With the EPA finding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and the plaintiffs’ five-case winning streak against Bayer broken, things had been looking up on the Roundup event horizon. Alas, last week’s verdict dinged Roundup yet again. and some 40,000 cases are still pending. What can we expect next?
glyphosate
If Tylenol trials are off the table, what else tempts? How about the weed killer Roundup - the most popular and successful herbicide ever? Luckily for the plaintiff’s bar, there’s some evidence that it causes cancer. There’s also sound evidence that it doesn’t. Eighteen cases have gone to verdict. Bayer (which owns Monsanto, the product’s developer) won ten; the plaintiffs won eight. So, is the stuff human-harmful or not? Who decides in a court of law and how? And what’s next?
The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to wreck its reputation by taking ideological, unscientific stances on important public health issues. Its latest faux pas: a fatuous report attacking crop biotechnology and pesticides.
Environmental activists rely on several go-to tactics when fomenting fear of pesticides. One of their favorite methods is recruiting fake whistleblowers – often retired government scientists – who will spread conspiratorial nonsense about regulatory agencies and other researchers. Here's a real-world example of the "phony whistleblower gambit."
In a move that will significantly expand the restrictions on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – more commonly known as the “forever chemicals” – the International Agency for Research on Cancer has reclassified perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as “carcinogenic to humans.” It did so even though no valid studies show it increases the risk of causing cancer in people. How will this reclassification increase pressure in Europe and the U.S. for more action? Here's a look.
Due to the ban on glyphosate by some cities and municipalities across the US, more and more fish and wildlife habitats are in danger. That is because glyphosate is the most effective tool for eradicating invasive plants that are destroying many native species. Without glyphosate, our country risks losing more and more critical wildlife and wetland habitats. Although everybody decries bad science, few people have considered the actual harm that can occur when faulty science is accepted as conventional wisdom.
Last week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the EPA a time-out for bad behavior. In this instance, the EPA determined that glyphosate, the “bad boy” in RoundUp, likely poses no “unreasonable risk” to humans or the environment, yet bollixed up a few steps in their procedures underlying regulatory science. Why do bureaucracies believe they are exempt from the rules, the same rules that they make?
A series of class action cases claim that Zantac can cause cancer. It is not Zantac per se, but a degradation-produced, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which may cause cancer at high doses. What do we know about NDMA?
Acid indigestion. Just the words give me heartburn. Multiple remedies are available, both prescription and over-the-counter. But hundreds of thousands of people are claiming that they got cancer from one of them: Zantac. Their cases are pending in various courts around the country. The decision regarding the admissibility of their expert testimony in federal cases was just released. So, how did the plaintiffs fare?
Let’s continue our countdown of the top articles written by ACSH this year.
After many years of sensational reporting about the cancer risks from Bayer’s Roundup weedkiller, with the main ingredient of glyphosate, it appears that the tide may be finally turning in the courtroom. When presented with complex science, juries understand it and get it right.
The New Lede — the Environmental Working Group's "investigative reporting" outlet — continues to mislead readers about pesticides. This time it’s spreading nonsense about a recent lawsuit challenging the EPA's assessment of the weedkiller glyphosate. Let's have a look.