EPA Reapproves Glyphosate, Consumer Safety Groups Respond by Filing Lawsuit
In January 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-approved glyphosate, the primary active chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide products. According to the EPA’s decision, “there was insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate plays a role in any human diseases.”
The EPA’s decision is in direct conflict with the conclusions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization and the world’s foremost experts on cancer. In 2015, the IARC conducted and reviewed significant research into glyphosate and determined that the chemical was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
What do these lawsuits against the EPA say?
In response, many organizations have filed suit against the EPA. These organizations are asking federal courts to find that the EPA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). One lawsuit also alleges that the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by “failing to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries to ensure that the [re-approval] will not jeopardize any listed species or destroy or adversely modify any of their critical habitats.”
The EPA’s decision contradicts other findings on glyphosate
While the EPA continues to say that glyphosate does not cause cancer, juries across the country have disagreed. Three juries have been presented with all of the available evidence, including testimony from expert epidemiologists and oncologists. In those three cases, Roundup and other glyphosate-based products contributed to the plaintiffs’ development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
According to one criticism, the EPA’s findings are based on cherry-picked research. According to a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), “Far from consulting the ‘best available science’ as EPA claims, the agency has relied almost entirely on Monsanto studies, cherry-picking the data that suits its purpose and dismissing the rest.”
When the IARC determined that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans, it evaluated peer-reviewed studies on herbicide products as a whole, not just isolated glyphosate). The EPA did not. For those curious how the IARC and the EPA can reach opposite conclusions about the potential dangers of glyphosate, check out Shannon Law Group’s blog post about the differences in testing methods.
Consumer safety advocacy groups and coalitions of workers have filed lawsuits against the EPA. Farmers and migrant workers have the most exposure to glyphosate at their jobs. The research suggests that people who are exposed to Roundup or other glyphosate-based herbicides at work have a higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of their elevated exposure.
Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after glyphosate exposure? Contact us today
At Shannon Law Group, we agree with the scientists at the IARC and the juries across the country that have determined that Roundup and glyphosate-based products contribute to the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and has a history of using Roundup or other glyphosate herbicides (particularly as part of their employment), they may have a claim against the manufacturers of those products. Contact us today for a free Roundup cancer case evaluation.