Aligning many interests in agriculture on crop chemistry legislation - Elizabeth Burns-Thompson

[Yeager] There's a new way to stay connected and know what's happening with market to market. When you subscribe to Market Insider, one email and a lot of information awaits you, go to markettomarket.org and subscribe to Market Insider. 

[Yeager] What does modern agriculture look like? It could be something that's heavy on crop rotation, cover crops, technology. That way it could be pipelines with carbon. It could be a heavy use of chemical or just a use of chemical. We're going to talk about that this week in the MTM podcast with the executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance, it's Elizabeth Burns Thompson. She's a returned guest. She's worked in many different areas of agriculture to give her a perspective, that we will talk about in this discussion, what she has been doing, in the first few months of 2025. And that's go to various statehouses across the country with the organization to talk about a certain bill when it comes to chemicals and labeling. We'll talk about tools in the toolbox for farmers, how that's helping, how they campaign, and polling is talking about the issue. And, we'll also kind of get into some legal things and just kind of help, straighten out what this bill says and what it doesn't. That's today's installment of the MToM podcast. I'm Paul Yeager. Thanks for watching, listening or reading new episodes of this podcast come out each and every Tuesday. Let's get to our discussion. 

[Yeager] It has been a while and, since you've been last on this podcast, but a return guest, you've had a couple of different, opportunities since we last talk.

Let's see. there's been corn, there's been fuel, there's been. And now the modern AG Alliance. I mean, what's your path been here the last few years, Elizabeth?

[EBT] Yes. Well, thank you for having me back, Paul. it's it's truly an honor. but, yeah, I've had, I tell folks I've had a great, I've had a wonderful, opportunities throughout my career to work with and for farmers in a lot of really cutting edge issues. some of them more popular, I would say, than others, over the years. But but certainly, it's been fun, to be kind of on the cutting edge of something that's new, different, and, and really impactful. And, I would argue much the same here with, with hopefully what we're going to talk about here today.

[Yeager] Well, the issues of agriculture have I mean, everybody kind of has a different view of an issue. but it's still about feeding and fueling the world, I assume, is what you're finding.

[EBT] Absolutely. At its core is, you know, protection of our ability to provide an abundant, safe and affordable food supply. and I say food and fuel. Right. We're from, middle America for listeners that may not know, I, I'm originally from Iowa. My family still farms on the eastern side of the state. And, you know, I look at, you know, food, fuel, fiber, farmers are bringing all of those things forward each and every day. And so, you know, I have had the great opportunity to work in, in a variety of different sectors, within that supply chain. and now very recently taking on some of the input side, challenges that farmers have faced very recently.

[Yeager] It's kind of hard to miss Modern Ag Alliance as you drive through certain parts of the country, you see billboards, you see, advertisements that show up on social media. So tell me how you view, what the organization is.

[EBT] Sure. So I joined, Modern Ag here at the first part of this year. The entity itself has been around for a little over a year, actually. and really, was was, started to, kind of tee up against some of the challenges that, specifically crop protection chemistries have faced. Right now we sit, just over 100 different organizations across the country. I used to say coast to coast, but we do have some wonderful partners, even outside of the coastal regions in Hawaii. So we, you know, agriculture is different from region to region, but the challenges are very similar. And so, you know, partnering together with commodity associations, your state farm bureaus and farmers unions and, agribusiness groups and many of those organizations, national counterparts as well, kind of coming together, recognizing that, you know, farmers have some real challenges on keeping tools in their toolbox. And what we're focused on, at least in the immediate short run, is providing some certainty and some clarity to ensure that, you know, crop protection chemistries that we have available today continue to be available, and that those processes are put in place such that we, you know, that there's still a viable R&D supply chain so that we have new, new technologies coming to us, you know, and as my generation is, is farming and the next generation comes into it.

[Yeager] You mentioned chemistry a lot, and I've seen that in a lot of the literature. Is that kind of where the focus is with this group?

[EBT] Absolutely. So, you know, if you can't take a step back and look at the real threats, to chemistry. So when I'm talking about chemistries, you know, some folks call them crop protection tools. I've used the term chemistries. You know, these are your pesticides, your herbicides, your insecticides, rodenticides, all of those things that farmers are depending upon to manage pests. You know, what we have seen in the last, I would argue, 5 to 10 years really is an exponential growth in the amount of litigation, that has been targeted against these industries, really threatening the viability of many of these tools, many moving forward. a lot of that has transpired kind of in focus on, on glyphosate or what many folks know of as roundup. I'm sure all of your listeners have seen some type of of the advertisements on that campaign as well. and, and a bulk of that litigation and that those lawsuits are revolving specifically around, what is called failure to warn or, or the component pieces of what can or should be part of that label. And so at the crux of what we are working on and what I do each and every day with our partners is to try to proactively, work on legislation at the state level. Initially, we also have some, some collaborative work that we're doing on the federal level to provide some consistency and clarity to try to slow down, some of that, that litigation or what we would call meritless lawsuits.

[Yeager] Well, you have that law background, so you're going to have to walk me through some of those legal terms. I mean, there's clearly someone thinks that a lawsuit has merit when they bring it forward. but there's also protections and reasonableness. And then there's the argument of what is reasonable and what the average person should assume is a risk. I mean, there's a lot of, complex lanes, but there's also a lot of opportunities, I think might be a word that you think some are seen as a way to make money or to drag things than through court.

[EBT] Yes. So, so as you mentioned earlier, I do have a law background. So, not to my, my, my, my alma mater there at Drake. I would say, you know, just to take a step back, if you look at products liability or what most of the litigation to date in this space has, has revolved within, you know, if you look at the responsibilities of manufacturers as a whole, I would argue they fall into three major buckets. And this is pesticide manufacturers, product manufacturers of all shapes and sizes. In a general generality, they're really three legs of that stool. So a manufacturer has a responsibility to design a safe and effective product. Right. So it does what it's supposed to do. And it does so in a safe fashion. They also second leg of the stool have a responsibility to manufacture that product. According to those design standards. The third leg of that stool or third responsibility is that they have the responsibility to label or warn of inherent dangers or known, you know, those known Kaposi's, excuse me, known, pieces associated with that, that product for consumers. All of those responsibilities are what kind of makeup products liability. What we are working on and what we're focused specifically on is that third leg of the stool of what necessitates or what satisfies an adequate warning right now that is broadly interpreted and in fact, we sit in a situation across the United States where courts have interpreted what is adequate or what is sufficient a variety of different ways. So it puts manufacturers really what I would argue between a rock and a hard place to figure out. How do they satisfy that necessity? The crux of the legislation at its core that we're working on, you know, in our home state of Iowa, as well as other states across the country right now, is is very specifically to say that if a pesticide manufacturer has gotten, an EPA label, you know, through the FIFRA process, the Federal Insecticide, fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, right? The overarching regulatory process, if they've been issued a label which is kind of their permit to operate or their permit to bring the product forward, that satisfies that duty, right? It doesn't negate that duty. So unfortunately, we have many folks out there that are painting, this effort through a lens of, you know, some type of immunity or shielding from responsibility. And that just frankly, isn't the case. Manufacturers, at the end of the day have the same responsibilities, right? The three legs of that stool to design something, to manufacture something and worn as they do after these bills are signed into law. What this, this, this effort does is just provide some clarity for how a manufacturer can satisfy that warning requirement. The other thing that I think is incredibly important for people to understand is that it does not take away from individuals ability to sue if you are harmed by products. Right? So if a product is not safe and has caused harm, that pathway or that cause of action to the court house to sue, that absolutely still exists.

[Yeager] But it's the individual and that my right is a versus the larger collection of litigants that come forward in a large group. Is that the delineation I'm hearing you talk about?

[EBT] You know, I, I don't think that that would change any of their ability to do what we've called it, class actions, where you kind of bundle a lot of plaintiffs from a lot of different places. If all of those individuals were truly harmed by a product, they could continue to bring a cause of action, be it a single plaintiff or a class action of that sort. So what we are focused on specifically is providing clarity and consistency on the label specifically. Right.

[Yeager] Let's go back also to something you said, in the beginning of that last answer was the different interpretations of courts or different interpretations from maybe a legislature to that's what our legal system is. What, a certain district or circuit will allow or object to or, send back to another jurisdiction. It's kind of the way all these laws are built and I mean, is the ultimate thing need to happen. I mean, we talk about local control is like local court that doesn't exist. It we all think the Supreme Court is the final rule, but in all of this, though, Elizabeth, there's always that uncertainty of what a farmer or producer or a company is supposed to do and how they're supposed to operate. Does this help clear up some of that time, to clear up some of that uncertainty for everybody involved?

[EBT] I would argue, yes. And I think the farm community is seeing that too. And I think that's, that's exhibited by the cross section and the bright, broad swath of organizations that have joined the modern ag effort and are advocating, for these bills in these states and are signing on to letters to stress the importance of this topic in state houses as well as, some of our work, you know, that we've done out in Washington DC. You know, just to kind of put a finer point on it, of of what really the challenge this, this, you know, I said rock and a hard place before, but, you know, we sit in a situation right now where the legal community has said we are going to continue to sue manufacturers and agriculture until you add these, you know, cancer warning labels or disclaimers or whatnot onto your products. On the other hand, you have our regulator, the EPA, that has said we do not allow warnings or disclaimers that have no scientific justification. In fact, in 2019, the EPA put out a press release in a statement that said, we will not register glyphosate products that have cancer warning labels because it will be deemed misbranding. And if your product is misbranded, you do not get to register it and thus you cannot bring it to market. So manufacturers really sit right now in a world where you either acquiesce to just the constant barrage of litigation or you change your label, at which point the EPA is going to, you know, pull your product from the market effectively. so this clarity is not only important, it's necessary.

[Yeager] But does the average consumer understand that difference?

[EBT] That's a good question. I think, you know, the good thing about agriculture is that most of the folks that are handling these products, you know, state by state, those, those, requirements, you know, change. But but, for the most part, there are some type of, you know, pesticide applicator trainings or certification that folks have to go through. You know, they they they're almost beaten their head, right, that the label is the law. Anyone that's gone through those trainings that that that statement, you know, makes their ears perk up because that is kind of the foundational piece of these labels are important. And what is part of the labels is, is research. And it's there intentional and on purpose. What we found, you know, then, you know, going over to more of the public consumer, we actually did some polling work, modern ag did here, in the last few months, just to try to gauge what does the general public understand about this topic? Do they see the litigation? You know, as a challenge, for, for a variety of different aspects moving forward? And then what are their sentiments about moving forward? And really what we found is it's not just rural America, right? The lives of those folks that are handling these products in an agronomic space each and every day. But Joe, public consumer wants farmers to be able to have the tools to be successful. And they recognize that the this litigation that that specifically in this sector is a threat to their ability to, you know, cost effectively put food on their table. It impacts their dinner plate and their trip to the grocery store. They also are seeing this bigger picture, they're recognizing that food security is a key piece of national security. And those two things are very much intertwined. And so, you know, that it is rising on the attention of Joe Public. And I think one of the pieces that really stood out to me in part of that survey work is that not only do they recognize these challenges, but Joe Public wants legislators to act on it. You know, what we found is 97% of farmers and 73% of just the general public actively wanted to see and support legislators that take action and support farmers on this topic. So, you know, as we're going out and working with lawmakers, it's really important not only for them to understand kind of the fundamental challenges that exist here, but also to understand that their constituents are seeing this as well, and they want action.

[Yeager] All right. We'll come back to the survey in a minute. I want to go back to the very beginning of that last answer, so that you talk about the applicator in the classes that the person who's putting on the chemical have to go and handle it. Go through. What about, though, the person that is the neighbor to where this field is, whether it's in the country, in the edge of Alburnett or Jesup that you know how the edge of our towns are next to a farm field, and they might not know all of these things. And I guess then it does tie to the second part of your answer on the surveys. Are you talking to what is the conversation you're having with those folks that are maybe not directly in agriculture on an education or, information campaign about what it is that you're doing?

[EBT] So I think exactly. So educating on, just kind of general public on what goes into the handling standards, you know, if products that they were to buy, you know, what your, your local home improvement store or lawn and garden store, right? You'd see big, thick labels on the sides of those products too. you know, they go through the same kind of labeling and review process. Many of them have some of the similar active ingredients that the farmers are handling, just in different quantities. Obviously, when you're talking about the square footage of of a lawn or garden versus, you know, acres upon acres of farm fields. But the, the component pieces of we are doing an exceptional amount of education, not just of lawmakers but also of the general public through you mentioned, you know, our billboards and TV ads and, you know, social media and just trying to build up the general awareness of how much goes into bringing a product from, you know, the lab to the field. And we're talking about, I think the, the last statistics that I have seen is that's generally about between 10 to 12 years, right? So from when a scientific concept is uncovered to when you'd see a true product on the shelf, that it's in response to that. is is over a decade, the dollar figure on average attached to that I think is well over $300 million. So there is a wealth of research, investment, and outside due diligence, not just from the manufacturers themselves, but also from the independent research and community and the EPA that go into, you know, the fundamental pieces of what's in this label. So while these may be 20, 30 pages long, at the end of the day, every component piece of that label has a wealth of, of of research that's gone into it and is there on purpose. And so that's I think at the end of the day, why, you know, this effort is so incredibly important because the label is the law and the label is so critical.

[Yeager] Well, I think about the person, though, again, that might not that might be impacted whether it is their own lawn, but if they're a neighbor to they see the farmer going out and spraying. Oh, oh here they go again. Another round of spray. And I'm not saying things drift or that end up in their groundwater. I mean, that's all that's the easy answer to that question. But I mean, what's the conversation? Is that a person you need to win over in your argument?

[EBT] You know, I think that's a fair question. I think, I would incorporate those folks into what we found in kind of the general public polling. I think, you know, we found that people do trust farmers still to, that's to me, not a shocking statistic. but but that was something we also did in our polling, is that people, while so many of us are becoming more and more, you know, removed from the farm or removed from production agriculture, there is still absolutely a trust in, in farmers and knowing that, you know, they are what provides, you know, a critical part of our national security through for food security. So I do think that that, you know, be it a neighbor, be it folks in town versus, you know, country, I, I still think that people do defer that, that farmers are good people and want to do the right thing and are doing the right thing. and, and they want them to be able to continue to have those tools to be effective. Now, what goes into all of the depth and breadth of of what those tools are and how those are vetted? That's I think that's a responsibility that sits on us, that we are trying to go out and proactively educate upon.

[Yeager] Your polls that you say I mean, I think there was, I seem to remember September, October, early November, there were people who were very leery of polls. They didn't believe anything like that. your polling, though, could be very narrow to farmers. It might be easy to get 95%, of them to agree on certain things. I have a hard time sometimes believing when I see polls that to hang on my things. Is that something, How do you how do you how do you satisfy that answer of of, I don't trust the polls.

[EBT] I'm with you. Numbers are all relative, right? And the numbers are important because they tell a story. and to what level? You could put them in perspective. And that's something that I. I've always looked at, regardless of whether it's polling data or any type of statistic, is what ultimately does that data point help share? What does that help you conceptualize? And at the end of the day, whether it was, you know, 80%, 90%, you know, 82.7%, I don't know that this specific number matters, but the trend. Right. And what we found is the trend not just in rural but in urban areas, not just in Middle America, but from, you know, places like Florida where we did some distill down voting, research in places like North Dakota, all across that we found the same trends. And those trends being that folks recognize that, that these are critical tools, they may not fully understand what the tool itself is, but they understand that it's a critical piece to farmers and that farmer success is intricately tied to their ability to put food on the table.

[Yeager] And farmers, I mean, your Modern Ag Alliance major amount of funding. I don't know if it's all and I assume it comes from a lot of those groups, but it is a big funder of what you're doing. There's going to be a person who's going to see this or not see your group and go, well, of course that's what they're for. It's for bottom line. It's for, has that answer been for well, you're just funded by a big chemical company. So of course, this is what you're saying.

[EBT] There is we're not we're, there is absolutely one of our partners. I, I tell folks that asked about that, you know, their logo on this website is just the same size as all of the rest of the partners. So I am just as accountable to, you know, each of our corn growers and sugar beet growers and wheat growers and agribusiness groups. As I am right there, there is a reason that those logos are all similarly situated is we want the voice of the farmer in this process, and you're seeing that play out in our our political and policy efforts in each of these states, right. Sitting alongside our partners in, in Tennessee on, on their legislative effort, right, sitting alongside our half a dozen partners up in Bismarck, North Dakota, earlier this week as we were moving through the Senate process on the bill, you know, and where there's two, I could name five more, and having conversations in a handful of other states where states are eager to pull these coalitions together to to tee up these conversations with lawmakers. So I truly see modern AG as more of like a convening body that pulls all of these like minded folks with similar priorities together to kind of collaborate and get something moving.

[Yeager] Looking at legislation and looking at bills, I'll talk specifically about the bill that went through the Iowa Senate, because those are the that's the bill that I get the email most of the emails on, and it's arguing that they're calling it an ad gag bill for cancer. That's why we want this legislation is because we're shielding companies in case. And I know, I know, asking a lawyer a question about hypotheticals is going to not get me anywhere. But it's a hypothetical of there's there's a group of people who tell me that this is just shielding. If if it's determined that certain things are causing cancer, that might trace back to agriculture, that this is just a preemptive run to prevent, large scale litigation against these large companies. Is that is that an accurate concern people have?

[EBT] I think it's a consistent misrepresentation of what the language of the bill does. and and back to where we kind of talked about and talked through the three kind of legs of that product liability stool. What those three major responsibilities are duties of manufacturers are, you know, I highlighted that duty for a safe and effective design, that duty to manufacture in a safe and effective fashion, both of those pathways. Absolutely. In fact, all three of these pathways arguably still exist. It just argued what we are working on is clarifying how does one satisfy that warning label requirement? What is an adequate warning label? Right now, we don't have a definition. Once that bill is passed into law, we do. If someone is injured by a product, that pathway of defective product or or harm, if that, that pathway to the courthouse absolutely still exists. If there is a bad batch of product manufactured from that pathway absolutely still exists. So folks that are harmed by products absolutely have protections still under the law today. And they would after this bill is signed into law in every one of the jurisdictions that we are working in, this effort is purely focused on clarifying the label parameters.

[Yeager] They'd still have protections, but wouldn't there be a cap on what they could ask for in damages?

[EBT] Damaged caps are set. No damage. Caps are separate. So. So, each state also has, unique state law as to in some states don't have damage caps. Some states do. This legislation has nothing to do with any damage caps. This is truly very, very narrowly tailored. In fact, folks that you can print off the bill on one sheet of paper, which is very rare these days. That is just how narrowly tailored and specific that it is.

[Yeager] Well, let's talk about the bill then you mentioned I heard you say Tennessee. I heard you say North Dakota. We've talked about Iowa. What other states is this? in the works, or at least being introduced.

[EBT] Sure. So I will give a nod to, to our friends down in Georgia. They were actually the first state this year to move it through both chambers. It's actually awaiting the governor's signature right now. So we saw a great bipartisan support on both sides. moved unanimously through committees, as well as bipartisan on the floor of the Senate and then the House here earlier this month, we saw an incredible support from North Dakota that moved unanimously through their committee on the House side. It was an 88 to 0 vote on the House floor. again, when I say that this is a bipartisan issue, I think that that vote in North Dakota, it showed showcases that to to a tee. we were just up there earlier this week to move through the Senate process there. we've got legislation that's been introduced in Oklahoma, Florida. I mentioned Tennessee, and I'm sure I'm in Missouri. Excuse me. Yes, we've moved through the house as well in Missouri and are working our way through, the Senate side conversation is there. There are a handful of states also that had begun to consider this legislation. but just like, you know, we have a funnel process in, in the state of Iowa where certain things need to be considered or brought up by a certain date. Otherwise they're considered dead for this session or this cycle. We had some, some states where where the bill just wasn't brought up. and so while that's unfortunate, we'll, we'll keep our collaborations kind of together and maybe tee up those conversations come this time next year.

[Yeager] I hear a lot of red states. I didn't hear Minnesota or Wisconsin. Michigan in your or have has it been introduced there?

[EBT] it has not. So we've, I think the initial count was about 11 states. it is hard to do this effort everywhere all at once. it just this many states is a lot to to in part also because the state legislative sessions, for the most part, almost all coincide. Right. So, you know, the state of Florida being a different exception. They didn't start until I think, like the first week of March was, which was nice to be able to, you know, frontload a few of these other states, but, I think we wanted to be able to focus in some areas where, you know, we had some boots on the ground partnerships already. we, we had already begun to have some of these conversations, and there was lawmakers that were interested in running this. So, that network I absolutely anticipate will continue to grow as we move into 2026 and beyond. Additionally, and I know we haven't talked about it at length just yet, but there is going to also be continuation of a federal effort on this topic. So there was legislation introduced in the last Congress, entitled the the AG Labeling Uniformity Act. That was actually part of the House farm bill. This, during the last Congress. So as we are getting back into it feels a little deja vu ish, right? Or Groundhog Day, right. Coming back to it to farm bill conversations year after year after year. But, I fully anticipate that that that, provision would be reintroduced and will be reintroduced this Congress. We haven't seen it yet, but I think they're still working on co-sponsors. and that that would be a critical part of our 2025, farm bill conversations this year.

[Yeager] So not necessarily centered in egg states, but, that are primarily road crop production that we have in Iowa and Missouri and North Dakota. Because when you mention. Yeah, and and Georgia and yeah, in other things. But I mean Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, I mean all possible in the future, I think.

[EBT] Absolutely. We've got great, we've got great partners, we've got great partners. And many of those states do. I you know, if I started rattling off the list, we'd unfortunately take all of our time on the podcast. But, you know, I would encourage folks to, to, to go on to modern AG Alliance Dorgan and just take a scroll through, just how broad and wide that list of partners is, state organizations and federal and and like I said, we've got great partners from coast to coast and beyond. And so looking forward to continuing to build that coalition and then build our outreach efforts as we move into, you know, the next legislative cycles.

[Yeager] And the cycle never stops. You've probably got to get to the next, meeting. So I will wrap it up, that way. Elizabeth, good to see you again. Thank you so much for the time. I appreciate it.

[EBT] Always good to see you, Paul. Thanks so much for having me on.

[Yeager] My thanks to Elizabeth and thank you. New episodes come out each and every Tuesday. Subscribe to the Market Insider newsletter to know all the cool things that are happening, happening on Market to Market. We'll see you next time.