About 167,000 legal claims against Bayer assert Roundup causes a cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which Bayer disputes. The company has won some cases, settled many others but also has suffered several losses in which juries awarded huge initial judgments. It has paid about $10 billion while thousands of claims linger in court. Though some studies associate Roundup's key ingredient with cancer, the EPA (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has regularly concluded it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Do you trust regulatory agencies like the EPA to adequately evaluate the safety of products like Roundup?

Should consumers have the right to sue pesticide companies if they believe they have been harmed by their products, even if the EPA deems the product safe?

Nearly identical bills introduced in Iowa, Missouri and Idaho this year — with wording supplied by Bayer — would protect pesticide companies from claims they failed to warn that their product causes cancer, if their labels otherwise complied with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulations. But legal experts warn the legislation could have broader consequences — extending to any product liability claim or, in Iowa's case, providing immunity from lawsuits of any kind. Critics say it could spread nationwide. Do you agree with the statement that granting legal immunity to Bayer sets a dangerous precedent for other product liability claims?