California can no longer warn about the carcinogenic risk of Roundup

La Californie ne peut plus avertir sur le risque cancérigène du Roundup

NEW YORK | An american judge has banned the state of California to place a warning on the risk of cancer on the weedkiller Roundup, a victory for Bayer, its manufacturer.

The German giant of the agrochemical is committed for two years in a dispute with thousands of complainants about the possible risks of cancer related to the use of weed killers such as Roundup.

The case decided Monday night for the “Proposition 65”, a law passed in California in 1986, which obliges them to label them accordingly, the products of which the carcinogenic risk is recognized by the State.

The world Health Organization (WHO) has classified glyphosate, a component of Roundup, such as “probably carcinogenic”, but the judge William Shubb has been argued that “several other organizations, including the american agency of environmental protection and other agencies WHO “have concluded that there was not enough evidence, or no evidence at all, showing that the glyphosate to cause cancer”.

The warning from california that the glyphosate to cause cancer is “misleading”, and such claims are not “purely factual,” said the judge in a decision of 34 pages.

William Shubb has already made a preliminary judgement in this sense in 2018. This time, it has rejected arguments of California and made the ban permanent.

The German Bayer acquired the U.s. Monsanto in 2018 and is facing litigation without end since. In march, it was reported about 48 600 proceedings in course in the United States.

The company has incurred significant losses in consequence, but the judges have reduced the fines to be decided by juries.

William Shubb said that the judgments rendered against Bayer did not affect the question of the “Proposition 65”.

“The jury had to determine whether the evidence, as presented in these cases showed that it was more likely that the glyphosate has given the cancer to these complainants that the opposite”, he elaborated.

“These juries have decided that, yes, but the question on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate is a separate issue.”

Share Button