Glyphosate Litigation Facts
  • Five-Point Plan
  • Settlement Overview
  • Litigation Overview
    • Filings and Rulings
  • Resources
  • Media Center
    • Media Statements
    • In The News
Glyphosate Litigation Facts
  • Five-Point Plan
  • Settlement Overview
  • Litigation Overview
    • Filings and Rulings
  • Resources
  • Media Center
    • Media Statements
    • In The News
Glyphosate Litigation Facts
  • Five-Point Plan
  • Settlement Overview
  • Litigation Overview
    • Filings and Rulings
  • Resources
  • Media Center
    • Media Statements
    • In The News
  1. Home
  2. Media Statements
  3. Statement by Monsanto on Permanent Injunction in Glyphosate Proposition 65 Litigation

Statement by Monsanto on Permanent Injunction in Glyphosate Proposition 65 Litigation

June 22, 2020 in Media Statements

WHIPPANY, NJ (June 22, 2020) – A federal judge concluded that a state-based cancer warning label on glyphosate-based products would be illegal, writing that “the weight of evidence is that glyphosate does not cause cancer,” in an order issued in the National Association of Wheat Growers, et al v. Becerra case in the Eastern District of California. The Court entered a preliminary injunction in February 2018 halting enforcement of the Proposition 65 warnings for glyphosate. The ruling makes that injunction permanent, and grants the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case in front of Judge William Shubb was brought by a nationwide coalition of agricultural producers and business entities that collectively represent a substantial segment of U.S. agriculture against the California Attorney General. The coalition argued on First Amendment grounds among others against the state’s attempts to require a cancer warning  for products containing glyphosate under California’s Proposition 65 because such compelled speech would conflict with the nearly unanimous worldwide scientific consensus that supports the safety and non-carcinogenicity of glyphosate-based products.

“This is a very important ruling for California agriculture and for science as a federal court, after weighing all the facts, has concluded that the evidence does not support a cancer warning requirement for glyphosate-based products, which farmers all over the world depend on to control weeds, practice sustainable farming, and bring their products to market efficiently,” the company said. 

In his ruling Judge Shubb addressed both the unconstitutional warning requirement and California’s OEHHA Process, writing, “…the fact remains that every government regulator of which the court is aware, with the exception of the IARC, has found that there was no or insufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. Indeed, the EPA, which Proposition 65 relies on as one of five authoritative bodies for identifying carcinogens, reaffirmed this determination in 2019, noting its vigorous disagreement with the IARC, and stating that a Proposition 65 warning for glyphosate would be false and misleading and would violate the federal herbicide labeling law, 7 U.S.C. § 136a.”

The plaintiff coalition stands strongly behind the safety and non-carcinogenicity of glyphosate, stating in the Motion for Summary Judgement granted by the Court, “Glyphosate has been subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny by the federal government and regulators worldwide for decades. It is widely regarded as one of the safest herbicides ever developed, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does not pose any risk of cancer.”

In addition to Monsanto, members of the coalition include the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, United States Durum Growers Association, Western Plant Health Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, Iowa Soybean Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association, North Dakota Grain Growers Association, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Associated Industries of Missouri, Agribusiness Association of Iowa, CropLife America, and Agricultural Retailers Association.

June 23, 2020
SHARE
  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google +
  • Pinterest
  • Tumblr
  • Linkedin
  • Vkontakte
  • WhatsApp
Category
  • Filings and Rulings
  • Five-Point Plan
  • In The News
  • Media Statements
  • Resources
    • Documents
    • Infographics
  • Uncategorized
Tags
Ads alesi Benefits carson ferro five-point plan Hardeman Infographics JCCP Johnson MDL Ninth Circuit Pilliod Prop 65 Regulators Roundup Science Settlement Shelton St. Louis City Supreme Court of California

Five-Point Plan to address potential future Roundup™ claims

Bayer today provided an update on its five-point plan to address future Roundup™ litigation risk after its May 27th decision to withdraw from the national class process. The company is now in more control of important aspects of the risk mitigation process and has sketched out two basic scenarios going forward to provide a path to closure of this litigation. The first scenario is based on obtaining a favorable decision by the United States Supreme Court on a cross-cutting issue like federal preemption which would effectively and largely end the U.S. Roundup™ litigation. The second scenario assumes that the Supreme Court either declines to hear the Hardeman case or issues a ruling in favor of plaintiff – in that case the company would activate its own claims administration program.

Read about the five-point plan here.

Copyright © 2021, All Rights Reserved
Imprint
Privacy Statement

This site was prepared by the Bayer Group for educational purposes only.
For more information on glyphosate herbicides, visit: https://www.bayer.com/en/glyphosate-roundup.aspx.

Copyright © 2019, All Rights Reserved
  • Five-Point Plan
  • Settlement Overview
  • Litigation Overview
  • Resources
  • Media Center