Jörg Carstensen / picture alliance via Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
Bayer AG is reneging on negotiated settlements with several U.S. law firms representing thousands of plaintiffs who claim exposure to Monsanto's Roundup herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, sources involved in the litigation said on Friday.
<p>The reversal comes as U.S. courts are closed to the public because of the spreading coronavirus, eliminating the specter of another Roundup cancer trial in the near future.</p><p>Bayer, which bought Monsanto in June of 2018, has been engaged in settlement talks for close to a year, seeking to put an end to mass litigation that has driven down the company's stock, spurred investor unrest, and thrust questionable corporate conduct into a public spotlight. The first three trials led to three losses for Bayer and jury awards of more than $2 billion, though trial judges later reduced the awards.</p>
<p>Bayer made <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit-delay/bayer-says-glyphosate-settlement-talks-delayed-by-coronavirus-handelsblatt-idUSKBN21K13F" target="_blank">a public statement</a> this week saying that settlement talks have been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, but multiple plaintiffs' lawyers said that was not true.</p><p>According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, Bayer has been going back to law firms that had already completed negotiations for specified settlements for their clients, saying the company will not honor the agreed-upon amounts.</p><p>"A lot of lawyers around the country thought they had tentative deals," said Virginia attorney Mike Miller, whose firm represents roughly 6,000 clients and won two of the three Roundup trials to date. Bayer is now demanding a "hair cut" on those deals, Miller said.</p><p>Whether or not the various firms will take the reduced offers remains to be seen. "These are uncertain economic times," Miller said. "People have to consider what's best for their clients."</p>In response to a request for comment, a Bayer spokesman provided the following statement: "We've made progress in the Roundup mediation discussions, but the COVID-19 dynamics, including restrictions imposed in recent weeks, have caused meeting cancellations and delayed this process … As a result, the mediation process has significantly slowed, and realistically, we expect this will continue to be the case for the immediate future. During this time, we will continue to do whatever we can to help combat the global COVID-19 pandemic, consistent with our vision of 'health for all, hunger for none.' We cannot speculate about potential outcomes from the negotiations or timing, given the uncertainties surrounding the pandemic and the confidentiality of this process, but we remain committed to engaging in mediation in good faith."<p>US Right to Know <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/anticipation-builds-for-settlement-of-roundup-cancer-claims/" target="_blank">reported in early January</a> that the parties were working on a settlement of roughly $8 billion to $10 billion. Bayer has acknowledged facing claims from more than 40,000 plaintiffs, but plaintiffs' attorneys have said the total number of claims is much higher.</p><p>Among the firms who had negotiated settlements for their clients are the Andrus Wagstaff firm from Denver, Colorado and the Los Angeles firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman. Both reached agreements last year with Bayer.</p><p>In addition, the Weitz & Luxenberg firm from New York and Mike Miller's firm recently reached what they thought were agreements on terms. Each of the firms represents thousands of plaintiffs.</p><p>The primary leverage plaintiffs' attorneys had been using in the settlement negotiations was the threat of another public trial. In the first three trials, damning <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/" target="_blank">internal Monsanto documents</a> laid bare evidence that the company knew of the cancer risks of its glyphosate-based herbicides but failed to warn consumers; ghost-wrote scientific papers proclaiming the safety of its herbicides; worked with certain regulatory officials to quash a government review of glyphosate toxicity; and engineered efforts to discredit critics.</p><p>The revelations have triggered outrage around the world and prompted moves to ban the glyphosate-based herbicides.</p><p>Several trials that were to have been held over the last several months were cancelled shortly before they were scheduled to begin when Bayer agreed to individual settlements for those specific trial plaintiffs. Two of those cases involved children stricken with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a third was brought by a woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Those plaintiffs, and others who have agreed to settlements in lieu of trials in recent months, are protected and are not part of the current rollback effort by Bayer, according to multiple sources involved.</p><p>Bayer is slated to hold its annual shareholders' meeting on April 28. For the first time in the company's history, the meeting will be <a href="https://www.media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-planning-to-hold-online-only-stockholders-meeting-on-April-28-2020" target="_blank">held entirely online</a>.</p><p>The first three plaintiffs to win jury awards against Monsanto have yet to receive any money as Bayer appeals the verdicts.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Dicamba is having a devastating impact in Arkansas and neighboring states. A farmer in Mississippi County, Arkansas looks at rows of soybean plants affected by dicamba. The Washington Post / Getty Images
Documents unearthed in a lawsuit brought by a Missouri farmer who claimed that Monsanto and German chemical maker BASF's dicamba herbicide ruined his peach orchard revealed that the two companies knew their new agricultural seed and chemical system would likely damage many U.S. farms, according to documents seen by The Guardian.
<p>The lawsuit, which awarded the Missouri farmer $265 million, showed that Monsanto intentionally hid the risks involved in its plans and calculated how to profit off farmers worried about damage to their crops. The documents also show Monsanto's efforts to stymie tests from third-party labs to make sure there was no data that concerned regulators.</p><p>In fact, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/monsanto-crop-system-damage-us-farms-documents" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reports that some employees joked about sharing "voodoo science" and hoping that they stay "out of jail."</p><p>The issue revealed by the documents was about dicamba and a new crop system from the two companies that addressed farmers' growing concerns that weeds resistant to Monsanto's <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> weed-killer, Roundup, were taking over croplands.</p>
<p>The new system allowed farmers to plant dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton. Then farmers could spray dicamba over their fields and kill everything that had developed a resistance to glyphosate, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/monsanto-crop-system-damage-us-farms-documents" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>The documents, which date back to 2009, show that Monsanto and BASF, despite assuring regulators that their system would prevent drift to neighboring farms, were aware that their system could have catastrophic consequences, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/monsanto-crop-system-damage-us-farms-documents" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. It seems the companies were aware that farmers would likely use older versions of dicamba, which easily turns into vapor and carries away to neighboring farms that were not protected, ruining thousands of acres of crops. Dicamba is particularly volatile and likely to carry away in hot weather.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.agjournalonline.com/news/20200307/lawsuit-floodgates-have-been-opened" target="_blank">AgJournal</a>, dicamba can start to vaporize and drift away three days after it has been applied.</p><p>The revelations from the successful $265 million lawsuit come amidst a deluge of complaints in several states. Regulators in Indiana, a soybean-intensive state, have been overwhelmed for the past three years by complaints that dicamba drift has ruined farmers' profits. According to <a href="http://www.therepublic.com/2020/03/01/dicamba_dilemma_herbicide_causing_hoosier_farmers_state_regulators_big_problems/" target="_blank">The Republic</a> in Columbus, Indiana, "Even small amounts of dicamba hitting unintended crops can lead to a 30% to 40% yield reduction, agricultural experts said. That can mean a $180 loss per acre, or $100,000 for a medium-size farm."</p>
<p>In Missouri, complaints about dicamba misuse have grown into a backlog of more than 600 cases. The Missouri Department of Agriculture had no cases of dicamba complaints in 2017, but was inundated with 595 cases by the end of 2019. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, before dicamba-resistant crops existed, approximately 231,000 pounds of the herbicide was spread every year. In 2017, Americans used more than 10 million pounds on cotton and soybean crops, as <a href="https://www.newstribune.com/news/local/story/2020/mar/02/hundreds-wait-to-have-dicamba-complaints-resolved/818982/" target="_blank">The News Tribune</a> in Missouri reported.</p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/monsanto-crop-system-damage-us-farms-documents" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported that Monsanto predicted this damage would happen. A 2015 document showed that Monsanto estimated that dicamba damage claims from farmers would total more than 10,000 cases, including 1,305 in 2016, 2,765 in 2017 and 3,259 in 2018.</p><p>"The documents are the worst that I've ever seen for any case that I've worked on," said lawyer Angie Splittgerber, a former tobacco industry defense attorney, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/monsanto-crop-system-damage-us-farms-documents" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. "So many of them put things in writing that were just horrifying."</p>
<p class=""><em>Editor's note: This article has been updated with respect to a correction published in The Guardian on March 31. Internal emails described in the third paragraph were from both BASF and Monsanto, according to The Guardian.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Bayer and BASF Ordered to Pay $265 Million to U.S. Peach Farmer ... ›
- Missouri's Largest Peach Farmer Sues Monsanto for Losses From ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A French farmer sprays glyphosate herbicide on a cornfield on March 21, 2019 in Saint-Leonard-des-Bois, northwestern France. JEAN-FRANCOIS MONIER/AFP via Getty Images
A new investigation revealed that Monsanto funneled money to secretly fund academic studies that warned of catastrophic consequences to farmers if glyphosate was banned in the UK, according to research from the German watchdog LobbyControl, as The Guardian reported.
<p>The two studies in question come from 2010 and 2014, which was before the German chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018. Upon learning of the secret funding, Bayer said the failure to disclose it violated the company's principles, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/revealed-monsantos-secret-funding-for-weedkiller-studies-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>"This is an unacceptable form of opaque lobbying," said Ulrich Müller at <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/initiative/" target="_blank">LobbyControl</a>, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/revealed-monsantos-secret-funding-for-weedkiller-studies-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. "Citizens, media and decision-makers should know who pays for studies on subjects of public interest. The studies also used very high figures for the benefits of glyphosate and for possible losses in case of a ban. These extreme figures were then used to spin the debate."</p>
<p>However, the authors of the two studies said that the funding did not influence their findings. The <a href="https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/resinf/opm/2010/00000021/00000006/art00008" target="_blank">2010 study</a>, called <em>How Valuable is Glyphosate to UK Agriculture and the Environment?</em> touted glyphosate for "a wide range of benefits to users." It said that glyphosate binds to soil and rarely leaches into groundwater. It does mention that glyphosate is sometimes found in surface water, but far below levels that would register as toxic. It then goes on to discuss how a ban of glyphosate would upend UK farming and gardening.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/resinf/opm/2014/00000025/00000005/art00007;jsessionid=224saa9i9qtui.x-ic-live-01" target="_blank">2014 study</a> followed a similar line of reasoning. The study, titled <em>Glyphosate Use on Combinable Crops in Europe: Implications for Agriculture and the Environment</em>, also mentioned that glyphosate is highly water soluble and does not readily leach into soil or water and is found in less than 1 percent of water samples. It then goes on to assess "the value of glyphosate use across wheat, winter barley and oilseed rape in Europe."</p>
<p>And yet, one of the lead researchers Sarah Wynn said the funding did not influence her research. She told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/revealed-monsantos-secret-funding-for-weedkiller-studies-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, "As with other companies in our field, it is entirely normal for external organizations to fund research studies. However, it has always been our core principle that our research is never influenced in any way by those that fund us."</p><p>Wynn and her colleagues, unsurprisingly, came down in favor of continued glyphosate use. The research concluded, "the loss of glyphosate would cause very severe impacts on UK agriculture and the environment," as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/revealed-monsantos-secret-funding-for-weedkiller-studies-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. In the 2014 study they concluded that Europe would see a 20 percent fall in wheat and rapeseed production if glyphosate were banned.</p><p>Other researchers came to a different conclusion, noting that farming practices would change. The Andersons Centre at Oxford Economics challenged the conclusion of the Monsanto-funded studies.</p><p>In <a href="https://cropprotection.org.uk/media/1139/oxford-economics-summary-report-final.pdf" target="_blank">its report</a> on a glyphosate ban in the UK, it said, "The Andersons Centre believe that this may be rather high given the mitigation efforts and the rotational changes discussed elsewhere. A similar process has been undertaken for all the major crops grown in the UK, using the best available data and knowledge of industry experts."</p><p>The 2010 and 2014 studies were instrumental in the lobbying efforts of the National Farmers Union and others to successfully campaign against a European ban of glyphosate in 2017, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/revealed-monsantos-secret-funding-for-weedkiller-studies-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. The new revelations have spurred the National Farmers Union to note the source of the funding on its glyphosate information.</p><p>The National Farmers Union was not alone in using the research. Industry lobbyings groups the Glyphosate Task Force (now renamed the Glyphosate Renewal Group), <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150106072502/http://www.glyphosate.eu/economical-importance-glyphosate-herbicides-european-agriculture-case-studies-uk-and-germany" target="_blank">also used</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150106072502/http://www.glyphosate.eu/references-chapter-benefits-0" target="_blank">the research</a>, as did the <a href="https://cropprotection.org.uk/media/1139/oxford-economics-summary-report-final.pdf" target="_blank">Crop Protection Association</a>, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/revealed-monsantos-secret-funding-for-weedkiller-studies-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Bayer and BASF Ordered to Pay $265 Million to U.S. Peach Farmer in Weedkiller Suit
17 February
Business
Bill Bader, owner of Bader Farms, and his wife Denise pose in front of the Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr. United States Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, Missouri on Jan. 27, 2020. Johnathan Hettinger / Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting
A jury in Missouri awarded a farmer $265 million in a lawsuit that claimed Bayer and BASF's weedkiller destroyed his peach orchard, as Reuters reported.
<p>The lawsuit is ominous for Bayer, which bought <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a> in 2018 and now faces nearly 140 similar lawsuits in U.S. courts, plus thousands of other suits that claim health damage from Monsanto's <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>-based Roundup.</p><p>The jury in U.S. District Court in Cape Girardeau, Missouri awarded peach farmer, Bill Bader, $15 million in actual damages and $250 million in punitive damages, after agreeing with his claim that a herbicide the two German companies produced drifted onto his orchard from nearby farms and irreparably damaged his 1,000 acre peach-tree orchard, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-dicamba-lawsuit/us-peach-grower-awarded-265-million-from-bayer-basf-in-weedkiller-lawsuit-idUSKBN20A0JJ" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.<br></p><p>Bader Farms is one of the largest peach tree farms in Missouri.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://apnews.com/5f2a0d06474958abb2de46dfc788a993" target="_blank">AP</a> reported, Bader's attorneys argued that dicamba, which is present in herbicides made by Bayer and BASF, is so potent that there was no way for Bader's trees to recover from the exposure. The generous award paves the way for a large spate of lawsuits from farmers who have seen their crops destroyed by inadvertent exposure to dicamba-based products.</p><p>Like Roundup, dicamba was developed and distributed by Monsanto. Farmers across the country have claimed that dicamba turns into vapor and drifts for miles when used in certain weather conditions, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-dicamba-lawsuit/us-peach-grower-awarded-265-million-from-bayer-basf-in-weedkiller-lawsuit-idUSKBN20A0JJ" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported. They have alleged that it has destroyed millions of acres of U.S. cropland, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/5f2a0d06474958abb2de46dfc788a993" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a>.</p>
<p>Attorneys for Bayer said they plan to appeal the decision. "We want our customers to know that, as this legal matter continues, we remain steadfast in our commitment to delivering them the effective and sustainable tools they need in the field," Bayer said in a statement, as <a href="https://apnews.com/5f2a0d06474958abb2de46dfc788a993" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a> reported. In court, they argued that Bader Farms trees were damaged by root fungus and bad weather.</p><p>The lawyers also claimed that the decision was not based on facts, saying "there was no competent evidence presented which showed that Monsanto's products were present" on the Missouri farm and were responsible for the farmer's losses, according to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-14/bayer-ordered-to-pay-15-million-over-dicamba-crop-damage" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>.</p>
<p>The loss in this trial, which surely opens the door for many more lawsuits, heaps an enormous amount of pressure on Bayer Chief Executive Officer Werner Baumann, who staked his career on the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto. He became the first CEO of a major German company in decades to lose a shareholder confidence vote last spring, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-14/bayer-ordered-to-pay-15-million-over-dicamba-crop-damage" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported.</p><p>Dicamba is not a new product. Farmers have been using it for nearly half a century. However, Monsanto developed a dicamba-resistant strain of cotton and soybeans. That opened the door for widespread use of dicamba, which led to complaints from neighboring farms who claimed that their crops were getting killed by the dicamba drift, as <a href="https://apnews.com/5f2a0d06474958abb2de46dfc788a993" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a> reported.</p><p>In response to those concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created tighter restrictions on dicamba usage. Some states have taken additional steps, requiring training and putting in place firm dates dictating when dicamba can and cannot be sprayed, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/5f2a0d06474958abb2de46dfc788a993" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a>.</p><p>The legal cases from Monsanto continue to pile up for Bayer. Not only are Roundup and dicamba suits in the pipeline, the company also faces litigation from several cities that claim Monsanto dumped toxic PCBs into waterways, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-14/bayer-ordered-to-pay-15-million-over-dicamba-crop-damage" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's EPA Sides With Monsanto, Extends Dicamba 2 More Years ›
- Missouri's Largest Peach Farmer Sues Monsanto for Losses From ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
'Troubling Allegiance' to Pesticide Company: Trump's EPA Claims Glyphosate Poses No Risk to Human Health
31 January
Health + Wellness
By Eoin Higgins
President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday wrapped up a regulatory review of the safety of the weedkiller glyphosate and found the chemical poses no risk to human health — a decision that was immediately decried by advocates as another indication of the closeness between the administration and private sector interests.
<p>"The Trump EPA's assertion that glyphosate poses no risks to human health disregards independent science findings in favor of confidential industry research and industry profits," <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-reapproves-glyphosate-claims-pesticide-poses-no-human-health-threat-2020-01-30/" target="_blank">said</a> Lori Ann Burd, the Center for Biological Diversity's director of environmental health. "This administration's troubling allegiance to Bayer/Monsanto and the pesticide industry doesn't change the trove of peer-reviewed research by leading scientists finding troubling links between glyphosate and cancer."<em></em></p>
<p>The EPA came to the conclusion after reviewing the chemical's effects on humans, but the determination is unlikely to change views on either side of the conflict over the chemical's safety.</p><p>"A whole lot of people will disagree" with the EPA, <a href="https://twitter.com/NaomiStarkman/status/1222987413619785729" target="_blank">tweeted</a> Civil Eats founder and editor Naomi Starkman.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-epa/u-s-epa-reaffirms-that-glyphosate-does-not-cause-cancer-idUSKBN1ZT2SB" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>:</p><blockquote>The conclusion reaffirms the agency's stance on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Bayer AG's Roundup, despite judgments by U.S. juries that have found that use of the weedkiller was responsible for plaintiffs' cancer in some trials.<br>...<br>In 2015, the World Health Organization's cancer arm classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."<br></blockquote>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-23/bayer-is-said-to-discuss-settling-roundup-claims-for-10-billion" target="_blank">reportedly</a> tens of thousands of lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto for the chemical's cancer links, and the company is considering settling the claims for between $10 and $12 billion. </p><p>Thursday's decision is not expected to have an effect on those suits. But the message the EPA is sending, the Center for Biological Diversity's Burd said, is clear. </p><p>"The EPA's pesticide office is clearly willing to bend over backwards, including disregarding its own guidelines for evaluating cancer risks, to give the industry what it wants," said Burd. </p><p>As <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/12/playing-role-pesticide-cheerleader-epa-rebukes-calif-ban-warning-labels-roundup" target="_blank">Common Dreams has reported</a>, Trump's EPA has been criticized by advocates for years for its closeness to Bayer/AG and its treatment of glyphosate.</p><p>Media strategist Jen Degtjarewsky gave a blunt assessment on the president's environmental record in the context of Thursday's ruling. </p><p>"It's open season on clean air, water, and soil," <a href="https://twitter.com/JenDegtjarewsky/status/1222980634873778176" target="_blank">said</a> Degtjarewsky.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/30/critics-trump-epas-formal-assertion-glyphosate-poses-no-risk-human-health-indication?cd-origin=rss" rel="noopener noreferrer">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- EPA Says Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer. Other Public Health ... ›
- EPA Says Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer, Contradicting IARC ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trial Postponed in St. Louis, Bayer Stock Climbs
09 January
Health + Wellness
The compound of German chemicals and pharmaceuticals giant Bayer in Berlin on March 20, 2019. ODD ANDERSEN / AFP via Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
A highly anticipated Roundup cancer trial set to start later this month in the St. Louis area has been pulled from the docket, a court official said on Wednesday.
<p>The trial, which was to pit a woman named Sharlean Gordon against Roundup maker <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a> Co., was to start Jan. 27 in St. Louis County and was to be broadcast to the public. Notably, Gordon's lawyers planned to put former Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant on the stand. St. Louis was the home of Monsanto's corporate headquarters until the company was purchased by Bayer AG of Germany in June of 2018.</p><p>In taking the trial off the calendar, the judge in the case has ordered that a status conference be set for a month from now, said St. Louis County Court spokeswoman Christine Bertelson.</p>
<p>The Gordon trial was already postponed once – it originally was scheduled for August. It is one of several trials that have been postponed in the last several months as Bayer attempts to find a settlement to the mass of claims filed against Monsanto by people stricken with non-Hodgkin lymphoma they claim was caused by exposure to Monsanto Roundup and other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>-based herbicides. Bayer officials have said that Monsanto is facing more than 42,700 plaintiffs in the U.S.</p><p>Gordon developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup herbicides for 25 years at her residence in South Pekin, Illinois, and has suffered extensive debilitation due to her disease. Gordon's stepfather, who also used Roundup at the family home, died of cancer. <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sharlean-Gordon-v.-Monsanto.pdf" target="_blank">The case</a> is actually derived from a larger case filed in July 2017 on behalf of more than 75 plaintiffs. Gordon was to be the first of that group to go to trial.</p>
<p>Monsanto and Bayer have denied that Monsanto's herbicides can cause cancer, and assert the litigation is without merit but is being fueled by greedy plaintiffs' attorneys.</p><p>According to sources close to the litigation, <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/more-monsanto-roundup-cancer-trials-expected-to-be-postponed/" target="_blank">discussions are underway</a> to postpone more Roundup cancer trials, possibly including one set to start Jan. 21 in St. Louis City Court. Attorneys for Monsanto and for the plaintiffs in the upcoming January trials declined to comment.</p><p>Shares in Bayer hit a 52-week high and were up close to 3 percent Wednesday. Investors have been pushing the company to find a way to avoid future trials and to settle the litigation.</p>
<p>In the three Roundup cancer trials held so far, unanimous juries have found that exposure to Monsanto's herbicides does cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company covered up the risks and failed to warn consumers. The three juries awarded a total of four plaintiffs more than $2 billion in damages, but the trial judges in each case <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-roundup-settlement/" target="_blank">have reduced the awards</a> significantly.</p><p>No damages have yet been paid as Monsanto appeals the verdicts.</p><p>Bayer's annual shareholders' meeting is set for April 28 and analysts said investors would like to see either a settlement of the litigation by that time, or at least meaningful progress in containing the liability. Bayer's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html" target="_blank">stock took a dive</a>, losing billions of dollars in value, after the first jury verdict in August 2018, and share prices remain depressed.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/st-louis-monsanto-roundup-trial-postponed/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Monsanto Cancer Ruling Sparks Backlash Around the Globe ... ›
- Glyphosate Spin Check: Tracking Claims About the Most Widely ... ›
- More Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trials Expected to Be Postponed ... ›
- Former Monsanto CEO Ordered to Testify at Roundup Cancer Trial ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Activists stage a flash protest organized by the international movement Attac at the offices of Bayer in Paris on March 14, 2019. PHILIPPE LOPEZ / AFP via Getty Images
Update, Jan. 8: On Wednesday, St. Louis County Court spokeswoman Christine Bertelson confirmed that one trial set to start Jan. 27 has been officially postponed with no new trial date yet set. That trial was to pit a woman named Sharlean Gordon against Monsanto.
By Carey Gillam
Discussions are underway to postpone one or more highly anticipated Roundup cancer trials set to start in January, including trials scheduled for St. Louis, the former hometown of Roundup herbicide maker Monsanto Co., according to sources close to the litigation.
<p>Court dockets still show trials <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/" target="_blank">scheduled for later this month</a> in St. Louis and in California courts, and court officials say they are still planning for the trials to take place on the designated dates. But multiple legal sources said the opposing sides were nearing agreements that would put off the trials by several months, if not longer. Attorneys for Monsanto and for the plaintiffs in the upcoming January trials declined to comment.</p><p>The talk of trial delays is not unexpected. Bayer AG, the German company that bought Monsanto in June 2018, successfully negotiated the <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/speculation-over-settlement-soars-as-roundup-cancer-trial-postponed/" target="_blank">postponement of several trials</a> that had been set for the fall of 2019 after losing each of the three trials held to date. Each involved plaintiffs who claimed their cancers were caused by exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>-based herbicides.</p><p><a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-roundup-settlement/" target="_blank">The juries </a>found not just that the company's herbicides can cause cancer, but that Monsanto knew about the risks and hid the information from consumers. Bayer has estimated more than 42,700 people have filed claims in the U.S. against Monsanto, which is now a wholly owned unit of Bayer.</p><p>Bayer and a team of plaintiffs' attorneys have been pursuing a potential settlement of the litigation that could amount to well more than $8 billion, the legal sources said.</p>
<p>Bayer has been particularly uneasy about trials scheduled for St. Louis, where former Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/former-monsanto-ceo-ordered-to-testify-at-roundup-trial-in-person/" target="_blank">has been subpoenaed to testify</a> and the trial of plaintiff Sharlean Gordon was to be broadcast to the public. In the three previous trials, all held in California, Monsanto executives have given testimony through depositions and have not had to take the stand in front of juries.</p><p>"Trial postponements make perfect sense right now," said Susquehanna Financial Group analyst Tom Claps. "I believe that it is in everyone's best interest to stay out of the courtroom at this time, especially when negotiations seem to be progressing in a positive manner."</p><p>Amid the maneuvering, more cases continue to stack up. Lawyers for Monsanto were in court Monday in Independence, Missouri to set a schedule and trial date for a newly filed lawsuit brought by a woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma she claims she developed due to her residential use of Roundup.</p><p>Gregory Chernack of the Washington, DC-based Hollingsworth law firm, one of Monsanto's long-serving defense firms, told the judge in Independence that Monsanto wanted the case consolidated with roughly 30 others being overseen by a different judge in Kansas City, Missouri. Attorneys for plaintiff Sheila Carver objected to the suggestion, and asked the judge to go ahead and set a trial date. Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Phillips decided to give the parties 30 days to file motions on the matter.</p>
<p>Bayer's annual shareholders' meeting is set for April 28 and analysts said investors would like to see either a settlement of the litigation by that time, or at least meaningful progress in containing the liability. Bayer's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html" target="_blank">stock took a dive</a>, losing billions of dollars in value, after the first jury verdict in August 2018, and share prices remain depressed.</p><p>"Bayer's stock has reacted negatively to each of the three trial verdicts. Therefore, Bayer does not want to face more negative trial headlines from losing another trial, especially while it is engaged in good faith settlement discussions," said Claps.</p><p>There are multiple factors at play, however, including the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the appeals that are pending for each of the three trials. If an appellate court were to overturn the jury findings of Monsanto's liability, it would weaken the plaintiffs' bargaining power for a global settlement. Conversely, the company's position would be weakened if the jury verdicts are upheld on appeal. But no decision is expected <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/monsanto-comes-out-swinging-in-appeal-of-johnson-verdict/" target="_blank">on the appeals</a> for several more months at least.</p><p>In December, the U.S. Department of Justice took the rare step of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">intervening in the litigation</a> to <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/12/EPA-amicus-brief-supporting-Monsanto-in-Hardeman-appeal.pdf" target="_blank">side with Monsanto</a> and Bayer in the appeal of one of the verdicts.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/more-monsanto-roundup-cancer-trials-expected-to-be-postponed/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Former Monsanto CEO Ordered to Testify at Roundup Cancer Trial ... ›
- Cancer Takes Toll as New Roundup Trials Near - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Environmental Protection Agency West pictured in DC. Wally Gobetz / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added its weight to back Bayer AG in its appeal against a federal jury verdict that decided its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, according to Bloomberg.
<p>Bayer is looking to overturn a verdict that first awarded a plaintiff $80 million, but was reduced to $25 million by a federal judge, in a suit that claimed the world's most popular <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/herbicides" rel="noopener noreferrer">herbicide</a> caused a man's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The EPA, working with the U.S. Department of Justice, filed papers in court on Friday fully and unequivocally supporting Bayer's claim that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" rel="noopener noreferrer">glyphosate</a>, the active ingredient in Roundup, does not cause cancer, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported. </p>
<p>When the U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria cut the jury reward in the spring, he refused to overturn the jury's findings that Roundup should have been sold with a cancer warning on the label. The EPA, however, said in papers that it had vetted and approved the Roundup warning label issued by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018 for about $63 billion, and it did not require a cancer warning, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported.</p>
<p>The filings by the EPA and Justice Department said that Monsanto, and subsequently Bayer, could not print a cancer-risk warning on its label because the EPA has the sole authority over warning labels on chemical products and the EPA would not have approved a cancer warning on Roundup labels, according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a>. </p>
<p>"That label, once reviewed and approved by EPA, is controlling," the agency said, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported. "States cannot impose distinct labeling requirements."</p>
<p>In August, the EPA administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Andrew-Wheeler" rel="noopener noreferrer">Andrew Wheeler</a> said his agency would not allow a cancer-risk warning on glyphosate-based herbicides, saying it was tantamount to false labeling since the EPA had deemed it safe, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported. </p>
<p>"EPA has a longstanding position—It's not just this administration which determined that this pesticide does not cause cancer," said Jeffrey Clark, the assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Justice Department in an interview, to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a>. "EPA should be in control. Congress set it up that way."</p>
<p>In its appeal, Bayer alleged that Chhabria made several errors and that the plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law. Bayer claims that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, it actually would have been misbranding to print a cancer-risk warning on a glyphosate-based product, according to <a href="https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL222562/Food--Ag-Policy-Briefing-Bayer-strikes-back-water-directive-CAP-support" target="_blank">IEG Policy Agribusiness</a>. </p>
<p>Bayer is facing a mountain of litigation as there were 42,700 others suing the company over Roundup as of October, according to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>. So far, Bayer has lost three U.S. court cases where plaintiffs have claimed that long-term exposure to Roundup had caused their cancer. The company has postponed two trials in the U.S. while it works with a mediator to try to hammer out a settlement with the plaintiffs, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported. </p>
<p>Legal scholars told <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> that the filing by the EPA and the Justice Department will stand out to the appeals court, and the federal government will often add its opinion when a case is based on the interpretation of a federal statute. </p><p>Bayer said in a statement to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> that it's pleased the EPA "expressed its views in this appeal, which are consistent with the preemption arguments we have made throughout this case."</p>
<p>Aimee Wagstaff, the lawyer for Edwin Hardeman, the plaintiff, emailed a statement to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> that said the EPA's filing reflected a desperation move by Bayer that has been rejected by several state and federal judges. "The EPA's brief doesn't change the law," she wrote.</p>
<p>"We are confident the Ninth Circuit will also reject Monsanto's argument and rule in favor of Mr. Hardeman," she added, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported.</p>
<p>The appeals court judges "may not ultimately agree with the side the government is supporting for other reasons," said Ben Feuer, an appellate lawyer in San Francisco, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported, but the agency's brief "is going to be closely parsed and they will engage with it."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Ethics Investigations Opened into Actions of EPA Head Wheeler ... ›
- Trump's EPA Sides With Monsanto, Extends Dicamba 2 More Years ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Monsanto's former chairman and CEO Hugh Grant speaks about "The Coming Agricultural Revolution" on May 17, 2016. Fortune Brainstorm E / Flickr
By Carey Gillam
Former Monsanto Chairman and CEO Hugh Grant will have to testify in person at a St. Louis-area trial set for January in litigation brought by a cancer-stricken woman who claims her disease was caused by exposure to the company's Roundup herbicide and that Monsanto covered up the risks instead of warning consumers.
<p>Grant, who led St. Louis-based Monsanto from 2003 until the company was sold to Bayer AG of Germany in June of 2018, and spent a total of 37 years working for Monsanto, was subpoenaed by lawyers for <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/st-louis-roundup-cancer-trial-could-be-postponed-talk-of-bayer-settlement/" target="_blank">plaintiff Sharlean Gordon,</a> to testify at a trial slated to begin Jan. 27 in St. Louis County Circuit Court.</p><p>The Gordon trial was originally scheduled for August of this year but was delayed as part of an effort to undertake settlement talks between Bayer and lawyers for tens of thousands of plaintiffs who are suing Monsanto with claims similar to Gordon's.</p><p>Two other trials set for January, both in courts in California and both involving children diagnosed with cancer, were <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/two-bayer-roundup-trials-postponed-to-give-mediation-more-time" target="_blank">recently postponed</a> due to continued settlement talks.</p><p>Bayer estimates that there are currently more than 42,000 plaintiffs alleging that exposure to Monsanto's Roundup and other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>-based herbicides made by Monsanto caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.</p><p>Grant did not have to testify live at the three Roundup cancer trials that have taken place so far because they were all held in California. But because Grant resides in St. Louis County, plaintiffs' attorneys saw an opportunity to get him on the stand in person.</p><p>Attorneys for Grant have been fighting the subpoena, arguing that he is not a scientist or regulatory expert and he has already provided information in deposition testimony. Grant has also argued that he should not have to testify because he plans to be out of the country starting Feb. 9.</p><p>But in a decision handed down Dec. 5, a special master appointed to the case sided with Gordon's attorneys <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/12/Order-for-Hugh-Grant-to-testify-at-trial.pdf" target="_blank">and ruled</a> that Grant was not entitled to an order quashing the subpoena for trial testimony.</p><p>"Mr. Grant appeared for interviews on public radio representing that Roundup is not a carcinogen; in earnings calls for investors Mr. Grant personally responded that the classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was 'junk science;' in 2016 Mr. Grant personally lobbied the EPA Administrator and the Agricultural Committee Chair of the topic of glyphosate," the special master's order states.</p><p>"Although Mr. Grant does not have scientific knowledge that doubtless will be a significant component to this lawsuit, he was CEO of Monsanto for 15 years and took part in presentations, discussions, interviews and other appearances for Monsanto as CEO in which the topics of Roundup and glyphosate were explained, discussed and defended," Special Master Thomas Prebil said in his decision.</p><p>Gordon developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup herbicides for 25 years at her residence in South Pekin, Illinois, and has suffered extensive debilitation due to her disease. Gordon's stepfather, who also used Roundup at the family home where Gordon lived into adulthood, died of cancer. <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sharlean-Gordon-v.-Monsanto.pdf" target="_blank">The case</a> is actually derived from a larger case filed in July 2017 on behalf of more than 75 plaintiffs. Gordon is the first of that group to go to trial.</p><p>In the three previous trials, unanimous juries have found that exposure to Monsanto's herbicides does cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company did cover up the risks and fail to warn consumers. The three juries awarded a total of four plaintiffs more than $2 billion in damages, but the three trial judges <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-roundup-settlement/" target="_blank">have reduced the awards</a> significantly in each case.</p><p>All are being appealed and none of the winning plaintiffs have yet received any of the monetary awards the juries ordered.</p>
<h2>Johnson Appeal Delayed</h2><p>The first plaintiff to win against Monsanto is a California school groundskeeper from California. <a href="https://time.com/5460793/dewayne-lee-johnson-monsanto-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Dewayne "Lee" Johnson </a>was awarded $289 million by a jury in August 2018. The trial judge later lowered the damages to $78 million. Monsanto appealed seeking to overturn the jury decision and Johnson cross-appealed seeking to reinstate the full award of $289 million.</p><p>The California Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District said it would act swiftly in ruling on the consolidated appeals and lawyers for both sides initially hoped to have a ruling by the end of this year. But the case has been delayed for several weeks as both sides awaited a date for oral arguments. On Dec. 3, Monsanto's attorneys asked the court not to schedule oral arguments in January or February, as several new Roundup trials are set for those months. Johnson's attorneys opposed that request for further delay.</p><p>On Friday, the court issued an order stating that while it agreed with Johnson about the need to<br>"schedule oral argument as soon as practicable," it was unlikely oral arguments could be held until March of April "given the number and length of all the briefs to be considered, the outstanding motions that the court must rule on when considering the merits of the appeal," and other factors.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/former-monsanto-ceo-ordered-to-testify-at-roundup-trial-in-person/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An American flag waves in the wind at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, California on May 17 where a trial against Monsanto took place. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, were awarded more than $2 billion in damages in their lawsuit against Monsanto, though the judge in the case lowered the damage award to $87 million. JOSH EDELSON / AFP / Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
For the last five years, Chris Stevick has helped his wife Elaine in her battle against a vicious type of cancer that the couple believes was caused by Elaine's repeated use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide around a California property the couple owned. Now the roles are reversed as Elaine must help Chris face his own cancer.
<p>Chris Stevick, who often mixed Roundup for his wife and tested the sprayer used to dispense the weed killer, was diagnosed last month with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Unlike Elaine's aggressive type of NHL known as central nervous system lymphoma, Chris's cancer is a type that tends to grow slowly. He was diagnosed after a physical examination showed abnormalities in his blood and prompted further tests.</p><p>The diagnosis has prompted a scramble among lawyers involved in the sprawling Roundup products liability litigation given that the Stevick's lawsuit against Monsanto is set as the next federal case to go to trial.</p><p>With the trial date of Feb. 24, 2020 looming, Elaine Stevick's lawyers <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Stevick-Letter-Brief-re-husband-cancer-diagnosis.pdf" target="_blank">asked Monsanto's attorneys</a> if the company would agree that Chris Stevick's cancer claims could be joined with his wife's for the February trial in San Francisco. The attorneys argue that at the very least Chris Stevick's diagnosis is admissible evidence at his wife's trial as additional proof of their claim that Roundup exposure can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.</p><p>Monsanto's attorneys oppose the joining of the claims and say that Elaine Stevick's trial should only proceed in February if there is no mention made of her husband's cancer. Alternatively, Monsanto requests that the February trial be delayed and the company be given time to do discovery into Chris Stevick's diagnosis.</p><p>The issue is to be discussed in a case management conference Thursday, which the Stevicks plan to attend. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Stevick-order-Nov-6-2019.pdf" target="_blank">ahead of the hearing</a> that he is "tentatively of the view" that a continuance of the trial will be necessary if the couple wants to try their claims together. He also said that if Elaine Stevick proceeds on her exposure claims alone, evidence of her husband's cancer diagnosis "will likely be inadmissible…"</p><p>If the judge confirms that joining the claims would indeed require a continuance, Elaine Stevick will choose to proceed on her own in February, said attorney Mike Miller.</p><p>Earlier this year another husband and wife suffering from cancer, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, were awarded <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html" target="_blank">more than $2 billion in damages</a> in their lawsuit against Monsanto, though the judge in the case lowered the damage award to $87 million. The Pilliod trial was the third Roundup products liability trial to take place and the third in which juries found that Monsanto's Roundup herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company has hidden the risks from consumers. Alberta Pilliod's cancer has recently returned and it is not clear she will survive much longer, according to her attorneys.</p><p>None of the people so far awarded money in the three trials have received any payout from Monsanto as its owner Bayer AG appeals the verdicts.</p><p>There are currently more than 42,000 people suing Monsanto in the U.S., alleging that Monsanto's herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The lawsuits additionally allege that the company was well aware of the dangers but did nothing to warn consumers, working instead to manipulate the scientific record.</p><p>The Stevick trial is only one of at least six in five different venues slated for January and February, with each expected to last several weeks. Many lawyers are involved in more than one of the cases, and all have overlapping expert witnesses, setting up organizational and resource challenges for both sides. Multiple trials that had been set for this fall were delayed until next year.</p><p>In the meantime, both sides of the litigation are keeping an eye on the California Appellate Court, where lawyers for plaintiff <a href="https://time.com/5460793/dewayne-lee-johnson-monsanto-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Dewayne "Lee" Johnson</a> and lawyers for Monsanto are awaiting a date for oral arguments in their cross appeals. Monsanto is seeking to overturn the unanimous jury decision handed down against the company in August 2018. The trial judge in that case lowered the jury award from $289 million to $78 million and Johnson is appealing for the reinstatement of the full $289 million.</p><p>Johnson was the first to go to trial against Monsanto and his victory sent share prices in Bayer plummeting just two months after Bayer closed the purchase of Monsanto in June 2018. Johnson was granted "trial preference" due to predictions by his doctors that he did not have long to live. Johnson has outlived those predictions, though his health continues to decline.</p><p>As the litigation drags on, several plaintiffs have died or are nearing death, or have suffered such extreme health problems that their ability to undergo the rigors of depositions and trials has become limited.</p><p>In some cases, family members are being substituted as plaintiffs for deceased loved ones. In legal parlance, the notices to the courts are titled "<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Suggestion-of-Death.pdf" target="_blank">Suggestion of Death</a>."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
New FDA Report on Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables Adds to Growing Public Health Concerns
28 October 2019
Health + Wellness
Farm workers spray pesticides on newly planted strawberries on a farm along the Pacific Coast. GomezDavid / E+ / Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
Last month the Food & Drug Administration published its latest annual analysis of the levels of pesticide residues that contaminate the fruits and veggies and other foods we Americans routinely put on our dinner plates. The fresh data adds to growing consumer concern and scientific debate over how pesticide residues in food may contribute – or not – to illness, disease and reproductive problems.
<p>Over 55 pages of data, charts and graphs, the FDA's "Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program" report also provides a rather unappetizing example of the degree to which U.S. farmers have come to rely on synthetic insecticides, fungicides and herbicides in growing our <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a>.</p><p>We learn, for instance, in reading the latest report, that traces of pesticides were found in 84 percent of domestic samples of fruits, and 53 percent of vegetables, as well as 42 percent of grains and 73 percent of food samples simply listed as "other." The samples were drawn from around the country, including from California, Texas, Kansas, New York and Wisconsin.</p><p>Roughly 94 percent of grapes, grape juice and raisins tested positive for pesticide residues as did 99 percent of strawberries, 88 percent of apples and apple juice, and 33 percent of rice products, according to the FDA data.</p>
<p>Imported fruits and vegetables actually showed a lower prevalence of pesticides, with 52 percent of fruits and 46 percent of vegetables from abroad testing positive for pesticides. Those samples came from more than 40 countries, including Mexico, China, India and Canada.</p><p>We also learn that for the most recently reported sampling, among the hundreds of different pesticides, the FDA found traces of the long-banned insecticide DDT in food samples, as well as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos">chlorpyrifos</a>, 2,4-D and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>. DDT is linked to breast cancer, infertility and miscarriage, while chlorpyrifos – another insecticide – has been scientifically shown to cause neurodevelopmental problems in young children.</p><p>Chlorpyrifos is so dangerous that the European Food Safety Authority has recommended a ban of the chemical in Europe, finding that there is <a href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/08/06/EFSA-backs-ban-on-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">no safe exposure level.</a> The herbicides <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-herbicides-2-4-d/who-unit-finds-24-d-herbicide-possibly-causes-cancer-in-humans-idUSKBN0P22FK20150623" target="_blank">2,4-D</a> and g<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer" target="_blank">lyphosate</a> are both linked to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancers</a> and other health problems as well.</p><p>Thailand recently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/thailand-bans-use-of-paraquat-and-other-toxic-farm-chemicals/2019/10/22/1f41e66c-f4c1-11e9-b2d2-1f37c9d82dbb_story.html" target="_blank">said it was banning</a> glyphosate and chlorpyrifos due to the scientifically established risks of these pesticides.</p>
<p>Despite the prevalence of pesticides found in U.S. foods, the FDA, along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), assert that pesticide residues in food are really nothing to worry about. Amid heavy lobbying by the agrichemical industry the EPA has actually supported continued use of glyphosate and chlorpyrifos in food production.</p><p>The regulators echo the words of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a> executives and others in the chemical industry by insisting that pesticide residues pose no threat to human health as long as the levels of each type of residue falls under a "tolerance" level set by the EPA.</p><p>In the most recent FDA analysis, only 3.8 percent of domestic foods had residue levels that were considered illegally high, or "violative." For imported foods, 10.4 percent of the foods sampled were violative, according to the FDA.</p><p>What the FDA did not say, and what regulatory agencies routinely avoid saying publicly, is that the tolerance levels for certain pesticides have risen over the years as the companies that sell the pesticides request higher and higher legal limits. The EPA has approved several increases allowed for glyphosate residues in food, for instance. As well, the agency often makes the determination that it need not comply with a legal requirement that states the EPA "shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children" in setting the legal levels for pesticide residues. The EPA has overridden that requirement in the setting of many pesticide tolerances, saying no such extra margin of safety is needed to protect children.</p><p>The bottom line: The higher the EPA sets the "tolerance" allowed as the legal limit, the lower the possibility that regulators will have to report "violative" residues in our food. As a result, the U.S. routinely allows higher levels of pesticide residues in food than other developed nations. For example, the legal limit for the weed killer glyphosate on an apple is 0.2 parts per million (ppm) in the U.S. but only half that level – 0.1 ppm – is allowed on an apple in the European Union. As well, the U.S. allows residues of glyphosate on corn at 5 ppm, while the EU allows only 1 ppm.</p><p>As legal limits rise for pesticide residues in food, many scientists have been increasingly raising alarms about the risks of regular consumption of the residues, and the lack of regulatory consideration of the potential cumulative impacts of consuming an array of bug and weed killers with every meal.</p><p>A team of Harvard scientists <a href="http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Hemler-Organic-Foods-for-Cancer-Preventio-Worth-the-Investment-2018.pdf" target="_blank">are calling for</a> in-depth research about potential links between disease and consumption of pesticide as they estimate that more than 90 percent of people in the U.S. have pesticide residues in their urine and blood due to consumption of pesticide-laced foods. A <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29084307" target="_blank">study</a> connected to Harvard found that dietary pesticide exposure within a "typical" range was associated both with problems women had getting pregnant and delivering live babies.</p><p>Additional studies have found other health problems tied to dietary exposures to pesticides, <a href="https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2019-05-14-herbicide-linked-to-human-liver-disease.aspx" target="_blank">including to glyphosate</a>. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and is the active ingredient in Monsanto's branded Roundup and other weed killing products.</p>
<h2>Pesticide Industry Push Back</h2><p>But as the concerns mount, agrichemical industry allies are pushing back. This month a group of three researchers with long-standing close ties to the companies that sell agricultural pesticides released a report seeking to soothe consumer worries and discount the scientific research.</p><p>The report, <a href="https://www.cast-science.org/publication/interpreting-pesticide-residues-in-food/" target="_blank">which was issued Oct. 21</a>, stated that "there is no direct scientific or medical evidence indicating that typical exposure of consumers to pesticide residues poses any health risk. Pesticide residue data and exposure estimates typically demonstrate that food consumers are exposed to levels of pesticide residues that are several orders of magnitude below those of potential health concern."</p><p>Not surprisingly, the three authors of the report are closely tied to the agrichemical industry. One of the report's authors is Steve Savage, an agrichemical industry <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-savage-820a263/" target="_blank">consultant</a> and <a href="https://gmoanswers.com/experts/steve-savage" target="_blank">former DuPont employee.</a> Another is Carol Burns, a former scientist for Dow Chemical and current consultant for Cortevia Agriscience, a spin-off of DowDuPont. The third author is Carl Winter, chair of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California at Davis. The university has received approximately <a href="https://biobeef.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2017/01/08/who-does-fund-university-research/" target="_blank">$2 million a year</a> from the agrichemical industry, according to a university researcher, though the accuracy of that figure has not been established.</p><p>The authors took their report directly to Congress, holding <a href="http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07egnhquf855778481&llr=zy8mbvcab" target="_blank">three different presentations</a> in Washington, DC, designed to promote their message of pesticide safety for use in "media food safety stories, and consumer advice regarding which foods consumers should (or should not) consume."</p><p>The pro-pesticide sessions were held at the office buildings for members of Congress and, appropriately it seems, at the headquarters for <a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/our-story" target="_blank">CropLife America</a>, the lobbyist for the agrichemical industry. </p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://usrtk.org/news-and-notes-by-carey-gillam/an-unappetizing-analysis-from-fda/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Strawberries, Spinach Top 'Dirty Dozen' List of Pesticide ... ›
- US Food Sampling Shows Troubling Pesticide Residues ›
- Massive Study Finds Eating Organic Slashes Cancer Risks ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less