Corporate Background with insights from the Des Moines Register and journalists Rodney White and Michael Zamora:
Monsanto Co. plus a dozen state and national farm groups are suing California over the state's decision to list the popular ag chemical glyphosate as a carcinogen.
"The impact on farmers could be ... very detrimental," said Kirk Leeds, CEO of the Iowa Soybean Association. The soybean group, the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, and the National Corn Growers Association are among the groups suing California over its decision to add glyphosate to its list of cancer-causing chemicals.
California's Proposition 65, a ballot initiative passed in 1986, requires the state to protect drinking water sources "from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm," and it also requires businesses to warn California users about their chemicals' dangers in the context of carcinogenicity and causation of birth defects as well.
The decision would not only negatively impact Monsanto, the company maintains, but also "crops grown by U.S. farmers who use the herbicide, and food products derived from those crops. Products with even trace residues of glyphosate" sold in California could be required to add a label in 2018 that Monsanto says would be "false and misleading."
Leeds, the soybean association CEO, said the classification is inaccurate and its listing could be "a devastating blow to Iowa soybean farmers and an industry valued at more than $5 billion. Glyphosate is one of the safest herbicides ever developed and has been rigorously tested by the U.S. government for decades, continually passing as non-carcinogenic."
California's efforts to list glyphosate as a carcinogen could result in farmers abandoning the chemical, which could require growers to use more tilling of the soil to eliminate weeds, Leeds said, or even be forced to turn to harsher chemicals. "It's a much safer herbicide than many others," Leeds stated. Growers might be required to segregate crops grown with glyphosate, adding costs for consumers.
Leeds said in a statement the listing "violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it compels the plaintiffs in the case to make false, misleading and highly controversial statements about their products."
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organization group, determined in 2015 that glyphosate probably causes cancer in people.
Leeds said the French organization's determination that "glyphosate is 'probably carcinogenic' counters the conclusion of every global regulator that has examined the issue over the past 40 years. Not only does the scientific community disagree with IARC's findings, the organization's internal process for reviewing glyphosate -- along with other 'possible' or 'probable carcinogens' like French fries and coffee -- has also been roundly criticized." (oh, dear, oh me oh my, you don't mean actually criticized?)
Monsanto sued the California agency in 2016 to block glyphosate's now mandatory carcinogen label. The case was dismissed in March, but the seed and chemical company is has been since then appealing the ruling.
Joining in the lawsuit against California: Associated Industries of Missouri, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Missouri Farm Bureau, North Dakota Grain Growers Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association and the United States Durum Growers Association.
This all stems from a Court decision in California (in which Monsanto lost) in Fresno County judge's final ruling on Roundup chemical
From Robert Rodriguez's many excellent articles in the Fresno Bee:
Fresno County Superior Court judge Kristi Kapetan issued her final ruling in the failed attempt by chemical giant Monsanto to stop California from listing a key ingredient in its popular herbicide, Roundup, as a carcinogen. Earlier, she had issued a tentative ruling on Jan. 27, denying Monsanto's request.
In her final ruling, the judge said that none of Monsanto's objections were viable, including the argument that because the Research entity was in France, that their findings were both inadmissible and unconstitutional.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
3
