Abstract
Roundup, and other glyphosate-based herbicides, are the most heavily used pesticides in the history of the USA and globally. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen”. A portion of the 695,000 Americans then living in 2015 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) became aware of IARC’s decision. Several thousand Roundup–NHL lawsuits had been filed by the end of 2017, rising to 18,400 by July 2019 and 42,000 by November 2019. Three cases have gone to trial, each won by the plaintiffs. The author has served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in this litigation and has been compensated for his time spent. The impact of the litigation on the independent assessment of the science useful in determining whether glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicide exposures are linked to NHL is reviewed, as is why the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and IARC reached such different judgements regarding glyphosate human cancer hazard and risk. Two important “lessons learned” regarding the EPA versus IARC assessment of glyphosate cancer hazard and risk are highlighted. The first arises from differences in the magnitude of applicator risks from mostly dermal exposures to formulated glyphosate-based herbicides compared to just dietary exposures to technical glyphosate. The second relates to missed opportunities to markedly lower applicator exposures and risks with little or no impact on sales via reformulation, added warnings and worker safety provisions, company-driven stewardship programmes and greater determination by the EPA in the 1980s to compel Monsanto to add common-sense worker protection provisions onto Roundup labels (eg “wear gloves when applying this product”). Policy reforms designed to alleviate systemic problems with how pesticide hazards, exposures and risks are analysed, regulated and mitigated are described.
Highlights
Roundup, and other glyphosate-based herbicides, are the most heavily used pesticides in the history of the USA and globally
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification decision led, within months, to the filing of lawsuits alleging that past use of Roundup had contributed to the plaintiffs’ cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)
In the spring of 2015, approximately 695,000 Americans were living with NHL,[13] and an estimated 74,200 will be newly diagnosed with the disease in 2019.14 A substantial number of the individuals with NHL no doubt read or were told about the IARC’s classification of glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) and glyphosate as “probable human carcinogens”
Summary
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued its surprising classification of glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) and glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in March 2015,1 via a press release[2] and short paper in The Lancet Oncology.[3]. In the spring of 2015, approximately 695,000 Americans were living with NHL,[13] and an estimated 74,200 will be newly diagnosed with the disease in 2019.14 A substantial number of the individuals with NHL no doubt read or were told about the IARC’s classification of GBHs and glyphosate as “probable human carcinogens” Some of these people likely recalled applying Roundup in the years prior to their diagnosis and consulted an attorney to explore whether the specifics of their case warranted joining the litigation. In her post-trial order, Judge Smith set forth what she regarded as part of the justification for a still significant US$69 million punitive damage award: In this case there was clear and convincing evidence that Monsanto made efforts to impede, discourage, or distort scientific inquiry and the resulting science.[22]. US$289 million US$78.5 million US$80.1 million US$25.27 million US$1,018,500,000 US$30.7 million US$1,037,200,000 US$56 million US$606.2 million
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
