I was at USDA, when word came down. The Secretary had just signed off on Monsanto being allowed to sell itself to Bayer; or another way to put this is, the Secretary had just added his permission that Bayer — a German company, could buy Monsanto. Either way, this appeared to allow the Monsanto owners to bail out of the research and lawsuits.
I almost fell off my chair. Even then, “way back” in the Obama Administration, it was common knowledge how farmers that used Monsanto’s Roundup were developing ugly diseases, e.g., Parkinson’s disease, blood cancer, more. Monsanto’s owners were going to walk away without taking responsibility for the results of heavy usage of Roundup.
Garden owners were warned about using Roundup but not farmers. Now, it appears the case is evolving around whether when EPA hadn’t approved an “official” warning, did states have the right to do so.
As an ex-Iowa farmer, may I say it would be nuts to rule that farmers shouldn’t be warned if EPA did not get around to approving warnings. States have rights, and surely, advising farmers to be careful about Monsanto’s pesticides that can, and do, bring on cancer should be protected.
But clearly, I am not a lawyer, so while the Court deliberates, please update yourself by reading the following news coverage:
- Carrie Johnson, NPR: Supreme Court heard case on how to label risks of popular weed killer
- Maureen Groppe, Farmers Advance and USA Today: The ‘spray guy’ got blood cancer. Now he’s fighting Roundup at the Supreme Court
- Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post: Supreme Court considers blocking lawsuits alleging weed killer causes cancer
- Abbe VanSickel, The New York Times: Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Roundup Weedkiller Case
- Rachel Frazin, The Hill: Supreme Court hears Roundup case that could limit Americans’ ability to sue pesticide companies