Supreme Court May Block Thousands of Lawsuits Over Monsanto's Weed Killer (latimes.com) 66
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Monsanto's argument that federal pesticide law should shield it and parent company Bayer from tens of thousands of state lawsuits over Roundup since the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning label. The case could determine whether federal rules preempt state failure-to-warn claims without deciding whether glyphosate causes cancer. The Los Angeles Times reports: Some studies have found it is a likely carcinogen, and others concluded it does not pose a true cancer risk for humans. However, the court may free Monsanto and Bayer, its parent company, from legal claims from more than 100,000 plaintiffs who sued over their cancer diagnosis. The legal dispute involves whether the federal regulatory laws shield the company from being sued under state law for failing to warn consumers.
[...] "EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, does not cause cancer. EPA has consistently reached that conclusion after studying the extensive body of science on glyphosate for over five decades," the company told the court in its appeal. They said the EPA not only refused to add a cancer warning label to products with Roundup, but said it would be "misbranded" with such a warning.
Nonetheless, the "premise of this lawsuit, and the thousands like it, is that Missouri law requires Monsanto to include the precise warning that EPA rejects," they said. On Friday, the court said in a brief order that it would decide "whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning." The court is likely to hear arguments in the case of Monsanto vs. Durnell in April and issue a ruling by late June.
[...] "EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, does not cause cancer. EPA has consistently reached that conclusion after studying the extensive body of science on glyphosate for over five decades," the company told the court in its appeal. They said the EPA not only refused to add a cancer warning label to products with Roundup, but said it would be "misbranded" with such a warning.
Nonetheless, the "premise of this lawsuit, and the thousands like it, is that Missouri law requires Monsanto to include the precise warning that EPA rejects," they said. On Friday, the court said in a brief order that it would decide "whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning." The court is likely to hear arguments in the case of Monsanto vs. Durnell in April and issue a ruling by late June.
Re:That's when happens when the orange (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the problem, that's the choice of the "oldest democracy in the world", the only democracy in history that freely chose a putinist, dictatorial regime. Twice.
Even the ruzzkies fought it for 20 years, you yielded in one.
You will have to learn from experience that elections really have consequences.
Re:That's when happens when the orange (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's when happens when the orange (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't say only the new king of trumpistan is a complete moron, I explicitly pointed out that his followers and those who skip voting and relax and enjoy the dictatorship are also complete idiots.
And?
Re: (Score:2)
The democratic party has been taken over by people who are a shame to our democratic party
It's going to be reality stars and Youtube heroes winning in elections for both parties in the near future, because that's the level of voter we have now.
Don't tell me about your foreign policy knowledge, how many likes did you get on the Youtube video?
Re:That's when happens when the orange (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean, the couldn't stomach a sane government run by rational people?
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea what any of this means, or has to do with Harris or Walz.
Re:That's when happens when the orange (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That's when happens when the orange (Score:2)
I'm extremely autistic so I don't think it works on me.
The thing with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is that it often presents as autism spectrum disorder. There is no "extremely autistic", there are only varying levels of how functional they are. FASD patients are differentiated in several ways from high functioning autism, namely things like difficulty with social interaction, where present, tend to be far more pronounced, especially given they're quick to anger and emotional outbursts. Another telltale sign in rsilvergun's case is his speech disorder. High
Re: (Score:2)
Some continuity in Government has been the 'norm' in the past. I think that was the expectation of many who did vote for Trump.
Hmm, but the campaign was all about change and a diametric change from the past four years. I doubt any voter expected continuity.
Trump's first term was a huge change from the past, but there were some advisors and cabinet members who stood in his way (well, for as long as they could before they were fired or resigned). The big difference for the second term is that Trump learned his lesson and made sure to select only strictly sycophantic yes-men. Trump stayed the same, but the surrounding people change
Re: (Score:1)
wow its shocking that retards like u just walk among us like normal people.
Re: (Score:2)
And which fine Democracy do *you* hail from sir?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you ask, darling? Do you want to whatabout me so desperately as you have nothing else to respond with?
Too bad.
Now, I heard yesterday that the fat demented fascist you voted for in the last elections has threatened half of Western Europe with an economic war unless they "give" to him a large piece of land, the island of Greenland that the trumpistani shithole has no right to claim whatsoever. Moreover, none of the countries that he's threatened has the jurisdiction to hand this island nation over to t
the truthiness of cancer (Score:3, Insightful)
by "true cancer risk" they mean "has not killed enough true scotsmen (yet)"
Pretty sure I know how this'll go (Score:5, Insightful)
Our court will protect the rich interests of Bayer, because they only work for the rich. Bayer doesn't want to have to fight 50 potential lawsuits in 50 states; that's too many election fund donations they'd have to make. Much cheaper to just pay off the feds to make the ruling for everyone.
Fuck our corporate overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
The Party of States Rights [*] will make sure that Federal rules override the state rights.
[*] E&OE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Party of States Rights [*] will make sure that Federal rules override the state rights.
[*] E&OE.
This is a huge understatement. Look at the armed invasion of blue states that has resulted in arrests and deaths. All in the name of patriotism and America.
Re: (Score:2)
sue the EPA then? (Score:2)
A USA issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have not seen similar labelling in Europe so one wonders if this is a product of a lack of socialized health care. You don't have insurance or it has large gaps in coverage so you sue anyone you can with deep pockets to cover your health care bills Meanwhile in the civilised world catching cancer is not going to bankrupt you with medical bills so there is no need to sue someone to pay them.
Given the precautionary principal Europe operates on and the strong consumer protections if there was good evidence it caused cancer it would be banned by now.
Re: (Score:3)
I have not seen similar labelling in Europe so one wonders if this is a product of a lack of socialized health care.
Roundup does not have the same formulation in Europe as America. Europe banned one of the active ingredients a decade ago. It may very much be the different formulation poses a different risk.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard the argument that it is the surfactants that are unhealthy, rather then the glyphosate. I believe the surfactants used are a trade secret.
POEA (Score:4, Interesting)
Roundup vs glyphosate (Score:2)
Is the mix to increase potency or is it for apparent potency.
Don't know about farming, but the homeowner squirts glyphosate and nothing happens whereas Roundup causes the weeds to turn brown right away.
Is this about effectiveness or is it about lack of patience for the glyphosate to kick in.
Re:Roundup vs glyphosate (Score:4, Interesting)
The commercial version of "Roundup" is different from the consumer version. The cancer is caused by the commercial version, allegedly.
Re: Roundup vs glyphosate (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I simply pour boiling water on unwanted weeds - it works just as well as weed poison.
That's admirable but it really doesn't.
1} Herbicides such as Roundup are transported by a plant's leaves into the root, killing the entire plant. Boiling water destroys the leaves but is no longer at a harmful temperature by the time it contacts the root. The unwanted plant will grow back. This is about as effective as just ripping the leaves off.
2} Roundup is a targeted herbicide. It is absorbed by broad-leaf weeds such as dandelion but does not harm grass. Boiling water is indiscriminate and dama
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
2} Roundup is a targeted herbicide. It is absorbed by broad-leaf weeds such as dandelion but does not harm grass. Boiling water is indiscriminate and damages whatever plants you pour it on. This disregards the argument about if people should be so concerned about ensuring a lawn monoculture, but it is a key difference.
First of all, the terminology is "selective herbicide". Secondly. Roundup/glyphosate is not. You're talking about something more like 2,4-D.
What's it like to be so loudly and confidently wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a pretty serious deficiency in how pesticides are regulated in the commercial and agricultural realm. Adjuvants and surfactants are very important and common parts of pesticide formulation but have virtually no regulation and no toxicity or health testing. They are completely proprietary and closely guarded secrets. I feel that much of the alleged links between pesticide use and cancer come from these adjuvants and surfactants. And there are many other chemicals that are part of the formulation
Re: (Score:3)
Yes glyphosate is a very slow chemical. At certain times of the year it can take up to two weeks or more to kill weeds. Farmers know this, but your average home owner doesn't, so Monsanto and Bayer introduced other herbicides into the Round-Up brand, sometimes in conjunction with glyphosate, some times without glyphosate.. These include quick-acting contact herbicides such as Diquat. Diquat works in hours. I think it's kind of bonkers they put diquat in a consumer product.
I mixed up some glyphosate for
Re: (Score:2)
Where I am, last time I looked at a bottle of round-up in the consumer store, the active ingredient had changed to iron sulfate (sulfide?), which does a quick job of burning the leaves of weeds and kills the young ones but you'd have to do a lot of applications to kill things like established dandelions.
And yes, glyphosate takes a week or two to kill the weeds. It's partially temperature dependent from my observation.
Make America poisoned again! (Score:2)
In the bad old days, industry would just dump its toxic trash in the next river. Obviously, the orange felon and his cronies think that was just a really neat solution.
This case is not 'Does RoundUp Cause Cancer' (Score:4, Insightful)
This case is about a legal dispute. Do federal regulatory laws shield Monsanto from being sued under state laws for failing to warn consumers?
My $0.02 is it does cause cancer. But that's not what this case is about.
Re: (Score:3)
This case is about a legal dispute. Do federal regulatory laws shield Monsanto from being sued under state laws for failing to warn consumers?
My $0.02 is it does cause cancer. But that's not what this case is about.
It seems, to my non lawyer view, the question is if the EPA establish label requirements, are states precluded from adding additional requirements via state laws? I would think, as a states rights issue, unless Federal laws specifically prohibited it they should be free to add requirements. SCOTUS may feel otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems, to my non lawyer view, the question is if the EPA establish label requirements, are states precluded from adding additional requirements via state laws? I would think, as a states rights issue, unless Federal laws specifically prohibited it they should be free to add requirements. SCOTUS may feel otherwise.
The question is also whether states can impose warnings that are not supported by solid scientific consensus. Parts of California's Prop 65 has been ruled unconstitutional in Federal District Court for this reason, see California Chamber of Commerce v. Rob Bonta [ca.gov]:
The Court finds that the Prop 65 warnings for dietary acrylamide are misleading and controversial as they state that dietary acrylamide is carcinogenic to humans despite vigorous scientific debate concerning that conclusion and compel CalChamber’s members to espouse that view despite their disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
My $0.02 is it does cause cancer. But that's not what this case is about.
If it does cause cancer, it would have to be a very weak cause -- otherwise, the many studies done would clearly show it.
In any event, that kind of *is* what this case is about -- there's not really any significant evidence that RoundUp does cause cancer (at best, it's a *maybe*), and that sort of evidence is found in scientific studies, not in courtrooms.
But that lack of evidence won't stop the lawsuits -- sure, it makes the lawsuits weaker, but every person with cancer is a potential lawsuit against Monsa
The descent (Score:3)
With regards to this particular case, I won't pretend to understand the details enough to offer an opinion as to what constitutes a reasonable outcome. I'm at great risk of committing a logical fallacy by jumping to one based of the reasonably defensible belief that "Monsanto is evil".
What I would like to point out, as an external observer, is that it was only a few years ago when the image of the Supreme Court was mostly neutral at worst, and often pretty good. This wasn't just true for American citizens... even countries with some serious reservations about the US in general held a modicum of reserved respect for the SC. Sure, it's been leaning right for a long time, but at least it felt like it was propped up by some sturdy braces.
But in just a few short years, it has become a joke worldwide. That gravitas is gone. Now, the reaction to a story like this is an immediate conclusion that the outcome will have no element of fairness or justice, but will serve political and business interests above all else, without a shred of pretense. The basic ethics of this court are gone, and shamelessly so. And the refusal of the US to police and protect itself from this destruction of value is telling. The basic elements that the US has relied on to project an air of righteous superiority (deserved or not) have fallen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. And it's going to take generations to restore any sense of normalcy and justice to the Supreme Court, assuming that the US survives the current shitler years.
If by "normalcy and justice", you mean constitution trampling, leftist manure--I hope it never returns.
America hasn't had real justice from the Supreme Court in *decades*. Per the Supreme Court, if you receive due process, you have received the *equivalent* of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely has to be a thumb in the eye of the Noble Peace Prize committee. It's a huge embarrassment. I'm embarrassed for her. It bought her absolutely nothing.
You'd think after a number of high-profile embarrassments like that ( Suu Kyi, Obama for example), they'd think really hard about the person to whom they award, and the implications. Maybe it's time to just stop giving out the award because it's become meaningless at best and at worse a tool for manipulation by sociopath leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I would like to point out, as an external observer, is that it was only a few years ago when the image of the Supreme Court was mostly neutral at worst, and often pretty good. This wasn't just true for American citizens... even countries with some serious reservations about the US in general held a modicum of reserved respect for the SC. Sure, it's been leaning right for a long time, but at least it felt like it was propped up by some sturdy braces.
But in just a few short years, it has become a joke worldwide. That gravitas is gone. Now, the reaction to a story like this is an immediate conclusion that the outcome will have no element of fairness or justice, but will serve political and business interests above all else, without a shred of pretense. The basic ethics of this court are gone, and shamelessly so. And the refusal of the US to police and protect itself from this destruction of value is telling. The basic elements that the US has relied on to project an air of righteous superiority (deserved or not) have fallen.
This is sadly our current situation. The big tipping point was the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She refused to follow John Paul Stevens' example and retire when Obama was president, and when she unexpectedly died, her solid left vote turned into a solid right vote with Amy Coney Barrett. Up to that point, John Roberts served as the swing vote on some cases. However, with the left vote trimmed from four to three votes, Roberts' ability to swing decisions vanished.
The current right-dominated court will r
Re: (Score:2)
The big tipping point was the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She refused to follow John Paul Stevens' example and retire when Obama was president, and when she unexpectedly died
It wasn't really unexpected, though.
Re: (Score:2)
For the ultra-corrupt, power is worth far more than perception.
The world (Score:2)
They have an anti-vax moron in charge of vaccines...
Lax controls over aircraft manufacturers
P!ss poor food regulations, full of chemicals, drugs, junk
Financial controls in the US are about to die