Please invest in Our Daily Planet today, by making a one time or monthly contribution.
We do not charge our readers a subscription fee for our content. We want to continue to grow our readership, particularly among millennials and public servants. Voluntary contributions from readers will help us employ interns and freelance journalists, expand our content, and reach a larger audience.
If you make a contribution of $150 or more, you will become an official “Friend of the Planet” and receive a Friend of the Planet T-shirt or water bottle. You can also submit opinion essays to us for our consideration for posting on our new “Bright Ideas” op-ed page.
A jury in a second case, this one in federal court, has reached the conclusion that the weed killer Roundup causes cancer, according to numerous news outlets. The second stage of the trial began yesterday — in this phase, the jury will decide whether Monsanto is liable.However, the decision is significant because there are thousands of other similar cases pending in state and federal courts around the country and this determination of causation could have an impact in the other cases. This is the second time Monsanto’s product has been found to cause cancer — in the first case, decided last year, a jury found Roundup caused cancer in a school groundskeeper and he was ultimately awarded $78 million in damages.
The plaintiff in this case is Edwin Hardeman, 70, who argued that he used the weedkiller on his 56-acre Sonoma County property for decades and that “was a significant factor” in his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2015.
The judge divided the case into phases because he wanted the jury to look specifically at the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer before delving into the many allegations of alleged corporate misconduct by Monsanto.
According to CNN, a 2015 internal email message stated that an EPA official at the time offered to help influence the government’s review of glyphosate, saying “If I can kill this I should get a medal.” However, Monsanto denies it used any undue influence to get favorable treatment from EPA or any other agency of the government. These emails and other evidence of Monsanto’s efforts to influence the science and the government’s assessment of glyphosate were a large factor in the first jury verdict against Monsanto.
Why This Matters: Monsanto and its parent company Bayer may deny it is harmful, but municipalities and school boards all over the country are limiting or banning Roundup based on these decisions, according to the US Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. The City of Miami just took this step and others are expected to follow suit given the raised awareness now that Roundup has been “found guilty” again. What is particularly disturbing here is the effort by Monsanto and its lobbyists to influence the EPA’s science. This is exactly why we need the Scientific Integrity Act recently introduced by Senator Schatz and Representative Tonko. The scientists in the government must follow science, not corporate money, in making their decisions.
To Go Deeper: You can read the string of Monsanto emails in this 2017 story from CNN – it is worth your time. And watch the interview below with the first plaintiff who said the case was never about the money. To see the email documents themselves, click here.
Yesterday, in a tour-de-force of star power, the actor and activist Mark Ruffalo crisscrossed Washington. D.C. — from a Washington Post Live event, to a Capitol Hill press conference, to testifying at a House hearing answering questions from Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, to a screening of his new film “Dark Waters” at the Motion Picture Association –– all to make the point that it is high time for the government to act to keep the public safe from a little-known but ubiquitous toxin called PFAS (also known as “Forever Chemicals” because they never break down) that can now be found in the bloodstream of 99% of all Americans
The New York Times reported on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to issue a new draft of a controversial rule they floated once before, but have now expanded, that would request raw data for nearly every study the EPA considers in preparing regulatory rulemakings, including confidential medical records.
Why This Matters: Scientists and public health groups believe that this proposal will not increase the reliability and public accountability of the rulemaking process. Instead, this rule will make it more difficult to enact new clean air and water rules because many studies linking pollution to health problems rely on patient information provided under confidentiality agreements.