SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Pegga Mosavi, pmosavi@centerforfoodsafety.org
Bill Freese, bfreese@centerforfoodsafety.org
A groundbreaking legal action today calls on EPA to immediately suspend and cancel the dangerous herbicide glyphosate.
A groundbreaking legal action today calls on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately suspend and cancel the dangerous herbicide glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup.
Glyphosate's registration is illegal, says the petition filed by Center for Food Safety on behalf of itself, Beyond Pesticides, and four farmworker advocacy groups. Last year, in a lawsuit by the same nonprofits, a federal court of appeals struck down EPA's human health assessment because the agency wrongfully dismissed glyphosate's cancer risk. Today's petition, calling for the cancellation and suspension of glyphosate's registration, runs over 70 pages and includes more than 200 scientific citations.
"This petition is a blueprint for the Biden administration to do what the law and science require and finally cancel glyphosate's registration," said Pegga Mosavi, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety and counsel for the petitioners. "There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that glyphosate endangers public health, and poses cancer risks to farmers and other Roundup users. Glyphosate formulations are also an environmental hazard and have driven an epidemic of resistant weeds that plague farmers. After last year's court decision, EPA has no legal legs to stand on. EPA must take action now."
Glyphosate is the most widely used pesticide in the world, with approximately 300 million pounds applied annually in the U.S. Yet EPA has declined to act despite the damage inflicted by glyphosate's pervasive use. Numerous studies—including many sponsored by Monsanto—show that glyphosate has harmful effects on the liver, kidney, and reproductive system, and is a probable carcinogen linked specifically with the immune system cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Bill Freese, science director at Center for Food Safety, noted, "EPA once acknowledged that glyphosate has adverse effects on the mammalian liver, kidney, and reproductive system, and might even cause cancer—effects that were first revealed in decades-old registrant studies. But as Monsanto sought ever wider uses for its blockbuster herbicide, EPA consigned those incriminating studies to regulatory oblivion, thus facilitating greater use, even as independent scientists confirmed the harms EPA now denies."
Glyphosate formulations have also ravaged the environment, causing considerable drift damage to crops and wild plants. By decimating milkweed, glyphosate has been a major factor in the decline of the monarch butterfly, and many Roundup formulations are extremely toxic to amphibians. EPA itself has found that glyphosate is likely to adversely affect an incredible 93% of threatened and endangered species, and 96% of the critical habitat that supports them.
Today's petition calls on the EPA to suspend glyphosate use until the agency can conclude the cancellation process or can demonstrate that glyphosate meets the required safety standards in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Cancellation would make the sale and use of any product containing the chemical illegal.
"Farmworker women and their families have experienced the damaging health effects of pesticides for far too long" said Mily Treviño-Sauceda, Executive Director of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas. "EPA must protect the nation's farmworkers and our environment by immediately suspending and cancelling all glyphosate registrations."
Background
The last time glyphosate was subject to a comprehensive re-evaluation was 1993, right before the explosion in use that accompanied Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops that are genetically engineered to resist glyphosate. Under federal law, EPA must review pesticide registrations every 15 years to determine whether they continue to meet the required safety standard—no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment—considering new science and current use patterns. EPA only began this registration review process for glyphosate in 2009, issuing an interim decision in 2020.
Despite spending eleven years on its review, EPA's pesticide division was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). The agency nevertheless dismissed glyphosate's overall cancer risk, deeming it "not likely" to cause cancer. NHL is the cancer linked to glyphosate in many epidemiology studies of farmers, and in assessments by scientists with EPA's science division. It is also the cancer associated with glyphosate by the world's foremost authority on carcinogens, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. Many NHL sufferers who attributed their cancer to use of Roundup have won lawsuits against Monsanto/Bayer.
In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down EPA's cancer and broader human health assessment of glyphosate, in a lawsuit brought by Center for Food Safety on behalf of the same petitioners. The court found EPA's cancer assessment of glyphosate internally contradictory and violative of EPA's own guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Similar criticisms were levied by an EPA-appointed expert Scientific Advisory Panel, and EPA scientists from outside the pesticide division.
As a result of the court's decision, EPA lacks a legal human health assessment of glyphosate to support its current use. The court also remanded the ecological risk assessment of glyphosate to EPA, with a deadline to complete it. EPA failed to meet this deadline, and instead chose to withdraw the entire interim registration review decision. Congress subsequently extended EPA's deadline for completing registration reviews of glyphosate and all other pesticides previously due for completion by October 2022 to October 2026.
Today, glyphosate remains registered based entirely on a three-decades old, 1993 assessment. This outdated assessment takes no account of the exponentially increased use of glyphosate that began with the mid-1990s introduction of glyphosate-resistant corn, soybeans, cotton, and other major crops; it also predates the thousands of incriminating scientific studies on glyphosate that have accumulated since 1993. Neither does this antiquated assessment account for the enormous costs imposed on farmers by this century's glyphosate-resistant weed outbreak. For all of these reasons, EPA cannot meet the required safety standard for glyphosate's currently approved uses, and must cancel its registration.
Resources
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) 547-9359“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," said Democratic leaders, "the odds of a shutdown go way up."
Leading U.S. Senate Democrats on Friday accused House Republicans of "wasting precious time catering to the hard MAGA right" as House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a stopgap funding bill tied to a proposal that would require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections.
The proposal—the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—has been pushed by Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump and was passed by the House in July, with five Democrats joining the GOP in supporting the bill.
Non-citizens are already barred from voting in federal elections. With about 21.3 million eligible voters reporting in a recent survey that they would not be able to quickly access their birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or certificate of citizenship in order to prove their status, critics say the proposal is a clear attempt to stop people of color and young Americans from taking part in elections.
Johnson proposed including the legislation in a stopgap bill, or a continuing resolution, that would keep the government running roughly at current spending levels through March 28—a move that would postpone major spending negotiations until after the next president takes office.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that "avoiding a government shutdown requires bipartisanship, not a bill drawn up by one party," and alluded to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) attempt last September to ram a spending bill through with immigration and border policy changes in order to avert a government shutdown.
"Speaker Johnson is making the same mistake as former Speaker McCarthy did a year ago," said Schumer and Murray in a statement. "The House Republican funding proposal is an ominous case of déjà vu."
“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," they added, "the odds of a shutdown go way up, and Americans will know that the responsibility of a shutdown will be on the House Republicans' hands."
Johnson is expected to bring the bill to the House floor on Wednesday after lawmakers return from summer recess. Congress has a September 30 deadline to make changes to the spending bill in order to avoid a partial government shutdown on October 1.
The House speaker called the proposal "a critically important step" toward funding the government and ensuring "that only American citizens can decide American elections"—prompting one critic to accuse Johnson of pushing a "manufactured" issue.
"Anyone who reads the SAVE Act understands it is a bad bill," said attorney Heath Hixson, "a poorly worded unfunded mandate that'll lead to voter suppression and racist outcomes."
Floridians and reproductive rights advocates responded with alarm on Friday to Tampa Bay Timesreporting that Florida law enforcement officers have been sent to the homes of multiple voters who signed a petition to get an abortion rights measure on the November ballot.
While Isaac Menasche told the newspaper that he isn't sure which agency the plainclothes officer who came to his home is with, fellow Lee County resident Becky Castellanos said Florida Department of Law Enforcement Officer Gary Negrinelli showed his badge and gave his card.
Both visits were about potential fraud related to the petition for Amendment 4, which would outlaw pre-viability abortion bans in Florida. Menasche was asked if he signed the petition, which he had. Negrinelli inquired about Castellanos' relative, who also signed the petition.
"This is pure voter intimidation, just like with the 'election police' in 2022. It's Gestapo tactics."
The officer inquiries appear "to be part of a broad—and unusual—effort by Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration to inspect thousands of already verified and validated petitions for Amendment 4 in the final two months before Election Day," the Times reported.
The Republican governor signed the state's six-week ban that would end if the ballot measure passes. He has also faced criticism for creating an Office of Election Crimes and Security, whose work has led to the arrest of Floridians who believed they were legally allowed to vote following the passage of a referendum that restored voting rights to many people with past felony convictions.
As the Times detailed Friday:
Since last week, DeSantis' secretary of state has ordered elections supervisors in at leastfour counties to send to Tallahassee at least 36,000 petition forms already deemed to have been signed by real people. Since the Timesfirst reported on this effort, Alachua and Broward counties have confirmed they also received requests from the state.
One 16-year supervisor said the request was unprecedented. The state did not ask for rejected petitions, which have been the basis for past fraud cases.
While Department of State spokesperson Ryan Ash said the agency has "uncovered evidence of illegal conduct with fraudulent petitions" and "we have a duty to seek justice for Florida citizens who were victimized," a representative for the coalition behind Amendment 4 criticized the state effort.
"This is very clearly a fishing expedition," ACLU of Florida spokesperson Keisha Mulfort, whose group is part of Floridians Protecting Freedom, told the Times. "It is more important than ever for Floridians to reject these authoritarian tactics and vote yes on Amendment 4 in November."
Promoting the report on social media, the ACLU of Florida added, "This is what state-authorized election interference looks like."
Democrats in the state were similarly critical. Florida state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani (D-42) shared a social media post in which Menasche described feeling "shaken" and "troubled" by the encounter with the officer.
"This is unhinged and undemocratic behavior being pushed by DeSantis and his cronies in an effort to continue our state's near total abortion ban," said Eskamani. "It's clear voter intimidation and plain corruption—continue to call it out and fight back. Vote @yes4florida and spread the word."
Responding to Eskamani, Pamela Castellana, chair of the Brevard Democratic Executive Committee, said: "This literally took my breath away. This is pure voter intimidation, just like with the 'election police' in 2022. It's Gestapo tactics. If you live in Florida you know. If you don't—please help me get the word out. Stop authoritarianism."
Journalist Jessica Valenti argued Friday that Republicans "don't care that voters want abortion rights restored—and if they need to dismantle democracy to keep it banned, so be it."
"We've seen lots of Republican attacks on pro-choice ballot measures—but what makes this one especially insidious is that it's trying to gaslight Americans into thinking that voters don't really want abortion rights restored, but that the overwhelming support is fabricated," she added.
In addition to raising concerns about the fraud allegations, Amendment 4 supporters are outraged over the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration on Thursday launching a webpage claiming that the ballot measure "threatens women's safety."
Florida Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-35) pledged that she is looking into "appropriate legal action," while Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement that "this kind of propaganda issued by the state, using taxpayer money and operating outside of the political process, sets a dangerous precedent."
"This is what we would expect to see from an authoritarian regime," added Jackson, "not in the so-called 'Free State of Florida.'"
"Dr. de la Torre will be held accountable for his greed and the damage he has caused the American people and our nation's healthcare system."
Taking aim at Steward Health Care CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre's refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday said the committee he chairs will still hold a hearing next week on the company's bankruptcy and healthcare industry greed.
"Working with private equity vultures, Steward Health Care CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre has made hundreds of millions of dollars ripping off patients and healthcare providers across the country," said Sanders, who heads the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
"This outrageous display of corporate greed has resulted in more than 30 Steward hospitals in eight states being forced to declare bankruptcy, putting patients and communities at risk," added the senator, who said the hearing is set to take place next Thursday at 10:00 am Eastern time.
"Ralph de la Torre has made hundreds of millions of dollars ripping off patients and health care providers across the country."
Steward is trying to auction off all 31 of its hospitals in order to pay down its debt. As Common Dreamsreported, the HELP committee—which includes 10 Republicans—voted 20-1 in July to investigate Steward Health Care's bankruptcy, and 16-4 to subpoena de la Torre.
"Dr. de la Torre will be held accountable for his greed and the damage he has caused the American people and our nation's healthcare system," Sanders said Friday. "Is it my hope that Dr. de la Torre will do the right thing, change his mind, and join our hearing to provide testimony? Yes. But let me be clear: With or without him, this hearing is going forward."
"We will expose his fraud, and put his greed on display," the senator added. "I look forward to hearing from patients, medical professionals, and community members whose lives have been upended by Dr. de la Torre and his private equity cronies."
Another HELP committee member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is a bankruptcy law expert, on Wednesday accused de la Torre of using Steward-owned hospitals "as his personal piggy bank."
De la Torre—who according to Steward's bankruptcy filing received more than $4 million in compensation between May 2023 and April 2024—has also come under fire for his 2021 purchase of a 190-foot megayacht believed to be worth around $40 million. That year, Steward's owners paid themselves millions of dollars in dividends.
On Thursday, CBS Newsreported that in 2017 Steward executives including de la Torre illegally conspired with Maltese officials in order to secure a hospital contract, according to a whistleblower.
While a spokesperson for the executive denied any wrongdoing, whistleblower Ram Tumuluri alleged in a complaint to the U.S. Congress that "in touting Steward's supposed competitive advantage in Malta... de la Torre boasted that he could issue 'brown bags' to government officials if necessary to close transactions."