On July 10, an Oregon appeals court delivered a significant blow to Monsanto and its new owner Bayer AG. The appeals court overturned the corporation’s trial court victory in a case where Bayer sought immunity for Roundup because the product remains U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved. The EPA bases its approval of Roundup on studies that were financed by Monsanto, a blatant conflict of interest.

The EPA’s handling of glyphosate and Monsanto’s products has been a subject of intense scrutiny, riddled with regulatory failures and deceptive influence from industry stakeholders. Recent revelations of internal documents questioning the credibility of EPA assessments have further fueled public skepticism about the agency’s impartiality in evaluating health risks associated with glyphosate.

Today, the cancer-causing properties of their Roundup weed killer are well documented. As lawsuits against Roundup mount, Bayer has been trying to convince regulators and legislators that they deserve immunity for their infamous herbicide. But the public isn’t buying their proposition and Bayer/Monsanto should not be above the law in a health matter that seriously affects farmers and essentially affects every person on the planet.

Bayer unable to bully the public and get blanket immunity for Roundup

During the trial, prosecutors identified procedural errors that led to the new ruling by the appeals courts. Specifically, the court found that the trial judge had wrongly excluded crucial evidence regarding the EPA from being presented to the jury. This exclusion potentially swayed the jury’s decision against the plaintiff, highlighting the importance of a transparent presentation of all relevant information in legal proceedings that impact practically every person on the planet.

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity’s knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Use our decentralized, blockchain-based, uncensorable free speech platform at Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

Central to Bayer’s defense has been the argument of federal preemption, asserting that because Roundup carries EPA approval, state-level lawsuits alleging health risks should be preempted. Bayer has spent significant resources trying to convince state and federal legislators that glyphosate-based products should be protected. However, the court’s decision aligns with previous rulings in rejecting this preemption argument, affirming the states’ rights to regulate pesticides independently unless explicitly prohibited by federal law.

The case in question is an attempt by Bayer to dismiss over 100,000 lawsuits nationwide, where plaintiffs claim that glyphosate-based herbicides caused or contributed to their development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These lawsuits gained momentum after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, linking exposure to an increased risk of cancer.

The original plaintiff, Larry Johnson, who used Roundup extensively around his property for over two decades, alleged that Monsanto had concealed scientific studies indicating the carcinogenic nature of its products. Similar claims across various cases suggest a pattern of deceptive practices, including allegations of ghostwriting studies and clandestine dealings with regulatory agencies like the EPA.

Courts must hear all available evidence on glyphosate for an informed ruling

The appeals court ruled that the exclusion of testimony from Charles Benbrook, a respected former research professor critical of the EPA’s regulatory oversight of glyphosate, was compelling and warrants further investigation. Benbrook’s insights could have provided the jury with a broader understanding of the regulatory framework and the limitations of industry-funded research that the EPA relies upon for its evaluations.

In response to the ruling, attorney Andrew Kirkendall, representing Johnson, expressed optimism about retrying the case with the inclusion of the EPA-related evidence. He said the court’s decision recognized the significance of ensuring a fair presentation of all relevant scientific and regulatory information to the jury.

Bayer, now faced with the reality of a reversed trial victory, has the option to seek reconsideration from the appellate court or appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications not only for ongoing litigation but also for future regulatory policies governing pesticide use and consumer safety in the United States.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

EHN.org

EHP.NIH.gov

TheNewLede.org [PDF]