Supreme Court rejects round maker’s appeal over cancer claims

Placeholder when article actions are loaded

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a position Millions of dollars ruling against famous herbicide roundabout maker For failing to warn about the risks of cancer.

The judges’ decision not to intervene has led to thousands of similar lawsuits against Bayer. The Biden administration urged the court to reject the company’s request, deviating from the Trump administration’s position.

In a statement on Tuesday, the company said it did not accept the court’s decision not to take up the appeal, adding that it was “confident that the comprehensive scientific community and the continued positive feedback from leading regulatory bodies around the world would provide a strong foundation for the successful defense of the roundup.” In court when needed. “

The case was brought up in 2015 by Edwin Hartmann, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s non-lymphoma. He sued the company, accusing it of causing his cancer because he had used Roundup for more than two decades. He said the company had failed to warn of cancer risks associated with the active ingredient glyphosate.

“It’s a long, arduous journey to bring justice to Mr. Hartman. Refers to the original manufacturer of the herbicide, which was acquired by Bayer in 2018.

The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans. The labeling laws of California are very strict. After an international research team classified glyphosate in 2015 as “potentially carcinogenic to humans,” the state needed a warning label for glyphosate-based pesticides. This classification triggered the number of lawsuits against the nation’s most widely used herbicide manufacturer.

See also  Journalists Pierre Zakrzewski and Oleksandra Kuvshynova killed in attack that wounded Fox News correspondent Benjamin Hall

An appeals court upheld an arbitral tribunal’s $ 25 million ruling and revealed that Hartman’s roundup was a “significant factor” in his cancer and that the company had failed to warn him about the risks.

The court rejected the Trump-era EPA finding that herbicides are safe

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Rule stated that federal law does not preclude a company from adding a cancer warning to its label. The court ruled that even if the EPA approved its label, the pesticide could still be “falsely labeled” and a company could comply with federal and state labeling requirements.

The company’s lawyers have urged the Supreme Court to overturn and point to earlier rulings aimed at ensuring “nationwide consistency in pesticide labeling”. They said California and 49 other states could not “exclude” EPA reports that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer.

The company noted that Hartman discontinued use of Roundup in 2012, prior to the California label requirement.

Bayer agreed to pay more than $ 10 billion in 2020 to settle tens of thousands of U.S. claims. The company said the settlement did not acknowledge wrongdoing and said in its statement on Tuesday that it had won the last four cases involving Roundabout.

In addition, the company said it was switching from glyphosate-based residential lawn and garden products in the United States “to manage case risk in the United States, not for safety reasons.”

Last week, a solo Ruling from the 9th circuit It ordered the EPA to reconsider its finding in 2020 that glyphosate does not pose a “reasonable risk to man or the environment”.

See also  Netflix is ​​changing the way movies are made to compete with Disney Plus

By consensus, Judge Michelle Friedland wrote that Trump’s term finding was “not supported by substantial evidence” and did not meet the agency’s legal obligations to review the environmental impact. It is suggested that the area in which glyphosate is used nationwide is three times the equivalent of California.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.