March, 20 2020, 12:00am EDT

Farmworkers and Conservationists Sue EPA for Re-Approving Monsanto Cancer-Causing Pesticide
Ignoring science to side with Monsanto/Bayer, EPA has repeatedly failed to assess glyphosate’s impacts on public health and endangered species.
WASHINGTON
Today, Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of a broad coalition of farmworkers, farmers, and conservationists, filed a federal lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its January 2020 re-approval of the pesticide glyphosate, best known as the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup pesticides. The suing organizations are CFS, Beyond Pesticides, the Rural Coalition, Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas, and the Farmworker Association of Florida.
While EPA defends glyphosate, juries in several cases have found it to cause cancer, ruling in favor of those impacted by exposure. Glyphosate formulations like Roundup are also well-established as having numerous damaging environmental impacts. After a registration review process spanning over a decade, EPA allowed the continued marketing of the pesticide despite the agency's failure to fully assess glyphosate's hormone-disrupting potential or its effects on threatened and endangered species. The review began in 2009, has already taken 11 years, without a full assessment of the widespread harmful impacts on people and the environment in that time period.
"EPA's half-completed, biased, and unlawful approval sacrifices the health of farmworkers and endangered species at the altar of Monsanto profits," said George Kimbrell, legal director for CFS and counsel for the coalition. "The reckoning for Roundup is coming."
While EPA has declared that glyphosate does not cause cancer, the world's foremost cancer authorities with the World Health Organization declared glyphosate to be 'probably carcinogenic to humans' in 2015. Over 40,000 lawsuits have been filed against the Monsanto (recently acquired by Bayer) by cancer victims asserting that exposure to Roundup caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including many farmworkers. Plaintiffs have prevailed in the three cases decided thus far, with victims awarded roughly $80 million in each case.
"Contrary to the Trump EPA's claims, both regulatory and independent scientific studies demonstrate that glyphosate herbicides are carcinogenic and have adverse effects on internal organs," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at CFS. "Far from consulting the 'best available science,' as EPA claims, the agency has relied almost entirely on Monsanto studies, cherry-picking the data that suits its purpose and dismissing the rest," added Freese. "EPA's glyphosate decision shows the same hostility to science that we've come to expect from this administration, whether the issue is climate change or environmental health."
EPA judged glyphosate far more critically in the 1980s, when the agency designated it a possible carcinogen and identified harmful effects on the liver, kidney, and reproductive systems. Thanks to pressure from Monsanto/Bayer, EPA has since dismissed these harms and illegitimately raised the safety threshold - the daily amount of glyphosate regarded as safe over a lifetime - by 20 times.
"The farmworkers and farmers we serve are the backbone of our food system. Their families are the first - but are not the last - to bear the huge costs of EPA's irresponsible decision, while corporate shareholders of Monsanto-Bayer benefit," said Lorette Picciano, executive director of the Rural Coalition.
EPA has also failed to collect basic data on how much glyphosate is taken into human bodies via skin contact or inhalation of spray droplets. These exposure routes are particularly significant for farmworkers and others who work around and/or use Roundup, the very people who are at greatest risk of cancer and other health harms.
"How many more farmworkers have to suffer health impacts to themselves and their families before EPA "sees" them - the "invisible people" - and takes action?" said Jeannie Economos of the Farmworker Association of Florida. "EPA must protect human health before one more person suffers acute or chronic illness from exposure."
"Farmworkers are on the front lines of the pesticide exposure crisis providing vital food for American families," said Suguet Lopez of the Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas. "They deserve a duty of care from the government which it has failed to provide."
Glyphosate herbicides also threaten numerous species, including fish, amphibians, and aquatic as well as terrestrial plants. EPA discounts these risks by low-balling exposure estimates and ignoring critical studies showing glyphosate's potency, and by relying on ineffective and toothless changes to the language on glyphosate herbicide product labels to "mitigate" risks. Even worse, despite again registering the pesticide, EPA failed to complete any assessment of its impacts on thousands of potentially harmed endangered species, delaying it until a future decision.
"EPA failed to consider if Roundup disrupts the balance of nature and ecosystem health, critical to the survival of a vast number of organisms on which life depends - from beneficial insects, such as parasitoid wasps, lacewings, ladybugs, and endangered bumblebees, monarch butterflies, to fish, small mammals, and amphibians," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.
To give just one example, the massive use of glyphosate has nearly eradicated milkweed, the monarch butterfly's host plant, from Midwest farmers' fields, a major factor in the catastrophic decline in monarchs over the past two decades. Even though monarchs are under consideration for protection under the Endangered Species Act, EPA's registration decision contains no effective measures to protect milkweed and monarchs from still more glyphosate damage.
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359LATEST NEWS
Watchdog Warns Crypto Bill Could Be Major Tax Giveaway to Ultrarich—Including Trump Family
“The cryptocurrency industry has facilitated the Trump family’s corruption at every turn. Lawmakers should be wary of creating new tax loopholes to benefit the Trump family and their donors in the crypto industry."
Jun 22, 2026
A government watchdog is warning that new cryptocurrency policies being considered in the House of Representatives would be a major boon to the ultrawealthy, including President Donald Trump's family.
In an analysis published on Monday, the Revolving Door Project (RDP) highlighted new crypto-related tax bills being discussed in the House Ways and Means Committee, including one that "would create a functional subsidy for cryptocurrency firms by allowing them to defer taxes owed on their mined coins indefinitely and without interest, so long as the firms do not sell the coins."
This would allow coin owners to raise money by borrowing against these assets without having paid a cent of taxes on them, the analysis explains, which could be particularly beneficial for Trump's two eldest sons.
"Eric and Donald Trump Jr. reportedly hold a 20% stake in the bitcoin mining firm American Bitcoin, which mined 817 bitcoin in Q1 of 2026 alone," RDP writes. "At current prices, this represents a value of more than $50 million, while the company has stated that it already intends to hold assets it mines. If passed, this loophole could mean millions of dollars in taxes owed by the Trump sons’ firm could be deferred endlessly."
RDP also published a list of crypto donations to lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) has received nearly $2 million in support from the industry since 2023, more than any other committee member.
Other top recipients of crypto cash include Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), and Jason Smith (R-Mo.), chairman of the committee.
Jeff Hauser, executive director of RDP, said that the bills currently under consideration in the House are essentially a return on the crypto industry's investment in political campaigns.
"The cryptocurrency industry believes it is owed massive tax loopholes and functional subsidies," said Hauser, "because it has bought the president, paid for his ballroom project, and has funded dozens of congressional campaigns. The lack of campaign finance reform is the principal reason that the ludicrously corrupt Trump family is set to enjoy yet another tax loophole to exploit."
Timi Iwayemi, assistant director at RDP, said that "the cryptocurrency industry has facilitated the Trump family's corruption at every turn," while warning members of Congress against doing the industry's bidding.
"Lawmakers should be wary of creating new tax loopholes to benefit the Trump family and their donors in the crypto industry," said Iwayemi. "Rewarding this behavior will embolden the crypto industry and other corporate lobbies eager to seize on our elected representatives’ prioritization of donor interests at public expense."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abelardo de la Espriella, Far-Right Millionaire Backed by Trump, Claims Presidential Victory
US President Donald Trump, who was accused of interfering in Colombia's runoff election, falsely declared that De la Espriella won "BIG" as he led by less than a percentage point.
Jun 22, 2026
Abelardo de la Espriella, a far-right millionaire backed by US President Donald Trump, declared victory in Colombia's presidential runoff late Sunday as preliminary results showed him leading by less than one percentage point with more than 99% of the vote tallied.
Despite the narrow margin, Trump—who is notorious for lying about elections—falsely declared on Truth Social that De la Espriella won "BIG" as the far-right candidate's opponent, leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, said the results were "unofficial." Both Cepeda and incumbent Colombian President Gustavo Petro signaled that they would challenge vote counts.
"It is an abuse to declare a president through the media when the scrutiny is still ongoing," Petro wrote on X as interim results showed De la Espriella with 49.66% of the vote to Cepeda's 48.7%.
In the run up to Sunday's contest, Petro, international observers, and Democratic lawmakers in the US sounded alarm about the Trump administration's interference in the race on behalf of De la Espriella, who has pledged to "disembowel the left," cut corporate taxes, and dismantle Petro's social and economic policies, which slashed poverty and boosted the country's minimum wage.
"President Trump has... implied that if Mr. De la Espriella loses, Colombia may lose the support of the United States, its most important trade and security partner," a group of US lawmakers wrote in a letter to to Trump administration officials last week. "This direct interference by US officials in another country’s democratic elections is inconsistent with longstanding principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, as well as international law."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on social media that he called De la Espriella late Sunday to "congratulate him on his electoral victory."
"The Trump administration looks forward to working closely with your incoming administration to advance regional security cooperation, end illegal immigration to the United States, and strengthen our economic ties," Rubio added.
NPR noted that De la Espriella "has built a lucrative legal and media empire around his reputation."
"He owns a fleet of luxury cars, including a Rolls Royce, and frequently travels by private jet," the outlet added. "He has also cultivated a conspicuous public image as a businessman and influencer, launching a fashion brand, De La Espriella Style, which markets high-end accessories such as luxury watches and sneakers priced at over $1,000 a pair."
De la Espriella's declaration of victory sparked protests in the streets of Colombia's capital, Bogotá. Barron's reported that "roaring motorbike engines and shouts of 'resistance!' filled the air" in the capital city as thousands took to the streets in opposition to De la Espriella.
"We're going to see many more demonstrations," one student demonstrator predicted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good Riddance': Keir Starmer Resigns as UK Prime Minister
"Getting rid of Keir Starmer is not enough. We need to get rid of the politics he represents: corporate greed, anti-migrant rhetoric, and endless war," said former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Jun 22, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation on Monday, less than two years after his Labour party swept into power in a landslide election.
In his resignation speech, Starmer said that he was stepping down because members of his party did not feel he was the best choice to lead them into the next general election, with polls showing the far-right anti-immigration Reform party currently on track to receive the most votes.
Starmer also said that whomever is chosen as his successor "will inherit a Britain that is far stronger and fairer than the one I inherited two years ago, better prepared for the challenges ahead and better able to ensure the Labour party secures a second term in office."
Starmer's progressive critics disputed this characterization of his governance, which they said has done little more than legitimize the far right.
Specifically, critics pointed to the Labour government's continued support of Israel in its genocidal assault on Gaza, its decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, and its efforts to court far-right voters by restricting immigration as some of its most destructive actions.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that Starmer had wasted the large majority that Labour had won and had done little if anything to improve the lives of the UK working class.
"Keir Starmer could have ended child poverty, homelessness and the grotesque levels of inequality in this country," Corbyn wrote. "Instead, he abandoned those in need, destroyed our civil liberties, and facilitated genocide in Gaza. That is how this prime minister will be remembered—and that is the legacy of moral and political bankruptcy he leaves behind."
Corbyn added that "getting rid of Keir Starmer is not enough," as "we need to get rid of the politics he represents: corporate greed, anti-migrant rhetoric, and endless war."
Member of Parliament Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP who has since joined Corbyn's Your party, noted after watching the prime minister's speech that "the most emotion Keir Starmer has shown is over losing his job, not enabling the genocide of the Palestinian people."
"Good riddance," Sultana said. "His next stop should be The Hague."
Zack Polanski, leader of the Green party, predicted that Starmer's premiership would be remembered entirely negatively.
"Bills up. Wages too low," Polanski wrote, summarizing life in the UK under Starmer's leadership. "Record profits for oil and gas. Fifty richest families with more wealth than 50% of population. Shit in our rivers. Pensioners jailed for protesting. Migrants thrown under the bus. Supporting a genocide. That's Starmer's legacy."
Journalist Owen Jones delivered a similarly scathing assessment.
"Keir Starmer lied through his teeth to become Labour leader," Jones wrote. "He justified Israeli war crimes, arrested opponents of genocide, attacked pensioners, disabled people, and migrants, pocketed freebies, crushed dissent, and threw others under the bus to save himself. History damns him."
Economist Yanis Varoufakis delivered a lengthy rundown of Starmer's failures as prime minister, arguing he "was not merely a disappointment" but "a mendacious figure of ethical decrepitude, a man who won the Labour party leadership based on promises that he jettisoned five seconds after winning."
"History will remember Mr. Starmer as a man without conviction," Varoufakis wrote, "a prime minister who offers not a shred of honesty, but merely the cruel illusion of change. He is ethically decrepit because he had chosen, consciously, to abandon principle for power. And for that, history will indict him. Good riddance, I say."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


