Monsanto's Roundup under fire again

1 - 3 of 3 posts

robert99 Sweden • Posts: 1360

1 15 Mar 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the world’s most widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto.

Roundup and similar products are used around the world on everything from row crops to home gardens. It is Monsanto’s flagship product, and industry-funded research has long found it to be relatively safe. A case in federal court in San Francisco has challenged that conclusion, building on the findings of an international panel that claimed Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.

The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.

The files were unsealed by Judge Vince Chhabria, who is presiding over litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate. The litigation was touched off by a determination made nearly two years ago by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, citing research linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review.

robert99 Sweden • Posts: 1360

2 25 May 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-eu-glyphosate-idUSKCN18D2D3

EU to propose 10-year licence renewal for weed killer glyphosate

The European Commission will propose extending by 10 years its approval for weed-killer glyphosate, used in Monsanto's Roundup, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

A transatlantic row over possible risks to human health has prompted investigations by congressional committees in the United States, and in Europe has forced a delay to a re-licensing decision for Monsanto's big-selling Roundup herbicide.

A new study issued in March by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) paved the way for the Commission's decision to restart negotiations with EU nations over renewing the licence for glyphosate, despite opposition from environmental groups.

The EU body, which regulates chemicals and biocides, said glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, should not be classified as a substance causing cancer.

A spokeswoman for the Commission said it had "taken into account the latest state of scientific research and would "work with the Member States to find a solution that enjoys the largest possible support."

No date has yet been set for when discussions with representatives of EU member states will start.

Pending the results of the ECHA study, the EU granted an 18-month extension last July of its approval for the weed killer after a proposal for full licence renewal met opposition from member states and campaign groups.

While the World Health Organization’s cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classifies glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic", many other government regulators, including in the United States, see the weed killer as unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.

robert99 Sweden • Posts: 1360

3 11 Jul 2017

From Nov 2016
http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17313-contractor-sprayed-glyphosate-on-farmers-and-children-in-ecuador

Contractor sprayed glyphosate on farmers and children in Ecuador

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled in favor of 19 Ecuadoreans who claim that a U.S. company sprayed a toxic herbicide on them as part of a campaign to combat Colombian drug cartels.

The 19 Ecuadorean "test" plaintiffs in the case say that DynCorp, which contracted with the U.S. State Department to carry out "Plan Colombia". sprayed them with glyphosate as part of an effort to eradicate cocaine and heroin poppy drug farms in Colombia.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said the record shows that DynCorp engaged in "a consistent pattern of reckless behavior".

"Defendants were repeatedly informed that their pilots were spraying chemicals on communities in Ecuador - at the latest, by September 2001- yet continued to carry out spray operations in a manner that deeply troubled Ecuadorian population centers, the United States government, and employees within DynCorp itself," the 26-page ruling states.

Huvelle also found DynCorp's actions outrageous.

"The fact that plaintiffs include impoverished farmers who rely on their land to survive and defenseless children make defendants' recklessness all the more outrageous," the judge wrote.

Huvelle said the spraying could amount to battery, which does not require "purposeful intent," but only "knowledge that harmful or offensive contact to somebody will occur with substantially certain probability."

"In short, there is ample evidence to suggest that DynCorp and its pilots simply ignored (and sometimes mocked) the fact that plaintiffs from specific areas of Ecuador were complaining about the company's sloppy spraying flights. They were repeatedly informed of systemic problems with the Plan Colombia missions and dangerous incidents, yet consciously chose to not meaningfully address them, despite the clear and obvious risks to people and property on the ground," the ruling states.