Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 73 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H1'ed 12/31/19

Trump's EPA Pumps Up Bayer Fighting $25 Million Verdict in Roundup Cancer Despite Many Nations Having Banned Roundup

Message Stephen Fox
Become a Fan
  (31 fans)

Evidence shows EPA in bed w/ Monsanto Attorney Michael L Baum, managing partner and president at Baum Hedlund Law, joins Rick Sanchez to discuss the .failure of the EPA to protect people,. opting ...
(Image by YouTube, Channel: RT America)
  Details   DMCA

Bayer/Monsanto is asking a federal appeals court to reverse its ruling in favor of a California man suffering from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma

compiled from articles by Andrea Germanos, staff writer at Common Dreams and an article by Rich Peters in Legal Newsline

Trump's EPA has long been accused of being the "pesticide cheerleader" and recently threw its dubious judicial gravitas behind Bayer last Friday by filing an amicus brief which asked a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court's ruling in favor of a man who said the company's Roundup weedkiller was responsible for his cancer (and of course the jury also had agreed).

The case of California's Edwin Hardeman diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2015 after using the glyphosate-based pesticide, made by Monsanto, for years on his property.

A federal jury in July unanimously ordered the company to pay Hardeman roughly $25 million in damages, a lower amount than the $80 million a federal judge had ordered months earlier.

Like the blind leading the blind, our EPA maintains that glyphosate is not a carcinogen, and this is the face of hundreds of nations, states, and counties that have completely banned it.

California in 2017 agreed with the World Health Organization's 2015 classification of glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen." However, both Trump's EPA and an 81 year old Federal Judge in Sacramento, Bush appointee William Shubb, has fought the state's finding and said that product labels informing users of that cancer risk would "misbranding" and announced in August of this year that the agency would not approve of labels carrying that warning. Shubb granted Monsanto/Bayer's request for an injunction against requiring labeling Roundup as carcinogenic, although Shubb did not question the finding by the California Carcinogen Identification Commission that Roundup/Glyphosate is carcinogenic, which he left standing.

In the recent amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, attorneys with the EPA and Justice Department wrote

EPA approved the label for the pesticide/herbicide at issue here, Roundup, through a registration process that did not require a cancer warning. In fact, EPA has never required a labeling warning of a cancer risk posed by Roundup, and such a warning would be inconsistent with the agency's scientific assessments of the carcinogenic potential of the product. Mr. Hardeman nevertheless sought damages under California common law, alleging that Monsanto had failed to adequately warn consumers of cancer risks posed by the active ingredient in Roundup. FIFRA therefore preempts Mr. Hardeman's claims to the extent that they are based on the lack of a warning on Roundup's labeling.

The filing from the federal government came the same week Bayer AG asked the appeals court to toss out the lower court's ruling, and defended Roundup's safety.

Bayer is currently facing nearly 43,000 claims related to glyphosate-linked cancer in federal courts. An end to the company's legal woes is unlikely to happen soon, according to Bloomberg Environment.

"The only vehicle that remotely approaches [an end to litigation] might be bankruptcy," Loyola Law School professor Adam Zimmerman told the outlet last week. "Short of that, or some victories in court, I don't see what kind of arrangement would absolve them of future liability."


Bayer 'encouraged' by support from DOJ, states in Hardeman appeal

Bayer announced last week that at least 16 entities - including trade groups, several states and the federal government - are supporting the company's appeal of a $25 million verdict in favor of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman , who alleged Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer.

Amicus briefs were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by the federal Department of Justice; the states of Nebraska, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Utah; the California Medical Association; California Dental Association; California Hospital Association; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; and others.

The briefs argue a number of issues, including federal preemption, the admissibility of expert testimony, causation and punitive damages. These arguments are also the focal points of Monsanto's appeal, a press release states.

"We are encouraged that the U.S. government, several states, and many other parties chose to offer the court their legal perspectives on the key issues in our appeal," Bayer said in a statement. "The number and stature of these parties speaks clearly to the importance of the issues in dispute in this case to a diversity of interests including governments, health care providers, farmers, and manufacturers."

Last March, a jury verdict awarded Hardeman $80.27 million after finding that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's weed killer Roundup, was a substantial factor in causing the Bay Area resident's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The total damages awarded have since been slashed to $25.27 million and Bayer, which purchased Monsanto last year for $63 billion, filed a much anticipated appeal earlier this month, urging the Ninth Circuit to reverse that verdict altogether.

In backing the pharmaceutical giant, attorneys with the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice stated in their amicus brief :

"Plaintiff asserted safety labeling requirements exist under California law in addition to and different from that required, reviewed, and approved by EPA. Plaintiff is wrong and his lawyers sailed directly into preempted territory in how they opted to try this case."

It continues: "Under (Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), the label is the law. EPA approved the label for the pesticide/herbicide at issue here, Roundup, through a registration process that did not require a cancer warning. In fact, EPA has never required a labeling warning of a cancer risk posed by Roundup, and such a warning would be inconsistent with the agency's scientific assessments of the carcinogenic potential of the product."

Hardeman's case was the second of three straight California landmark victories for plaintiffs suing Monsanto over similar accusations. A handful of early 2020 cases in Oakland as well as Monsanto's longtime headquarters of St. Louis were recently postponed. A number of other cases are still expected to take place, however, despite the recent rumors of a potential global settlement.

Reports have stated that the number of similar cancer lawsuits filed against Bayer/Monsanto have doubled over the past quarter, reaching upward of 42,700 nationwide.


Please see also:


In a November 25, 2019 posting Beverly Hills Law Firm Baum Hedlund posted this following information. They are the lead firm in many of the decisions and jury decisions giving awards to Roundup cancer victims.

A number of cities, counties, states and countries throughout the world have taken steps to either restrict or ban glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup weed killer.

The following countries have issued outright bans on glyphosate, imposed restrictions or have issued statements of intention to ban or restrict glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, over health concerns and the ongoing Roundup cancer litigation:

  • Brazil: In August of 2018, a federal judge in Brasilia ruled that new products containing glyphosate could not be registered in the country. Existing regulations concerning glyphosate were also suspended, pending a reevaluation of toxicological data by Anvisa, the country's health agency.
  • In September of 2018, a Brazilian court overturned the federal judge's ruling. September marks Brazil's first month of soybean planting. The country is the largest exporter of soybeans in the world, and as such, has become heavily reliant on agrochemicals. Anvisa issued a statement following the court's decision to overturn the ruling, saying it will take necessary legal and technical steps in response. Further, Brazil's Solicitor General's office has said it is preparing an appeal to the court decision with support from the Agriculture Ministry. Brazil's health agency concluded a re-evaluation of glyphosate in February of 2019. Based on the agency's findings, a blanket ban of glyphosate in Brazil is unlikely.
  • India: In October of 2018, the government of Punjab banned the sale of glyphosate in the state. "All pesticide manufacturers, marketers and dealers in the State shall not sell glyphosate formulations-concentrations with immediate effect. The licensing authorities have been asked to take necessary steps for removal of entries for glyphosate from the licenses issued by them," said State Agriculture Secretary K.S. Pannu. In February of 2019, the Indian state of Kerala issued a ban on the sale, distribution and use of glyphosate.

  • Malta: In July of 2019, Malta banned the use of glyphosate in public spaces. The spraying of glyphosate will not be allowed on roadsides or near schools, among other places.
  • Oman: Eng Saleh al Abri, director general of agricultural development in Oman's Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MoAF), told a reporter that glyphosate "hasn't been available in Oman since 2016." Eng Abri added, "This active ingredient has been banned throughout the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) since last year." In addition to Oman, the GCC includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
  • Qatar: According to Oman's Ministry of Agriculture, Qatar and five other countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have banned glyphosate.
  • Saudi Arabia: Issued a glyphosate ban along with five other countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
  • Slovenia: Slovenia was one of six EU member states to sign a 2018 letter to the European Commission citing "concerns" about the risks associated with glyphosate. The letter called upon the Commission to introduce "an exit plan for glyphosate
  • Thailand: In August 2019, Deputy Agriculture Minister Mananya Thaiseth ceased licensing extensions for three hazardous farm chemicals, including glyphosate. Following the announcement, U.S. government officials pressured Thailand to exempt the three chemicals citing a potential threat to the grain trade. But Thailand's public health minister Anutin Charvinrakul said during a press conference that "our job is to take care of the people's health." The Thailand glyphosate ban starts on December 1, 2019.
  • United Arab Emirates: Issued a glyphosate ban along with five other countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council.
  • Vietnam: Following the jury verdict in Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., Vietnam announced that it would ban glyphosate imports. According to Hoang Trung, Director of the Plant Protection Department under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, "the removal of this substance from the list of pesticides allowed to be used in Vietnam will be done in the near future."

Why is Glyphosate Banned?

Most of the glyphosate restrictions or bans throughout the world were introduced following the 2015 IARC report on glyphosate. The IARC report concluded that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen."

According to the report, the cancers most associated with glyphosate exposure were found to be non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other hematopoietic cancers. The report further concluded that glyphosate exposure caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, as well as genotoxic, hormonal and enzymatic effects in mammals.

Other glyphosate studies have linked the chemical to a number of health issues, including, but not limited to ADHD, Alzheimer's Disease, Autism, Birth Defects, various forms of cancer, Celiac Disease, Colitis, Heart Disease, Inflammatory Bowel Syndrome, Kidney Disease, Liver Disease, and Parkinson's Disease.

Is Glyphosate Banned in Europe?

As you can see above, some individual countries have introduced legislation to ban or restrict private sales of glyphosate, or restrictions on spraying glyphosate in public spaces. As for the whole of the European Union (EU), glyphosate is not currently banned.

However, EU public opinion is leaning in favor of a glyphosate ban. In a 2016 poll of the five largest EU countries, over 66 percent of respondents said they favored a glyphosate ban. Over 1.3 million people signed a petition in 2017 calling for a European ban of glyphosate. That public pressure caught the attention numerous Members of European Parliament, who have cited the petition as the foundation for instituting an EU ban.

In November of 2017, EU member states narrowly voted to relicense glyphosate for a period of five years. The vote was not without controversy; German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt (CSU) entered a 'yes' vote for his country without consulting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) on the matter. His unilateral vote disregarded Germany's Environment Minister, who had instructed Schmidt to abstain from voting. With Germany's vote, the measure narrowly passed and glyphosate received a new license.

Following the scandal, six EU countries sent a letter to the European Commission, calling for an exit plan for glyphosate. France and Italy have stated they will carry out glyphosate bans by 2020, and Germany announced in 2018 that it will also issue a glyphosate ban.

In January of 2019, a European Parliament report found that EU regulators based their decision to relicense glyphosate on an assessment that was plagiarized from a coalition of pesticide companies, including Monsanto.

The EU Parliament report investigated claims that Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) copied and pasted large sections of a pesticide industry assessment of glyphosate literature in its own assessment. The BfR report concluded that classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen is not warranted. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which relied upon the BfR report, also found that glyphosate is safe for humans and the environment.

Following the release of the EU Parliament report, an EU court ruled that EFSA should publicize glyphosate studies used for its assessments.

Is Glyphosate Banned in the United States?

Despite the IARC report's 2015 conclusion that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. As such, glyphosate is not banned by the U.S. government; Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides are readily available for purchase throughout the country.

However, the EPA is a captured agency, meaning it is dominated by the industry it presumably regulates. Internal company documents now public in the Monsanto Papers demonstrate that EPA prioritizes the interests of corporations like Monsanto or political groups over the interests of the public it is charged with protecting.

"The EPA has got it wrong on glyphosate. We have study after study after study showing that it in fact, does cause a specific type of cancer called lymphoma. And we see it happening in thousands and thousands of people across the country. Currently, this Administration and this EPA will not take action against Monsanto. We've seen the internal documents, the text messages, the emails between senior EPA officials and Monsanto employees. And the simple fact is they know that this EPA will not take adverse action against them. It is a travesty that this truth about it causing cancer and this awareness that we are trying to raise has to be done in the context of litigation. We only exist, these lawsuits only exist, because the EPA has failed the American public for 45 years and Monsanto is allowed to get away with reckless conduct with, essentially, impunity"this agency essentially does not work for the American public but works for industry. The fact that the White House is telling Monsanto, 'We have your back.' I mean this just tells us that we are going to have to keep fighting this fight and that we are not going to get any support or help from the public agencies that, ironically, are supposed to be protecting the public health."
- Brent Wisner, Roundup Cancer Attorney

Is Glyphosate Banned in California?

California has not issued a statewide ban on glyphosate. However, on July 7, 2017, California became the first state in the nation to issue a warning on glyphosate by adding the chemical to the state's Proposition 65 list of chemicals and substances known to cause cancer.

California's decision to warn consumers about glyphosate was pursuant to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, better known as California Proposition 65, a ballot initiative approved by voters in 1986 to address toxic chemical exposure concerns. Prop 65 requires California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

In 2019, University of California President Janet Napolitano announced that glyphosate would be temporarily banned on all 10 UC campuses, citing "concerns about possible human health and ecological hazards, as well potential legal and reputational risks associated with this category of herbicides."

U.S. Cities to Restrict or Ban Glyphosate



  • Belvedere, California - Passed municipal ordinance initiating Integrated Pest Management program that restricts toxic pesticide use and urges pesticide use as last resort.
  • Carlsbad, California - The City Council voted unanimously to adopt a policy that makes organic pesticides the preferred method for killing weeds. "Asked to choose between aesthetics and public health"I'm going to choose public health every time," said Councilwoman Cori Schumacher.
  • Corte Madera, California - Passed ordinance calling for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program restricting highly toxic pesticides, while also urging for pesticide use to be a last resort.
  • Davis, California - Passed ordinance implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program designed to reduce the use of pesticides. Some city parks do not allow the use of glyphosate.
  • Fairfax, California - Passed municipal ordinance restricting use of toxic pesticides on public property in favor of alternative methods.
  • Greenfield, California - Adopted a resolution to "halt all use of the carcinogenic weed killer Roundup and replace it with 'greener' alternatives."
  • Orange County, California - OC Parks banned the use of glyphosate on and around playgrounds, picnic shelters, trails and campgrounds. However, glyphosate remains in use on off-trail invasive weeds.
  • Palo Alto, California - Pest management program calls for Integrated Pest Management that restricts pesticide use in favor of less harmful methods.



A growing number of Connecticut towns, including Branford, Cheshire, Granby, Essex, Greenwich, Manchester, Oxford, Pine Grove, Plainville, Roxbury, Watertown, and Woodbridge have adopted bans or restrictions on glyphosate use. The state also has Public Act 09-56 to eliminate the use pesticides in K-8 schools.


The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ceased using aquatic herbicides, glyphosate chief among them, anywhere in state waters, while the agency gathers public input.

  • Martin County, Florida - The local government instituted a Roundup ban that applies to all county employees and contractors working on county projects.
  • Stuart, Florida - City commissioners voted to ban glyphosate, calling for an integrated pest control plan that reduces the use of glyphosate with the ultimate goal of eliminating chemicals.


In February of 2018, a series of bills moved ahead in the legislature that would regulate pesticides, including Roundup weed killer.

  • Hawaii County, Hawaii - A Hawaii County Council committee approved a bill that would prohibit the use of herbicides like Roundup on public parks, roads, bike routes, trails, sidewalks, and elsewhere. The bill will be taken up by the full council. If passed, the law would take effect in 2024.


  • Franklin Park, Illinois - Passed resolution promoting an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy that restricts highly toxic pesticides and urges for pesticides to be considered as a last resort.




Dozens of cities and townships in Maine have adopted local ordinances restricting or banning pesticides and herbicides.

  • South Portland, Maine - Passed a pesticide plan that discourages property owners from using certain pesticides and herbicides.


  • Greenbelt, Maryland - Adopted Sustainable Land Care policy for public lands calling for limited use of pesticides.


  • Eastham, Massachusetts - Local ordinance requires town employees to receive a permit for use of registered pesticides and prohibits the use of highly-toxic pesticides.



New Hampshire

  • Portsmouth, New Hampshire - Passed resolution eliminating the use of toxic pesticides on public property in favor of alternative, organic methods.

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Jersey has State and local ordinances encouraging Integrated Pest Management programs to eliminate or drastically reduce the use of pesticides. At least 15 city school districts and over a dozen other parks and recreation departments in the state have enacted IPM programs.

New York

In January of 2019, New York State Senator Brad Hoylman (27th District) sponsored a bill in the New York State Senate that would prohibit the sale and distribution of products containing glyphosate. Updates on the legislation can be found here.

In April of 2019, two New York City council members introduced legislation to ban glyphosate use in parks and other public spaces.

New York Park and Recreation Department has measures to eliminate or reduce pesticide and herbicide use in areas under its control.

North Carolina


  • Cuyahoga County, Ohio - Local ordinance prohibits the use of pesticides on county-owned land, and established the adoption of an Integrated Pest Management program for county-owned properties.
  • South Euclid, Ohio - Passed ordinance prohibiting toxic pesticides on public grounds in favor of alternative, organic pest control methods unless permitted by an Environmental Review Board.



  • Denton, Texas - City Council voted to implement an integrated pest management program and restrict the use of glyphosate on city parks, fields and playgrounds.


Multiple bills containing restrictions or bans on glyphosate have been introduced in the legislature.

Representative Mari Cordes introduced H. 301, which would ban the sale, use or application of the herbicide glyphosate.

Representative Annmarie Christensen introduced H. 328, an act relating to the use of glyphosate herbicide.



  • King County, Washington - Passed municipal ordinance initiating an Integrative Pest Management (IPM) program to determine if and how pesticides should be used.
  • Kitsap County, Washington - Passed measure banning the spraying of glyphosate by workers on county-owned and maintained properties. Glyphosate may only be used on noxious weeds as a tool of last resort.
  • Olympia, Washington - City passed a resolution to encourage the implementation of an Integrative Pest Management (IPM) program for non-chemical pest control.

Rate It | View Ratings

Stephen Fox Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Early in the 2016 Primary campaign, I started a Facebook group: Bernie Sanders: Advice and Strategies to Help Him Win! As the primary season advanced, we shifted the focus to advancing Bernie's legislation in the Senate, particularly the (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

NYC Council "STANDS UNITED" WITH N.DAKOTA PROTESTERS, 2 new videos of police using pepper spray and rubber bullets

Bernie Meets with LA Times Editorial Board (this is the complete transcript!)

Mirena Interuterine Devices can cause Depression, Mood swings, Acne, Back Pain, Uterine Cysts, and Uterine Perforations

What does Coca Cola's Dasani bottled water have in common with Death by Lethal Injection?

CA Exit Polls reveal 23% Discrepancy; 11 States With Vote "Flipping" Evidence; Our New Directions in American History?

In the California Primary, More Ballots Remain Uncounted than the Total Number of votes for Hillary Clinton!

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend