Slate | By Ted Williams
All scientific bodies that have seriously studied glyphosate report no link to cancer.
The New York Times | By Patricia Cohen
Glyphosate is already the most widely used agricultural chemical in history, and farmers will continue to depend on Roundup, investors reason, especially as a growing population increases the demand for food.
The Recorder | By Amanda Bronstad
A California jury that awarded a $289 million Roundup verdict disregarded science and the consensus of federal regulators and fell victim to “emotional manipulation,” according to the state’s doctors, farmers and biotech firm Genentech Inc., in amicus briefs filed in Monsanto’s appeal.
Northern California Record | By Rich Peters
Four amicus briefs have been filed in the California Court of Appeals in the case of Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto raising “concerns about the methods used to determine medical causation and the award of punitive damages in the Johnson case, as well as the reliance of businesses and consumers on regulatory approvals,” said a media representative for Bayer.
Wall Street Journal | By Editorial Board
Perhaps you’ve read that science should rule when determining environmental standards. So why aren’t progressives cheering an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring that the chemical glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer?
Forbes | By Corbin Barthold
The question, however, is whether real live humans who experience real-life exposure to glyphosate in real-world quantities are more likely to develop cancer. And the largest study to grapple with that question found, after tracking more than fifty-thousand people for more than twenty years, that there is no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the cancer at issue in the recent court trials.
St. Louis Record | By John Severance
“It was all about the science and studies have shown repeatedly these herbicides are safe when used as directed for their intended purpose. With the passage of a higher proof of evidence for expert testimony in Missouri, it is my hope that cases like this will yield greater inspection into the true science presented instead of just an opinion based on theory.”
Drug & Device Law Blog | By James M. Beck
Given EPA’s determination that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” EPA considers the Proposition 65 language based on the chemical glyphosate to constitute a false and misleading statement. As such, pesticide products bearing the Proposition 65 warning statement due to the presence of glyphosate are misbranded pursuant to section 2(q)(1)(A) of FIFRA. . . . The warning statement must be removed from all product labels. . . .
AgPro | By Sonja Begemann
“Product labels claiming glyphosate is known to cause cancer [is a] false claim that does not meet the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),” an EPA statement explained. “California’s much-criticized Proposition 65 has lead to misleading labeling requirements.”
Legal Newsline | By Rich Peters
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its plan to stop false labeling and provide accurate risk information to consumers regarding the chemical glyphosate, most commonly known as the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer.