Glyphosate (Roundup) Lawsuit

The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a major pesticide regulation case. Depending on the outcome, it could allegedly weaken the ability of consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product risks. I use the word “allegedly” since, in this case, the product has not been deemed any official U.S. environmental agency to cause harm, particularly cancer.

The case centers on glyphosate – a weed killing chemical used in Roundup and other herbicidal products. Some studies have linked glyphosate to cancer, and it has also been listed as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization. Emphasis on “some” and “possible”, which may be key.

Before continuing, let me make a simple statement for all to read. If your dealing with a chemical that does not occur naturally, assume it is not healthy for you… and limit your exposure.

Monsanto, the company that introduced glyphosate in the 1970s, and owned by Bayer, has spent the last decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits claiming it failed to warn customers of cancer risks. Monsanto is asking the Supreme Court to rule, under the ‘Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’, it cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists, and therefore, does not require such a warning.

On the other hand, there’s enough circumstantial evidence, that maybe a courtesy warning would be advisable… just to protect itself.

Lawrence Ebner, of Atlantic Legal Foundation, in backing Monsanto, said in a briefing, “If you have a pesticide label with a zillion different warnings, how is the user supposed to know the ones that really matter, the ones that [the] EPA really has … determined are necessary?” At first, I thought that sounded silly. Then I remembered, I just bought a magnifying glass that was labeled with California’s famous Proposition 65 “known to cause cancer” warning. Seriously? A magnifying glass? It’s glass with a little bit of plastic surrounding it. It’s a warning I consistently make fun of… because it seemingly appears on every product in existence.

In contrast, Jim Jones, assistant administrator for EPA’s office of chemical safety under Barack Obama, said states play an important and complementary role in regulating pesticides and determining what types of warnings are warranted. “It’s the perspective I’ve held throughout my career at EPA. I think it is the correct one.”

While I believe in state’s rights, I'm not sure this case should be categorized as such. Something is either healthy or it’s not, especially when dealing with chemicals. We don’t need 50 different warning labels which make it difficult, and more expensive, for companies to conduct business nationwide.

I’m all for product warnings... if they make sense. I’m also for people having common sense. We should all have learned in school, and throughout everyday life, that chemicals can be dangerous. If it’s not natural, it may not be good for you. On the other hand, when I sold spices, I included “No known allergens” on the label… as a courtesy for those without common sense.

Source used: The Guardian