Hacker News Reader

Comment by nozzlegear | Hacker News Reader

As an Iowan, this reminds me a lot of the bill that's been pushed through my state's senate twice now (as recently as last year), which would prevent Iowans from filing lawsuits against pesticide and herbicide companies if those companies follow the EPA's labeling guidelines. The bill passed the senate both times, only stopped because the house declined to take it up.

For context, Iowa has the fastest growing rate of new cancer diagnoses in the country, and the second highest overall cancer rate.

View on HN

Honest question, isn't that like OK?

Like if you have a product, and the government says the product is ok, and it's labeled per regulation and later that product turns out to be deleterious to people's health should the company be liable?

Guess we should already have precedent but my google-fu is failing here. I can't seem to find the resolution of Felix-Lozano v. Nalge Nunc , Felix sued Nalgene over their use of BPA which at the time was not illegal to use in the bottles.

PFAS will probably be the next battleground here. They've been used in lots of products. And have some lawsuits https://www.cbsnews.com/news/firefighters-pfas-lawsuit/ . In your opinion should every manufacturer of a product that uses PFAS be legally liable?

I'm not a lawyer, nor a judge, so I can't say. All I can tell you is that it feels wrong that [Monsanto/OpenAI] can lobby a state's legislature to prevent you, the average joe and potential lucrative victim, from filing a lawsuit against them when it seems clear to any reasonable person that people are developing [cancer/mental health issues] due to the use of [pesticides/AI].

Perhaps something like anti-SLAPP rules for the ignominious corporations would be a happy middle ground? I don't know if that would "fix" anything – or if there's anything to fix – so don't take that as a super serious suggestion.

If companies can't lobby, so many "safety" regulations will pass that you will simply suffocate and kill private industry.

This is why most promising drug candidates never see light of day.

I'm generally open to lobbying, but I'm not generally open to "you can never file a lawsuit against the comically evil pesticide corporation standing behind us twirling their mustaches." There needs to be a middle ground.

I don't think itd be ok, personally. My impression is regulations and regulatory institutions can be very slow to evolve after technological advances, unless the government is financially liable. A scheme I would be more comfortable with is mandatory insurance and insurance companies with a financial incentive absorbing the liability. On top of that probably add some bare minimum regulatory requirements/certifications.

> Like if you have a product, and the government says the product is ok, and it's labeled per regulation and later that product turns out to be deleterious to people's health should the company be liable?

But like, what if you like, totally bribed the shit out government people and like totally fabricated scientific evidence to make it seem like it was safe but then you sold it anyway?

Aren't you then like a total piece of shit?

It's going to be okay. Stop watching movies and thinking they correlate to real life.

Damn. Wish you'd told me that before I finished Schindler's List and Angela's Ashes.

Cigarettes and asbestos are just two examples of where this absolutely did happen with plenty of public evidence, including successful legal cases.

"Like if you have a product, and the government says the product is ok, and it's labeled per regulation and later that product turns out to be deleterious to people's health should the company be liable?"

Mesothelioma is the precedent.

100% yes. If you've never seen the hell that people go through with these cancers, you are blessed, but it is hell, especially in the US medical system.

> Iowa has the fastest growing rate of new cancer diagnoses in the country, and the second highest overall cancer rate

Iowa also has a lot of farmers spraying pesticides and herbicides. This feels like genuine political competition between local business interests and public health concerns.

> This feels like genuine political competition between local business interests and public health concerns.

You just described the US at large.

The evidently extremely difficult decision between making money for a few, or making life better for everyone.

> You just described the US at large

I described any democracy in a society with private property. Even without private property, you will have issues with concentrated benefits and diffuse harms–negotiating that is part and parcel with governance.

Iowa businsses petitioning their cause is one thing. OpenAI seagulling in to take a shit in Springfield strikes me as being categorically different.

Viewed from a country with universal healthcare , 18 month’s maternity leave ( my partner just used it ) and so much more, it feels like comparing the US to “any democracy” is like comparing rocks to gold.

> viewed from a country with universal healthcare...it feels like comparing the US to “any democracy” is like comparing rocks to gold

Do most democracies, extant or across history, have universal healthcare? You're comparing a policy to a governance structure.

All developed ones do, yes.

Except one of course.

Normally I would agree with you, but the primary lobby behind both of the bills was Bayer (née Monsanto), with backing from several of Iowa's industrial farming organizations. They launched a giant ad campaign to "control weeds, not farming" alongside their bill to influence opinions. Cancer, nitrates and pesticides are at the top of everyone's mind in the state these past couple years, so having the pesticide giant try to swoop in and put a bill in place that would prevent Iowans from suing them feels like that same kind of seagulling behavior you described in another comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com