Roundup reeling from cases in two California courts
“If I can kill this, I should get a medal.”
That statement isn’t from a crooked lawyer out of a John Grisham novel, but a quote from an EPA official about preventing another federal agency from doing its own safety review of Monsanto’s Roundup!
That, and a lot more, just came to light after a California judge unsealed some secret documents belonging to Monsanto executives.
Plus that blow to the biotech bully, another judge in a courtroom not far away has just ruled that Roundup must now bear a warning that it’s linked to cancer.
Those stunning facts — and more — are certainly the last things Monsanto wants us to hear.
But once you do, you’ll never look at Roundup or the Frankenfoods the chemical is sprayed on the same way again.
You might say it’s been a rough couple of weeks for Monsanto.
First, a Fresno Superior court judge told a stable of Monsanto lawyers that none of their arguments were valid as to why Roundup (and other weed killers containing glyphosate), shouldn’t be labeled as a carcinogen under California law.
Company lawyers whined that such a warning would have “immediate financial consequences,” as people would see it and stop buying Roundup!
Hmm, isn’t that the whole idea of a warning label? You see what the risks are and make an informed decision.
The judge’s ruling was based on a finding two years ago by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which identified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.”
But as important as that ruling was, it wasn’t the biggest blow Monsanto received.
According to materials unsealed in a case brought by people saying that exposure to glyphosate caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a Monsanto mole was uncovered at the EPA.
The documents show that Jess Rowland, a deputy division director at the EPA, was hard at work to keep anything from happening that might reflect badly on Roundup.
Court records disclosed in The New York Times reveal that Monsanto was tipped off about the IARC cancer findings months in advance by Rowland. In addition, a Monsanto executive said in an email two years ago that Rowland had promised to discourage a review of the matter by the Department of Health and Human Services. (That’s what he wanted that “medal” for!)
That review, the paper noted, never took place.
In yet another email, the same executive told a colleague that Rowland was planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”
Other secret files uncovered tell how a Monsanto executive suggested to company officials that they hire academics to put their names on papers that were actually ghostwritten by Monsanto.
The company, of course, is denying that any such shenanigans took place. But right now it looks like Monsanto is clinging to straws in trying to protect its flagship products.
There’s no doubt that this biotech giant will be spending a large fortune to keep this litigation going on for as long as possible, but you can call it “case closed” right now by following these two steps:
#1: Limit your exposure to glyphosate in food as much as possible. You can do that by avoiding the big three GMO crops — soy, canola and corn
— and choosing organic or “GMO-Free.”
#2: There’s no reason to wait for that cancer warning to appear to stop using Roundup around your home to kill weeds. Other methods may not work as fast, but is it really worth the risk?
The facts about this dangerous chemical won’t be changing. All that will happen now is a whole lot of lawyers will get rich trying to keep you from hearing the truth.
“Monsanto weed killer roundup faces new doubts on safety in unsealed documents” Danny Hakim, March 14, 2017, The New York Times, nytimes.com
