Supreme Court Hears Case On How To Label Risks of Popular Weed Killer (npr.org) 74
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard a dispute over labels on the popular Roundup weed killer, which thousands of people blame for their cancers. How the Supreme Court rules could have implications for tens of thousands of lawsuits against Roundup maker Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer. The case centers on who decides about warning labels on chemicals: the federal government -- or states or juries. [...] The justices will not be evaluating whether glyphosate causes cancer. Rather, they'll consider who should decide what appears on warning labels and whether states have a role to play after the EPA weighs in.
The current U.S. solicitor general backed Monsanto. Sarah Harris, his principal deputy, said the Environmental Protection Agency is in the driver's seat, not anyone in Missouri. "Missouri thus requires adding cancer warnings but federal law requires EPA to approve new warnings and tasks EPA with deciding what label changes would mitigate any health risks," Harris argued. "State law must give way." Several justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, appeared to agree with Monsanto's argument about the need for a single, uniform standard across the country.
But others, like Chief Justice John Roberts, wondered what would happen if the federal government moved more slowly than states did, who wanted to act quickly on information about new dangers. "Well, it does undermine the uniformity," Roberts said. "On the other hand, if it turns out they were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something, to call this danger to the attention of people while the federal government was going through its process," he said about states.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about the emergence of new science, and the EPA's reviews. "There's a 15-year window between when that product has to be re-registered again and lots of things can happen in science, in terms of development about the product," she said. Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, only sells Roundup that contains glyphosate to farmers and businesses these days. Bayer has been pushing to resolve scores of the residential cases through a sweeping settlement, trying to put the costly claims behind it.
The current U.S. solicitor general backed Monsanto. Sarah Harris, his principal deputy, said the Environmental Protection Agency is in the driver's seat, not anyone in Missouri. "Missouri thus requires adding cancer warnings but federal law requires EPA to approve new warnings and tasks EPA with deciding what label changes would mitigate any health risks," Harris argued. "State law must give way." Several justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, appeared to agree with Monsanto's argument about the need for a single, uniform standard across the country.
But others, like Chief Justice John Roberts, wondered what would happen if the federal government moved more slowly than states did, who wanted to act quickly on information about new dangers. "Well, it does undermine the uniformity," Roberts said. "On the other hand, if it turns out they were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something, to call this danger to the attention of people while the federal government was going through its process," he said about states.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about the emergence of new science, and the EPA's reviews. "There's a 15-year window between when that product has to be re-registered again and lots of things can happen in science, in terms of development about the product," she said. Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, only sells Roundup that contains glyphosate to farmers and businesses these days. Bayer has been pushing to resolve scores of the residential cases through a sweeping settlement, trying to put the costly claims behind it.
Re: What does the science say? (Score:3)
Re: What does the science say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does the science say? (Score:5, Informative)
The science is on the manufacturer's side.
What?
https://publichealth.gmu.edu/n... [gmu.edu]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
https://www.pan-europe.info/pr... [pan-europe.info]
https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]
You wouldn't know science if it gave a lecture up your ass.
Re:What does the science say? (Score:4, Informative)
Some key notes on those papers--
That first paper tests the EU lifetime safe dosage 0.5 mg/kg/day of glyphosate on rats. They're not saying "any amount of glyphosate will give you cancer", they're calling out the safe dosage as being too high. (The dosage translates to say that an 185lbs person should be able to consume 42mg of glyphosate per day.) The average American probably consumes less than 1mg (in total) per day.
The second paper is and update to the author's paper plus additional literature review. The paper discloses that author is a paid witness in glyphosate litigation. That doesn't mean what's written isn't true, just that there reason to be skeptical and read further.
The third link is a press release from an anti-pesticide group, not research. Everything covered in that release is covered in the first two links.
The fourth link, like the second, is written by someone who is an expert witness in glypshosate litigation while writing the paper. Speaking to the content, it evaluates the US EPA and WHO conclusions about glyphosate ("not likely to cause cancer" vs "probably carcinogenic to humans") and shows that they came to different conclusions because they looked at different research and asked different questions. The author concludes that had they looked at the same research, they likely would have come to the same conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
The author concludes that had they looked at the same research, they likely would have come to the same conclusions.
Yes, that's the point, and the other links support the point in an ordered fashion. Your analysis of the links in question explain why that is the case. The USA deliberately avoids looking at evidence in general, that's our SOP. For example when you see claims made by US agencies that there are no studies that show or there is no evidence that something is true, what it means is that they are discarding all foreign studies which do not check meaningless boxes that are required for our agencies to consider t
Re: (Score:3)
Here you can watch the tobacco companies swearing under oath that nicotene is not addictive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The manufacturer's funded and sponsored pseudo-science is on the manufacturer's side.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything is a carcinogen, it's the exposure and amount that matters. Glyphosate has been around for 40 years, its much safer than other weed killers. If we do away with roundup, we'll go the next rung up the ladder and start using that herbicide that is more toxic. People need to be reasonable, it's not all or nothing and we have to use something, those in an urban environment where there aren't many weeds won't understand, if you have a backyard full of them, it comes in quite handy vs pulling them.
Re:What does the science say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Vinegar works well on broadleaf weeds, not so well on Bermuda grass and certain other weeds. And it works best in the summer. So, YMMV. But give it a try.
I'm a fan of propane flame weeding, not to burn weeds but to wilt them and stop photosynthesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At some point you just need to develop a natural immunity to poison oak (and ivy). It's not hard and is probably preferable to spraying your environment with broad spectrum antibiotic/herbicides and heavy metals (which is what roundup is).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everything is a carcinogen, it's the exposure and amount that matters. Glyphosate has been around for 40 years, its much safer than other weed killers. If we do away with roundup, we'll go the next rung up the ladder and start using that herbicide that is more toxic. People need to be reasonable, it's not all or nothing and we have to use something, those in an urban environment where there aren't many weeds won't understand, if you have a backyard full of them, it comes in quite handy vs pulling them.
Glyphosate has been around longer than that, Monsanto put it on the market under the RoundUp brand in 1974. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I remember as a kid seeing small mounds of 5 gallon and 30 gallon Round-up drums at the edges of fields where farmers would mix with water in their sprayers; self-propelled or pulled by a tractor. That was the mid 70's. A person would empty the drum into the sprayer, then toss the empty drum onto the pile.
As to the safety, smell it and touch it and you should thi
Re: (Score:2)
drone application (spot application) Ag-Chem companies have been doing the last several years
Even that is probably more than needed. Ground-based drones could just trim back anything that isn't your preferred crop to near the ground. Leaving a short trimmed layer of weeds would probably help with soil erosion problems.
Re:What does the science say? (Score:4, Informative)
Irrelevant to this case. It's not an issue of science, it's an issue of law.
The basis of the lawsuit is that there was no warning on the label that it might cause cancer. Federal law requires the label to be reviewed and approved by the EPA, which is was. Monsanto can't change it from the approved format. Under federal law, they have no liability for issues with the label. This lawsuit, and thousands of others, are in state courts, which in many cases, are based on liability laws that can only be obeyed by violating federal law.
SCOTUS gets to decide if state law can override federal law (and the odds of the state winning on that, especially with the current justices, are slim).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
SCOTUS gets to decide if state law can override federal law (and the odds of the state winning on that, especially with the current justices, are slim).
But muh states rights! Oh wait, I forgot those are only for slavery.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, Democrats are the ones who cited States-rights to preserve slavery, segregation, and Jim Crowe.
Fuck you, clown. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That's unnecessarily rude. I don't take that tone with you, and I'd appreciate similar consideration.
I don't coddle Nazis. Get fucked.
Re: (Score:1)
Since you don't dispute anything he said, you have agreed with it. You have said, clearly and unambiguously, that you agree with it, even though you don't like it.
Perhaps a professional in the mental health industry could help you with your self hatred.
On the other hand, IIRC, suicide is legal in Oregon now.
Re: What does the science say? (Score:5, Interesting)
IARC, part of WHO, classify it as Group 2a, probably carcinogenic, citing limited evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in humans.
The issue isn't just with the toxicity of glyphosate, but the toxicity of Monsanto who has a huge legal team ready to sue anyone in their way.
Look at all the farmers who've lost their farms due to lawsuits due to supposedly using illegal 'roundup ready corn' because their harvest contained some proprietary genetics. Eventually it was established the genetics was introduced by pollen from other farms using the product legally. Even weeds were using the genetics illegally.
Maybe if it was used judiciously, and only in monitored ag applications, it would be safe. But do you trust the neighborhoods of 'Tim the Toolguys' slopping it on their lawns with a more is better attitude in order to have the best lawn on the block?
From my perspective, I think it's way overused. IMHO, it's dangerous to walk barefoot or even sit on a grass lawn.
I'm half tempted to buy a bag of roundup ready corn to protest the chemical's overuse by parks and rec after seeing it be sprayed recklessly on weeds in a water causeway. But then I figure it would only lead to more roundup used and the groundskeepers aren't using PPE so they will likely become advocates against its use soon enough once the NHL sets in.
Re: (Score:2)
citing limited evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in humans.
I think ya goofed up there.
Re: (Score:1)
IARC, part of WHO, classify it as Group 2a, probably carcinogenic, citing limited evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in humans.
Correction
The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies Group 2A agents as "probably carcinogenic to humans".
This category signifies limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at all the farmers who've lost their farms due to lawsuits due to supposedly using illegal 'roundup ready corn' because their harvest contained some proprietary genetics. Eventually it was established the genetics was introduced by pollen from other farms using the product legally.
Context would make this more clear to the average reader. These were not cases where e.g. seeds blew in from another field and the farmer was held liable. These were the cases where the farmers were buying or using second generation seeds (prohibited under the purchase contract with Monsanto) and treating them with Roundup.
Re: (Score:2)
The law won't solve the problem (Score:3)
Engineering will
When robots with lasers can selectively kill weeds and bugs, the need for herbicides and insecticides will disappear
Re: (Score:2)
We have robots which can do that, but they will not be cheaper than glyphosate for the foreseeable future, so they won't be used. And any time soon, they will be MASSIVELY more expensive, so it's not realistic that they will be mandated any time soon either.
Re: (Score:2)
Glyphosate is cheap enough, but are the resistant seeds?
Re: (Score:2)
Glyphosate is cheap enough, but are the resistant seeds?
Weed-zapping robots are still very expensive, so yes, still cheaper.
Another question we could ask would be whether the total cost including ecological impact is less, but then we'd get into a debate which is unfortunately irrelevant to farmers who are trying to make a profit year on year.
Re: The law won't solve the problem (Score:2)
They might be talking about a laser powered one. I'm talking about something not much more complex than a robot lawnmower plus a couple cameras to make sure it's not trimming crops. Blades are cheaper than lasers.
Re: (Score:2)
The lasers are really not the expensive part. You've been able to get fairly powerful laser tubes and matching power supplies for low hundreds of dollars for quite some years now, that's why there are cheap laser cutters available. The expensive part is everything else, plus profit for someone.
If engineering could solve everything (Score:3)
I know that we're all nerds but you can't technology yourself out of human interaction. Human beings are still human beings and do human being things.
Technology can help and sometimes because human beings suck so much we just have to hope it saves us.
The problem with relying on it exclusively is that there's no guarantee we're going to get the technology we need fast enough and good enough to keep Pace with human beings doing bad things.
As an example it is perfectly pos
Re: (Score:2)
I want robots with lasers that selectively kill eucalyptus trees. Those are the ones that explode in wildfires and spread embers over a wide area.
Re: (Score:3)
I want robots with lasers that selectively kill eucalyptus trees. Those are the ones that explode in wildfires and spread embers over a wide area.
It's probably better not to fire lasers at the explosive trees.
Fun story, one time when I was a kid I came across some eucalyptus trees which someone had planted along a ravine and, as a good citizen, I chopped them the fuck down with a wooden stake. Well it turns out that the people who planted them saw me do it and complained. At the time I was living in a trailer park, and the person they complained to was the park manager. Well, the place they had planted those trees was on a neighboring property and wh
Re: (Score:2)
We have that today. The Carbon Robotics LaserWeeder G2 is a product you can buy right now for $1.2 million. But it requires significantly more effort to use and more frequent application than throwing roundup at the problem. Also with roundup only costing the average US farm $25000 per field application, and the average EU farm $2000 per field application, paying $1.2million is a difficult pill to swallow.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the average farmer need to own one? I imagine it must sit idle a lot of the time unless constantly in use. Could a regional services company own a few and process fields on a pay per use basis and spread the capital cost around?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, much like how many small farms hire out herbicide application. The biggest issue is that the electric weeder is slow and requires multiple passes. And all farmers require weed control about at the same time. But one benefit to the electric weeder is, depending on the crop, it could be applied much later in the season to control late flushes of weeds. Herbicides will injure crops that are past a certain stage of growth. The later in the season, the more risky it is to apply herbicides.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite sure where your numbers come from. Glyphosate is typically between $5 and $6 CAD a litre, and a applications are anywhere from 0.3 to 0.7 l/ac (messed up units, yes i know but that's what we use). So chemical cost is extremely low, $2 to $4 per acre not counting labor and fuel. Application is extremely fast, more than 100 acres per hour.
The electric weeder is expensive, slow and costly to operate currently. But I'm hopeful this will improve. You're right it's a prohibitively expensive pill to
EPA decision? (Score:2)
How will this affect all the companies that just go ahead and slap California Proposition 65 labels on everything? To prophylactically prevent prosecution there?
If the US Supreme Court is going to attempt bringing everyone in line to follow uniform regulations and eliminate Cali's interference with the Commerce Clause, they really have their work cut out for them. It is a noble undertaking to be sure, but I fear a bit too late.
Re: (Score:3)
Prop 65 labels are something like the kosher symbols, but for atheists. Very left-wing people just won't buy the product without that label, so everyone puts it on.
Um ... do you know what Prop 65 labels say? They say that the product contains chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. And you think the uber-lefties swarm to products with such labels?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The labels are intended to scare people away. What actually happens is that, if there's the slightest question of hazard connected to a product (or sometimes not), manufacturers put them on. As a disclaimer [wikipedia.org] to shield against subsequent lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
The other is that you have the State/Federal situation totally backwards. It is far, far easier to convince one legislature of something than 50. Democrats have focused heavily on the Federal legislature for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you got a couple of things backwards. One is that "corporatists" are generally left-wing.
Except when they aren't. For example, in fascist regimes, like Italy in the early-to-mid 20th century.
The left-wing corporatist states I could find are all quite benign compared to fascist ones: the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, etc.), Austria, The Netherlands, and Germany post-WW2 for example.
Nut jobs everywhere (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a medicinal chemist and have been for 45 years. I also tend to vote fairly liberally, though the leftists thought police were beginning to get on my nerves. Anyhow, my feeling is that glyphosate is probably a lot safer than anything that we try to replace it with, that works as well.
Good things facts don't care about your feelings.
Re: (Score:3)
my feeling is that glyphosate is probably a lot safer than anything that we try to replace it with, that works as well
The intelligent thing to replace it with is zero-tilth regenerative agriculture, which doesn't require weed killer.
When anything has been used as much a glyphosate and the only people sure of it's toxicity are lawyers
You're not even sure how apostrophes work, bro.
Go to Lowe's hardware and get a container of new Roundup and read the label. The new stuff in there is surely more toxic than glyphosate and is more chemically kin to Agent Orange and paraquat
Glyphosate is underlabeled thanks to lots of money applied to government by Monsanto, still the world's largest producer of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not even sure how agriculture works, "bro".
To which claim do you take exception?
Re: (Score:3)
Anyhow, my feeling is that glyphosate is probably a lot safer than anything that we try to replace it with, that works as well.
Safer than mechanical alternatives? You can buy an automated laser-weed-killer today. A product that doesn't cause cancer for farmers and has no chemical interaction with their product. So I question where you get your ideas from since the use of chemicals is objectively less safer than the use of no chemicals, even without the guesswork.
When anything has been used as much a glyphosate and the only people sure of it's toxicity are lawyers, then you've got a pretty safe agent.
There are plenty of scientific studies out there that show direct links between glyphosate formulations and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It's not lawyers working in university res
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a farmer who uses pesticides it boggles my mind that Bayer is selling diquat to consumers! Diquat is a lot more toxic than glyphosate (but a lot safer than paraquat).
But diquat is safer to use it around trees as it won't kill them. It's a contact chemical that burns leaves (quickly). It's not translocated into the plant's roots, so if the roots continue to grow it won't kill the plant. If defoliating the poison oak will kill it, then diquat will work well. Be sure to wear PPE and don't let it on your s
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, given Bayer is a European country, Roundup does not contain diquat dibromide in the EU. That was banned 6 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered using sheep instead? I've read about them being used, but I don't know how expensive they are. And, if you do use goats, be careful about using them near fruit trees if you plan on harvesting the fruit because goats are very good tree climbers. As an example, I once ran across a short video of a goat working its way up a palm tree to get at the dates, so regular trees wouldn't be a bit of difficulty.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed your "Roundup" (which is a brand covering a group of products, not a specific product) does not contain Glyphosate isopropylamine salt at 18% which is what is strongly linked to farmers getting lymphoma. Residential products replaced it with triclopyr triethylamine salt, and let's face it, they don't work as well.
Re: (Score:2)
And do you think that not selling it to consumers is because of health risks or because of legal risks, like being sued?
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely adjuvants and surfactants are a big health unknown. Glyphosate itself seems quite safe. Three generations of farmers have used it and have been exposed in far higher amounts than many of these sick people blaming their cancer on glyphosate. But although pesticide active ingredients are highly regulated and tested for safety, adjuvants and surfactants are not. Many of them contain organic solvents that could be carcinogenic. Manufacturers need not tell you anything about their formulation. It
Re: (Score:2)
That it matters at all suggests glyphosate wasn't the problem, but the other stuff in the formula.
Literally glyphosate was what was removed from what you get on the shelf. Go down to Lowes right now and check the ingredients list, the main active ingredient is triclopyr triethylamine. Bayer hasn't sold roundup containing glyphosate to consumers in the US for 4 years now.
And do you think that not selling it to consumers is because of health risks or because of legal risks, like being sued?
Now why would someone sue? Because the feel like losing money to a mega corporation worth 35billion EUR? If you're concerned about getting sued it's because you're concerned about the suit being valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Acetylene torch works too. Problem is it doesn't kill the roots, so the weeds come back.
I wish there was something else that is effective, but I haven't found it.
"Don't it always seems to go..." (Score:2)
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees, please" - Big Yellow Taxi
I'm concerned because our gut is a major part of our health. [sciencedirect.com]
Montesano wrote the studies (Score:2)
Montesano wrote the studies, and the most cited study by the EPA and other departments, that found that the chemical didn't cause any cancer.
Meanwhile, studies by labs not linked to Montesano found that the chemical was a probable cause of cancers.
This is what isn't being discussed in this Supreme Court case. Whether or not the label is accurate, and it is. Sad that they get caught up in the procedural, and on the company side rather than with science, and on the consumer side.
Glyphosate most likely is caus