Why are we buying pesticides from China? What happened to our utopian future filled with tower greenhouses (ran on solar) that could feed an entire city?

Lynda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fjFSJEd0WE

Vertical farm technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKcliuGdJdU

By William Quinn
March 8, 2025

For the past two weeks, we have be alerting to the dangers of SB 144, a fertilizer/pesticide related bill designed to eliminate legal risk for the agrochemical providers.

What does SB 144 do?

The legislation would eliminate the ability to claim damages from these chemicals so long as there is a warning label (EPA-FIFRA) on the products. What if the warning label excludes certain risks? Too bad.

Who are the providers who would benefit from this? There are a number, but two of the largest are ChemChina and Bayer.

ChemChina is a state-owned company, this means the "state" or essentially the communist party owns and controls ChemChina:

The company is ranked 164th out of the Global Fortune 500, clearly large enough to have wide-ranging and well-financed influence across the 150 countries in which it does business.

Similarly, Bayer, a German company is one of the largest multi-national pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the world.

After we began researching SB 144, the founder of Moms Across America,, Zen Honeycutt, exposed that the push for pesticide immunity legislation was happening across the country. She also called out a second bill here in Georgia HB 424 which does essentially the same things.

Similar bills are being pushed simultaneously in Montana, Iowa, Tennessee, Florida, North Dakota and Missouri.

Georgia lawmakers have positioned SB144 and HB 424 as protection for Georgia farmers. But like a number of bills currently in play, the bill in fact protects big corporations starting with ChemChina and Bayer.

Why would Georgia representatives push such a thing?

You likely already know the answer, influence from these corporations and pressure (or Payouts) applied/supplied by their lobbyists. Pressure in the form of support for the legislator or support for their opponent would be one example.

Who Is At Risk?

If a warning label fails to include any known risks for any reason, the users of the chemicals would be at risk. The bills limit liability to those risks listed on the label.

Consumers and especially farmers could therefore. Farmers may come in contact with these chemicals on a daily basis. They and their workers could be exposed to many times the amount of chemicals as ordinary citizens.

This legislation could very well put lives at risk, so why is it being pushed?

That's a great question for you to ask your State Senator or Representative.