SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Since last year, Bayer has been ordered by juries to pay out tens of millions of dollars in damages to cancer patients alleging that Roundup caused their disease. (Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr/cc)
Judge Rules California Requirement of Cancer Warning Label for Glyphosate Violates Corporate 'Free Speech'
The World Health Organization's cancer research arm classified glyphosate—the active ingredient in weed-killers like Bayer's Roundup—as probably carcinogenic for humans.
Jun 23, 2020
A U.S. federal appeals court judge ruled Monday that California cannot require companies like agrochemical giant Bayer to include a cancer warning on their glyphosate-based products, despite the World Health Organization's 2015 classification of the weed-killer as a probable human carcinogen.
U.S. District Judge William Shubb of the Eastern District of California wrote in his opinion (pdf) that mandating a cancer warning label on glyphosate products would violate companies' First Amendment rights by compelling them to echo a finding that Shubb characterized as "not purely factual and uncontroversial."
Bayer--which acquired the notorious agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018--has maintained that glyphosate is not carcinogenic even as it faces tens of thousands of lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging that the weed-killer Roundup caused their cancer.
Since last year, Bayer has been ordered by juries to pay out tens of millions of dollars in damages to cancer patients. Plaintiffs have accused the company of manipulating glyphosate research and failing to warn the public of Roundup's carcinogenic effects.
Shubb took Bayer's side in his ruling Monday, contending that "there is insufficient evidence to show" that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.
"California has options available to inform consumers of its determination that glyphosate is a carcinogen, without burdening the free speech of businesses, including advertising campaigns or posting information on the internet," Shubb wrote.
The ruling stems from California's 2017 decision to add glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Approved by voters in 1986, Prop 65 requires businesses to "provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A U.S. federal appeals court judge ruled Monday that California cannot require companies like agrochemical giant Bayer to include a cancer warning on their glyphosate-based products, despite the World Health Organization's 2015 classification of the weed-killer as a probable human carcinogen.
U.S. District Judge William Shubb of the Eastern District of California wrote in his opinion (pdf) that mandating a cancer warning label on glyphosate products would violate companies' First Amendment rights by compelling them to echo a finding that Shubb characterized as "not purely factual and uncontroversial."
Bayer--which acquired the notorious agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018--has maintained that glyphosate is not carcinogenic even as it faces tens of thousands of lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging that the weed-killer Roundup caused their cancer.
Since last year, Bayer has been ordered by juries to pay out tens of millions of dollars in damages to cancer patients. Plaintiffs have accused the company of manipulating glyphosate research and failing to warn the public of Roundup's carcinogenic effects.
Shubb took Bayer's side in his ruling Monday, contending that "there is insufficient evidence to show" that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.
"California has options available to inform consumers of its determination that glyphosate is a carcinogen, without burdening the free speech of businesses, including advertising campaigns or posting information on the internet," Shubb wrote.
The ruling stems from California's 2017 decision to add glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Approved by voters in 1986, Prop 65 requires businesses to "provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm."
A U.S. federal appeals court judge ruled Monday that California cannot require companies like agrochemical giant Bayer to include a cancer warning on their glyphosate-based products, despite the World Health Organization's 2015 classification of the weed-killer as a probable human carcinogen.
U.S. District Judge William Shubb of the Eastern District of California wrote in his opinion (pdf) that mandating a cancer warning label on glyphosate products would violate companies' First Amendment rights by compelling them to echo a finding that Shubb characterized as "not purely factual and uncontroversial."
Bayer--which acquired the notorious agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018--has maintained that glyphosate is not carcinogenic even as it faces tens of thousands of lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging that the weed-killer Roundup caused their cancer.
Since last year, Bayer has been ordered by juries to pay out tens of millions of dollars in damages to cancer patients. Plaintiffs have accused the company of manipulating glyphosate research and failing to warn the public of Roundup's carcinogenic effects.
Shubb took Bayer's side in his ruling Monday, contending that "there is insufficient evidence to show" that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.
"California has options available to inform consumers of its determination that glyphosate is a carcinogen, without burdening the free speech of businesses, including advertising campaigns or posting information on the internet," Shubb wrote.
The ruling stems from California's 2017 decision to add glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Approved by voters in 1986, Prop 65 requires businesses to "provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.