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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.