals within their state.
• 35:28
  SPEAKER_01: Uh, so I I'm interested to see like California has that Food Safety Act where they ban BVO, potassium bromate, red dye number three, and I think uh propylparabun.
• 35:38
  SPEAKER_01: And I'm interested to see if that strategy works.
• 35:41
  SPEAKER_01: Like, will that hold up?
• 35:43
  SPEAKER_01: Another strategy that's coming out is to be.
• 35:45
  SPEAKER_00: In other words, Cena, just to just to clarify and make sure when you say ban a ban a product, you're not saying that California would ban Roundup.
• 35:55
  SPEAKER_00: What they would ban is glyphosate, for example.
• 35:58
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 35:59
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 36:00
  SPEAKER_00: And and so if glyphosate is in a product, they would they would uh that product could not be sold in the state.
• 36:08
  SPEAKER_00: So so you're nodding yes.
• 36:12
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, so uh so m so that brings us to prop 12 in California, the save our bank, the the the the proposition that um Californians can't uh purchase pork from piggies born in farrowing crates.
• 36:33
  SPEAKER_00: And of course the industry has pushed back violently on this, saying that if a state that that that is a state um extending its hand into another state.
• 36:48
  SPEAKER_00: In other in other words, in other words, if California says we're not gonna allow pork in our sold in our state that was farrowed, that means farrowing is when uh pigs have babies, um, that that was farrowed in a in a farrowing crate, that that is a hand that extends into, for example, Iowa, an Iowa uh hog farm, and therefore it is um a state can't extend their hand into you know another state.
• 37:25
  SPEAKER_00: And uh that is that is a hot, hot issue right now in the farm bill.
• 37:35
  SPEAKER_00: Um because the industry the industry is uh is desperate to be able to keep its animal abusive procedures intact and doesn't want them affected by um by what one state does.
• 37:57
  SPEAKER_00: It seems like this is a similar if let me put it this way if if California's ability to eliminate pork farrowed in farrowing crates does not hold, then I can imagine that a state saying you can't sell glyphosate here would also not hold.
• 38:29
  SPEAKER_00: Because because there are because that is that is extending their finger into uh into business that's beyond their state.
• 38:43
  SPEAKER_00: At least that's the way it's been looked at.
• 38:47
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so let me tell you my understanding, and you correct me if I'm wrong, okay.
• 38:53
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled on like national pork producers canceled versus Ross, and they upheld California's prop proposition 12.
• 39:08
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, and what they said was okay, so the pork industry sued California over the dormant commerce clause, and they claimed that the California strict animal welfare space requirement placed an on an unconstitutional um compliance burden on the out-of-state farmers.
• 39:26
  SPEAKER_01: But the Supreme Court ruled against industry because they ruled that the dormancy commerce clause primarily exists to prevent a state from practicing economic protectionism.
• 39:38
  SPEAKER_01: So basically trying to favor local business in your state by locking, uh locking out out-of-state competition.
• 39:45
  SPEAKER_01: But what the court said was that California's pork law applies equally to all farmers in all states.
• 39:51
  SPEAKER_01: So it was constitutional.
• 39:54
  SPEAKER_01: So, for example, then if you apply that to California's Food Safety Act, where they're banning certain chemicals in our food supply, they're targeting chemicals uniformly for everyone, regardless of where the food is made.
• 40:12
  SPEAKER_01: So the law is not favoring a California company over, let's say, a Texas company, for example, um, because it's it has the same requirement across all the companies.
• 40:24
  SPEAKER_01: So I think that actually this national pork uh case is gonna make it difficult for big food to win on a commerce clause challenge.
• 40:35
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, okay.
• 40:36
  SPEAKER_00: So so what that so that is why um that is why the industry is lobbying really, really hard to get what they call the Save Our Bacon Act into the farm bill to override the Supreme Court's ruling upholding Proposition 12 in California.
• 41:00
  SPEAKER_00: So um so the fact that the Supreme Court upheld Prop 12 in California lends credence to the idea that they will also uphold if a state bans glyphosate or something else in a state.
• 41:18
  SPEAKER_00: But if in the Farm Bill the Save Our Bacon Act goes in and makes it illegal for a state to ban a product like farrowed pork, that could have pretty negative conse.
• 41:37
  SPEAKER_00: I I I see the two as very, very similar, they're very similar legal arguments.
• 41:44
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I I do think so.
• 41:45
  SPEAKER_01: And I mean it's definitely challenging states' rights.
• 41:47
  SPEAKER_01: And you have you have a similar challenge going on right now in Congress over glyphosate, where they're trying to bypass the Supreme Court's decision.
• 41:57
  SPEAKER_01: Uh so you have Massey and Pingree, again, a Republican and a Democrat coming together, uh, with the People Over Poison Act, uh, which basically says that FIFA, uh the uh that pesticide act that I mentioned, um, it can't stop a claim related to labeling of a pesticide under the tort law of any state.
• 42:21
  SPEAKER_01: So they're basically Massey and Pingreen are basically trying to say that you can still sue.
• 42:29
  SPEAKER_01: Uh a citizen still has a right to sue related to the label.
• 42:34
  SPEAKER_01: And then the Senate has a farm bill amendment that they're that one of a Democrat has pledged to introduce that's going to parallel Massey's amendment um in the Senate farm bill.
• 42:46
  SPEAKER_01: So so you're right.
• 42:47
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, you have a similar uh a similar strategy that's going on in this glyphosate case as with the with the Save the Bacon case.
• 42:57
  SPEAKER_01: But you know, I I'm assuming industry is lobbying really hard uh to preserve the Supreme Court ruling.
• 43:03
  SPEAKER_01: They're gonna lobby Congress hard.
• 43:05
  SPEAKER_01: Congress is probably divided.
• 43:08
  SPEAKER_01: And even if they passed it, it's likely gonna get vetoed by Trump, right?
• 43:13
  SPEAKER_01: Like if they passed the law, that would probably get vetoed by Trump.
• 43:17
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 43:17
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, wouldn't you think?
• 43:18
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, they mean Trump has shown himself to be a complete friend of the industry, uh of the uh the industrial chemical industry.
• 43:29
  SPEAKER_00: So I I would expect him to come to the aid of anything that is protective of Monsanto Bear.
• 43:36
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I mean, his administration basically supported, you know, wrote in support of Monsanto in this Supreme Court case.
• 43:46
  SPEAKER_01: So I I would I would suspect that's not gonna pretty go very far.
• 43:51
  SPEAKER_01: That's why I think that we need state workarounds at this point.
• 43:55
  SPEAKER_01: And and I do think, like I laid out, there is a legal path where.
• 44:00
  SPEAKER_01: They could actually do that.
• 44:02
  SPEAKER_01: Um, I mean, part of that is under the 10th amendment, you know.
• 44:08
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, see, and see, this is one reason why my kids, I'm teaching them the constitution right now in the Declaration of Independence, and they're like, oh, it's so boring.
• 44:16
  SPEAKER_01: And you know, I agree.
• 44:17
  SPEAKER_01: Reading the Constitution can be boring, but I tell them, this is why you need to know the Constitution.
• 44:23
  SPEAKER_01: You know, this is why we talked about over half of Americans have never read it.
• 44:27
  SPEAKER_01: But this is why you need to know because otherwise you are gonna get sucked into the clickbait and the fear modeling, and you're gonna be like, there is no solution, it's all helpless, like our system sucks, and you know, like there's nothing I can do about it.
• 44:43
  SPEAKER_01: And that's not true because you know, I I hope that's one thing that we're laying out for our listeners today is that there's always a solution, right?
• 44:52
  SPEAKER_01: Know your constitution, know how the system works, and there's always workarounds, just like there's always loopholes in these laws and regulations.
• 45:00
  SPEAKER_01: Not all the loopholes are bad.
• 45:03
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, well, I mean, I mean, in in in in shameless uh self-promotion, the ultimate solution is just to buy food from farmers like me.
• 45:11
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, I mean, when we're doing we talk about beyond labels, here we have we've spent a whole, you know, we've spent a whole uh episode here um uh uh dicing and and and you know trying to drill down on this on this ruling all about all about a label.
• 45:27
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 45:29
  SPEAKER_00: And if people would stop buying um glyphosate impregnated food, um it'd be a non-issue.
• 45:39
  SPEAKER_00: It wouldn't be on the market.
• 45:40
  SPEAKER_00: There, there wouldn't be anything.
• 45:41
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, we it it's time to defund, it's time to defund glyphosate from the pocketbook.
• 45:48
  SPEAKER_00: And um I mean, just think about all the time and effort that's spent arguing something as I don't know, as as um in the in the big picture, much ado about nothing on this whole label issue when all the people need to do is just quit buying food with glyphosate in it.
• 46:18
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I mean the free market is the best solution, and it is one of our powers.
• 46:24
  SPEAKER_01: You know, when we've talked about this before too, but it's worth repeating the the national food laws that are established by the FDA, there's there's there's three of them.
• 46:38
  SPEAKER_01: It's consumer the company, the manufacturer has to prove safety of their product, which doesn't happen here in the US, the FDA has to have transparent labeling, which is not happening.
• 46:52
  SPEAKER_01: This is another case that in this in this case, the EPA is not having uh transparent labeling.
• 46:58
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and the third pillar is that the consumer is the final judge.
• 47:03
  SPEAKER_01: We are the most important pillar.
• 47:06
  SPEAKER_01: So if we don't like this, this ruling, if we don't like having glyphosate on our food and in our playgrounds and our parks, then we need to stop supporting it.
• 47:16
  SPEAKER_01: It really comes down to that.
• 47:18
  SPEAKER_01: So every bite of food that you take should be from a farmer, a local farmer that you know that doesn't spray glyphosate or get organic, you know, stop eating the conventional food.
• 47:31
  SPEAKER_01: Uh one of the one of the big pushbacks we get on this is the spraying of the land, right?
• 47:37
  SPEAKER_01: How do you get them to stop spraying the land?
• 47:39
  SPEAKER_01: And so one thing is the state workaround routes, right?
• 47:44
  SPEAKER_01: Like if the states can work around that.
• 47:46
  SPEAKER_01: Um, but the other part is if if you move the market with the food supply, it is going to dramatically decrease the sprain of glyphosate, which I mean, which is our main contaminant.
• 48:02
  SPEAKER_01: Think of all the craps that are sprayed.
• 48:04
  SPEAKER_01: Think of all the red tide that we have in part because of all this sprain washing down through the Mississippi.
• 48:10
  SPEAKER_01: So it does actually um help solve that issue as well of the glyphosate just being sprayed on the land.
• 48:19
  SPEAKER_00: I I'm I'm reminded of the little um the little parable, you know, where there's where there's two guys um walking along the beach and the tide is out, and all these um crabs are there on the beach, you know, just thousands and thousands of crabs, and um, and the sun comes up and you know, a lot of them are gonna get baked and die, you know, before the tide comes back in.
• 48:42
  SPEAKER_00: And a guy reached down, he picks up one, he tosses it back over into the ocean.
• 48:47
  SPEAKER_00: And the guy with him says, um, don't you think that's kind of fruitless?
• 48:53
  SPEAKER_00: You know, and and the guy that tossed it in said, Well, it was a big deal for that one.
• 49:00
  SPEAKER_00: And and and I think there's a lot of truth there.
• 49:02
  SPEAKER_00: You know, you you can look at this whole thing and become intimidated, throw up your hands and say, What's the use?
• 49:08
  SPEAKER_00: But the truth is, the truth is that um that you know, one person exercising their freedom of choice has an effect.
• 49:20
  SPEAKER_00: And one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one, you know, adds up to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions.
• 49:29
  SPEAKER_00: And um and so rather than being frustrated, it seems to me like a great uh a great whatever, uh, a great response to all this is don't throw up your hands, dig in, dig in, and build an alternative uh food system.
• 49:50
  SPEAKER_00: And and and the fact is that the margins are so low that um that that if we just I mean Sally Fallon Morrell has always said this at Weiss Tradition.
• 50:02
  SPEAKER_00: She says, if we if if we just had 10%, it would completely up in the America's food system because the margins are so low that at 10% it would uh it would completely change everything.
• 50:16
  SPEAKER_00: You don't you don't need to change 100%.
• 50:18
  SPEAKER_00: You just need to change about 10 or 15 and everything everything changes.
• 50:23
  SPEAKER_00: So um, you know, that we'll we'll know we're making headway when McDonald's quits buy quits uh building new restaurants.
• 50:32
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath there, but anything's possible.
• 50:35
  SPEAKER_01: Like you know Yeah, yeah, but yeah, you know, um and I will say it's my understanding that uh the EPA has to um complete like an updated um registration review with its final decision.
• 50:52
  SPEAKER_01: I think it's supposed to be October of this year, right?
• 50:56
  SPEAKER_01: They they punted then a four-year extension, and now I think they're supposed to give their final decision on the renewal of um of glyphosate, uh, as well as other um, I think there's like 726 other pesticides that they're supposed to give their decision on.
• 51:23
  SPEAKER_01: So that's I that should be coming up unless they somehow are able to delay it again.
• 51:28
  SPEAKER_01: So it will be interesting to see, Joel, what happens with this EPA and what they're gonna how they're gonna come down on glyphosate, because this is this is the pathway for them to change the label, right?
• 51:44
  SPEAKER_01: For them to update the the safety label on the product itself.
• 51:49
  SPEAKER_01: So that's another thing to just keep our eyes on to see what what they do.
• 51:54
  SPEAKER_01: I I mean, I don't know.
• 51:56
  SPEAKER_01: At this point, I'm not really holding my breath that they're gonna be.
• 52:00
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't trust anything in the swamp.
• 52:04
  SPEAKER_00: But an another thing would be for the for the Congress to um amend the FIFRA and and and say um uh states are allowed you know uh eliminate the uniformity clause and say states states can um regulate however they want to.
• 52:21
  SPEAKER_00: Of course, you know, another great thing would be for the EPA to just be uh disbanded and destroyed.
• 52:26
  SPEAKER_00: But anyway, that's probably that's probably not gonna happen in in a while.
• 52:30
  SPEAKER_00: But but this happens at the state level.
• 52:33
  SPEAKER_00: This is what happens.
• 52:34
  SPEAKER_00: This is what happens when you arrogate to the federal level stuff that was never intended to be there.
• 52:42
  SPEAKER_00: Because you you concentrate the ability for lobbying and corruption and fraud, you concentrate that into the hands of few.
• 52:50
  SPEAKER_00: If it's spread out among the states, then think about all the different officials you've got to build a relationship with and and and wine and dine and cheese rooms and and and uh you know uh um handshake and and get to your side.
• 53:06
  SPEAKER_00: But if it's just a couple little, you know, people in key spots in a big federal agency, um you can you can get to those couple of people pretty quick and and spend a lot of money there and um you're up and running.
• 53:22
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I know.
• 53:24
  SPEAKER_01: Well, and that's one thing that this ruling did it was make it was a win for the companies because they have less people now that they have to lobby in in terms of for the label.
• 53:34
  SPEAKER_00: Right, right, right, right, right.
• 53:35
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 53:36
  SPEAKER_01: So yeah, um, yeah, and so the could so my big concern with it is that it's infringing on not only our right, but the states' rights.
• 53:48
  SPEAKER_01: And so I am hoping that the states come forward and start doing some workarounds and hopefully, you know, Massey and Corey Booker, they get the they get the amendments in there as well.
• 54:01
  SPEAKER_01: But but even without that, I would like to see um a massive tidal wave happen by states.
• 54:12
  SPEAKER_01: Like how how much longer are we gonna wait?
• 54:14
  SPEAKER_01: Right, like follow Florida's lead and like you know, get together.
• 54:21
  SPEAKER_01: They can even brainstorm together about tactics and strategies and and try to do it together, like as a team.
• 54:30
  SPEAKER_01: Could you imagine that?
• 54:31
  SPEAKER_01: Like if the teams came together and they put their best minds at work and they really said, you know, let's go back to the constitution.
• 54:39
  SPEAKER_01: What are our rights?
• 54:40
  SPEAKER_01: And they just started with our food and you know, the pesticides, and they just one by one started taking back the state's rights.
• 54:48
  SPEAKER_01: Like, how powerful we would once again be 50 different experiments.
• 54:53
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right.
• 54:55
  SPEAKER_00: That's exactly right.
• 54:57
  SPEAKER_00: So, um, so we're we're out of time.
• 55:00
  SPEAKER_00: Uh uh do you have have we have we done everything on this topic that you wanted to do for today?
• 55:07
  SPEAKER_01: We've probably done more than people care to know.
• 55:09
  SPEAKER_00: But I think I I think anybody that's listened to this discussion has a really brand new appreciation for the the the narrowness of the decision, the ramifications of the decision, and a um and a bit of a filter to be able to filter out the innuendo and broad brush easy strokes of the um vituperative uh social media.
• 55:39
  SPEAKER_00: Vituperative, that's a good word.
• 55:41
  SPEAKER_00: Uh vituperation means bitter, bitter railing.
• 55:46
  SPEAKER_00: Uh that's the definition of vituperation.
• 55:48
  SPEAKER_00: So of vituperative social media.
• 55:52
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 55:54
  SPEAKER_00: That's my uh English major contribution to the discussion today.
• 55:57
  SPEAKER_01: That's our that's our toilet paper word of the day.
• 56:00
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 56:01
  SPEAKER_00: That's right.
• 56:02
  SPEAKER_00: That's right.
• 56:03
  SPEAKER_00: So so um so question for our um for our folks here is um is what do you think what do you think is the best path forward from from the ruling, now we have the ruling.
• 56:27
  SPEAKER_00: What do you think is the best path forward?
• 56:30
  SPEAKER_00: Um what has what has the best chance of of um moving moving the needle?
• 56:42
  SPEAKER_00: Is it masses of people not buying glyphosate food?
• 56:46
  SPEAKER_00: Is it states um in mass um banning uh stuff?
• 56:54
  SPEAKER_00: Uh is it Congress uh creating a right uh a right to sue uh clause?
• 57:04
  SPEAKER_00: Um or is it eliminating the Uniformity Act?
• 57:08
  SPEAKER_00: You know, these are all these are all things that we've talked about here today, and uh it it might might be a good little kind of discussion homework question to now that you've heard the heard this episode, that you um you contemplate on it, cogitate, talk with your significant others, and and um and and pick one of those four.
• 57:28
  SPEAKER_00: Tell us which one you think is actually um possible.
• 57:32
  SPEAKER_00: Is that fair?
• 57:33
  SPEAKER_01: I love it.
• 57:35
  SPEAKER_00: All right.
• 57:35
  SPEAKER_00: Thanks everybody for listening to another episode of Beyond Labels, and uh we look forward to visiting with you again next week.