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. In The News
  3. Don’t attack science agencies for political gain

Don’t attack science agencies for political gain

July 19, 2019 in In The News

Nature | By Bernhard Url

The glyphosate controversy began in earnest two-and-a-half years ago, when EFSA and experts designated by European Union members concluded that the product is unlikely to be carcinogenic. In late 2017, the European Commission renewed a licence allowing the herbicide’s sale. EFSA’s conclusion contradicted that of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which had classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” months earlier, bringing its own share of controversy.

That the agencies reached different conclusions is not surprising: each considered different bodies of scientific evidence and methodologies. Other independent assessments — by the European Chemicals Agency and regulatory bodies in the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia — agreed with EFSA. So did an expert body on pesticide residuesconvened by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization.

Even so, the divergence between EFSA’s conclusion and the IARC’s has been debated by legislators from Brussels to Berlin and beyond. We have seen scare stories about trace levels of glyphosate residues in German beer or Italian pasta — but these fail to mention that observed amounts of herbicide residues would pose risks only if a person consumed roughly 1,000 litres of beer or their body’s weight in dry pasta in one day.

Click here to read more

December 19, 2019
Regulators
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