•

Weedkiller manufacturer seeks lawmakers' help to squelch claims it failed to warn about cancer

https://apnews.com/article/bayer-legislation-glyphosate-roundup-lawsuits-cancer-warning-4fa2e6662479f3e60a409ce4439a40ed

The maker of a popular weedkiller is turning to lawmakers in key states to try to squelch legal claims that it failed to warn about cancer risks.

Weedkiller manufacturer seeks lawmakers' help to squelch claims it failed to warn about cancer

Stung by paying billions of dollars for settlements and trials, chemical giant Bayer has been lobbying lawmakers in three states to pass bills providing it a legal shield from lawsuits that claim its popular weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.

Nearly identical bills introduced in Iowa, Missouri and Idaho this year — with wording supplied by Bayer — would protect pesticide companies from claims they failed to warn that their product causes cancer, if their labels otherwise complied with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations.

But legal experts warn the legislation could have broader consequences — extending to any product liability claim or, in Iowa’s case, providing immunity from lawsuits of any kind. Critics say it could spread nationwide.

24 comments

See all comments

the_wise_wolf

•

The problem is, that the studies on glyphosat are way too small. As far as I know it is not particularly cancerous. That is other weed killers are worse. But Monsanto who did these studies and Bayer who bought Monsanto and miscalculated the risks; they did a poor job with these studies, which caused this massive confusion and are therefore largely to blame themselves for the disaster.

Here is a good video on the topic. It's in German, though: https://youtu.be/2K0TAphTfaI?si=rXimwbUfEY51fSdq

It’s probably safe to assume the studies saying it doesn’t were bought and paid for by Bayer

This btw. is how it works. You have a product you want to bring to the market, so you have to prove it's safe. It's the regulator's job to decided if the provided evidence is enough.

BakerBagel

•

You absolutely do not need to prove something is safe to bring it to market in the US. You just have to show that it isn't unreasonably dangerous.

blurg

•

Yeah, there are two basic approaches to safety: evidence of harm and evidence of safety. Evidence of safety is the higher standard (e.g. broad long-term independent studies). Evidence of harm is a low standard (e.g. small studies, short-term studies). Guess which one is used for herbicides, pesticides, food, ...