Speaker:
Nathan Donley, Director of Environmental Health Sciences at the Center for Biological Diversity;
Lisa Held, Civil Eats senior staff reporter and contributing editor. Nathan Donley, director of environmental health sciences at the Center for Biological Diversity;
overview:
On Monday, April 27, Held reported on the hearing from inside the courtroom and also captured the action outside as protesters gathered in front of the building, many of them supporters of Make Americans Healthy (MAHA). For the salon, Mr. Held invited Mr. Donley to discuss the day’s events, the years of litigation leading up to this case, what the Supreme Court’s decision means and how it will affect the midterm elections.
How did this incident happen? Why did people who use Roundup start suing Monsanto?
“For decades, people have used Roundup on nearly every land in the United States to kill unwanted plants,” Donley said. “And this increase in usage was fueled by the belief that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup products, is completely safe. That’s why people have been using this pesticide so liberally for decades, often wearing little protective clothing.”
• Although the EPA maintains that glyphosate does not cause cancer, in 2015 the World Health Organization found that glyphosate is a possible human carcinogen.
• Thousands of people who used glyphosate developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. They began suing Monsanto (now Bayer), claiming the product was the cause of their illnesses, and won hundreds of millions of dollars.
• Meanwhile, Bayer began ramping up state-by-state efforts to protect itself from Roundup lawsuits, with some states passing laws protecting Bayer and other pesticide companies from liability.
• Monsanto v. Darnell focused on “failure to warn” claims, in which the jury found that Monsanto should have warned customers about the risks of Roundup but failed to do so.
• The case has reached the Supreme Court, which is currently trying to determine whether federal pesticide laws preempt (preempt) states’ “failure to warn” claims.
• If the court rules in favor of federal preemption, it would shut down thousands of cancer cases awaiting their day in court.
What if Bayer wins?
• EPA will have final say on warnings on pesticide labels. If the agency decides that a warning is not required, people harmed by pesticides will not be able to sue in state court for failure to warn.
• Federal preemption would serve as a liability shield for businesses.
• This ruling is likely to be fairly narrow in scope, as it only deals with language added to pesticide labels. This would likely not prevent states from installing droplet buffers between schools and areas where pesticides are sprayed.
• Can California’s Proposition 65 warnings be avoided?
• Proposition 65 authorizes the state to issue warnings on products containing ingredients that California has determined are either carcinogens or reproductive or developmental toxicants.
• Often these warnings apply to products sold only in California, but they may also apply to products sold in multiple states because companies don’t want to create two different labels.
• “These warnings are very important because they encourage companies to eliminate hazardous substances from their products,” Donley said.
• Federal preemption is possible, and the Prop 65 issue could end up in further litigation before the Supreme Court.
Agricultural costs and pesticide immunity
• The day after the Supreme Court hearing, House members removed the pesticide exemption from the farm bill.
• “This is a big win,” Donley said. “It wasn’t just the immune shield, there were multiple really bad pesticide provisions that were removed. The chemical companies were basically just beaten down by a ragtag group of lawmakers.”
• If it weren’t for the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, Donley added, the disclaimer would have been a reality on the railroads.
“Man vs. Poison” rally
• Mr. Held noted that the rally outside the courthouse was organized primarily by MAHA movement officials, but other organizations also participated, including Mr. Donley’s nonprofit, the Center for Biological Diversity.
• “What drew us to this rally was that it was nonpartisan,” Donley responded. “There were environmentalists, organic farmers, widows, cancer survivors, and everyone spoke with one voice.”
Roughly 80% of Americans think there are too many chemicals in their food and want the government to do something about it, he said, and their collective will goes beyond a single movement.
Inside the Supreme Court
• The justices do not seem to take a partisan stance on this issue. Held said they seemed “very skeptical” of Bayer lawyer Paul Clement’s claims, but added: “They also seem to be very concerned about the uniformity of pesticide labels, which I imagine would be in Bayer’s favor.”
• The justices continued to ask questions regarding the schedule for pesticide reviews.
