Monsanto hid Roundup’s Cancer Risk According to California Lawsuit
Not that it is a stranger to product liability considering it was the primary maker of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, but St. Louis-based chemical giant Monsanto may be facing a plethora of class-action lawsuits over one of its flagship products, Roundup weed killer. In March, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the herbicide in Roundup, glyphosate, a “probable human carcinogen.” The declaration was followed-up by several countries banning or severely restricting the use of glyphosate, including the Netherlands, Bermuda, and Sri Lanka, with France banning it for use in gardens in June. Glyphosate is the world’s most common herbicide, with the most recent data from the U.S. Geological Survey estimating that 280 million pounds of it was used in the U.S. in 2012. Out of the 130 countries that still permit the product; the U.S. is by far the Monsanto’s largest consumer with over 20 percent of global sales. That may change, however, as California has followed the WHO’s lead earlier in the month. The state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a “notice of intent” that it will also list glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, which is required by the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 for any product that the WHO’s cancer division lists as a carcinogen. The OEHHA classification requires companies with 10 or more employees in the state to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” of any product on the list of its dangers.
Mere weeks after the designation was announced, former California field worker Enrique Rubio filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in Central California Federal Court on September 22nd, claiming that his 1995 bone cancer diagnosis at the age of 38 was caused by years of using Roundup commercially as part of his job, first in Oregon during the late 1980s, and then in California and Texas during the early 1990s. In the lawsuit, Rubio states his belief that his cancer was caused by spraying roundup in the fields attended on an average basis of two days a week year-round with a hand pump while driving a tractor and wearing a paper facemask. The complaint references Monsanto’s “prolonged campaign of misinformation” regarding glyphosate, adding that “Agricultural workers are, once again, victims of corporate greed. Monsanto assured the public that Roundup was harmless. In order to prove this, Monsanto championed falsified data and attacked legitimate studies that revealed its dangers.” Rubio has been unable to work due to his diagnosis, and says in the suit that he “has suffered and continues to suffer grave injuries.” Rubio is seeking compensatory and punitive damages to help with his economic losses, citing strict liability for knowingly marketing a product with a design defect, failure to warn consumers of the product’s risks, as well as willful negligence and breach of implied warrantee.
The lawsuit is alleging that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered that two laboratories hired by Monsanto to conduct safety testing of Roundup falsified data, first over a 1976 test in which three lab executives were convicted of fraud after the EPA audited its data, and again regarding a 1991 test in a different lab, also leading to three employees being convicted of fraudulent laboratory practices. Despite discovering the evidence of fraud, the EPA still changed its 1985 classification of glyphosate from “possibly carcinogenic” in 1991 to “evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans,” (Group E), which includes the caveat that the grouping does not imply that the product definitively will not cause cancer in any circumstance. In addition to the multitude of international cancer studies, Roundup has also been linked to “chronic kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, and leaky gut syndrome,” according to the Center of Research on Globalization. The lawsuit also points to studies that demonstrate traces of glyphosate in food, as well as in the urine of farm workers, and even in “urban dwellers who are not in direct contact with glyphosate.”
Although California’s pioneering classification in the U.S. may prompt a change by the federal regulators, the EPA continues to assert that the product is safe and environmentally friendly. Upon learning about the notice of intent, celebrity activist Erin Brockovich, of the eponymous award-winning 2000 film, posted on her Facebook account, “Monsanto had a bad day yesterday … It’s finally the beginning of the end.” Brockovich’s declaration may be premature, however, given the alleged coziness between the EPA and Monsanto, and the effectiveness of the chemical lobby. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, company spokesperson Charla Lord said, “Glyphosate is an effective and valuable tool for farmers and other users, including many in the State of California. During the upcoming comment period, we will provide detailed scientific information to OEHHA about the safety of glyphosate and work to ensure that any potential listing will not affect glyphosate use or sales in California.” Other activists are comparing Monsanto’s treatment of Roundup similarly to the tobacco lawsuits over the past 20 years, noting that it wasn’t the products’ original levels of harmfulness that was the cause for guilt, but the fact that companies concealed knowledge of the dangers for years. Much like tobacco, as global health studies continue to contradict Monsanto’s claims, the Rubio lawsuit may force the company to provide enough documentation to prove the plaintiff’s claim of foreknowledge. If that happens, the amount of class-action suits, as well as potential settlement size, may rival Big Tobacco.
http://www.legalreader.com/monsanto-hid-roundups-cancer-risk-according-to-california-lawsuit/
= new reply since forum marked as read
