Roundup Weedkiller Risks Not Adequately Assessed By EPA, Environmentalists Say

Environmentalists warn that federal regulators are failing to protect consumers from the potential risks associated with Roundup, a widely used Monsanto weedkiller that has been identified as a possible cancer causing agent. 

On April 30, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) submitted public comments in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft risk assessment for glyphosate. According to the comments, the agency “utterly failed” in its evaluation of the human health risks of the weed killer, which is the active ingredient in Roundup.

The EPA released the draft assessment on December 18, 2017, and concluded that glyphosate does not pose a threat to human health and was not a cancer-causing agent.

That assessment flies in the face of 2015 findings by cancer specialists with the World Health Organization, as well as a number of other independent researchers. It also comes at a time when the EPA is under increased scrutiny for allegedly allowing Monsanto and other major corporations to influence its regulatory decisions.

The NRDC comments point out numerous times that the agency not only ignored the findings of the IARC and other independent studies, but also its own advisers and scientists to side with Monsanto and declare glyphosate to be safe.

“EPA is classifying glyphosate as ‘Not Likely’ to cause cancer in humans, despite studies reporting elevated cancer risk in humans and laboratory animals,” the NRDC’s comments note. “EPA should classify glyphosate and its formulated products as posing a risk of cancer, consistent with overall recommendations of some (Science Advisory Panel) Panelists, its own Cancer Guidelines, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer that classified it as “probably” carcinogenic to humans.”

The NRDC comments called for immediate restrictions on the use of glyphosate to protect both human health and wildlife. It noted that there are basically no guidelines on its use.

“There are currently few to no meaningful restrictions on the agricultural use of glyphosate,” the NRDC states. “The label, for example, does not even provide guidance on how to apply glyphosate so as to reduce drift. EPA can and should pose immediate restrictions on the agricultural use of glyphosate.”

The comments are critical of the EPA’s close relationship with Monsanto, noting how time and time again the agency sides with the company against any study or scientists which expresses concerns.

In June 2017, Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General for the EPA, announced that the agency is under investigation over its reviews of glyphosate and the side effects of Roundup. The investigation came after revelations that suggested at least one EPA staffer may have colluded with Monsanto to suppress or distort information on the herbicide’s safety.

The investigation came in response to information disclosed during the discovery process in Roundup lawsuits, including documents that suggested a former EPA official, Jess Rowland, reassured Monsanto that there would be no pesticide review for glyphosate.

Rowland reportedly even wrote that he “should get a medal” for protecting the company’s product. The documents also indicated that Monsanto had ghostwritten academic research articles indicating Roundup was safe and then paid other researchers to put their name on the bogus studies.

On August 1, 2017, a cache of internal memos and e-mails, referred to as the “Monsanto Papers”, were released to the public as part of the ongoing discovery process in Roundup lawsuits. The litigation involves cases filed by hundreds of farmers, landscapers, agricultural workers and other regular users of the weedkiller, alleging that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn about the potential cancer risks and importance of taking safety precautions while spraying the weedkiller.

Roundup Litigation

According to allegations raised in non-Hodgkins lymphoma lawsuits filed against Monsanto, plaintiffs claim that their cancer diagnosis may have been avoided if adequate warnings had been provided, and if Monsanto had not taken steps to falsify data and mislead about the safety of the weedkiller.

Given the similar questions of fact and law presented in lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established consolidated pretrial proceedings for all federal Roundup cases in October 2016, centralizing the claims before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California to reduce duplicative discovery, prevent conflicting rulings and serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the courts.

As part of the coordinated MDL proceedings, Judge Chhabria has previously determined that the Roundup litigation will be bifurcated, first addressing general causation about the link between the widely used weedkiller and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, before addressing case-specific issues about whether Roundup caused cancer for each individual plaintiff.

Following resolution of any motions to dismiss based on general causation, if a Roundup settlement or other resolution for the litigation is not reached during the first phase of discovery, it is expected that Judge Chhabria will establish a bellwether process, where a small group of cases will be prepared for early trial dates to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the lawsuits.