s******n
发帖数: 518 | 1 Monsanto loses another court case over its widely used weed killer
Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 15, 2018
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Monsanto-loses-another-court-case-
over-its-widely-13159459.php
The state Supreme Court rejected a challenge by Monsanto Co. on Wednesday to
California’s decision to list the main ingredient in its Roundup herbicide
as a cause of cancer, the same chemical that a San Francisco jury found
responsible for a former school groundskeeper’s cancer in a $289 million
verdict last week.
The justices denied Monsanto’s request for a review of a lower-court ruling
that upheld the state’s authority to add the herbicide glyphosate to its
Proposition 65 list of carcinogens. Justice Ming Chin voted to take up the
appeal, but four votes were needed to grant a hearing by the court, which
currently has six members.
Prop. 65, a 1986 ballot measure, requires the state to publish a list of
chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. A listing prohibits
businesses from discharging the chemical into sources of drinking water and
requires them to warn members of the public who may be exposed to the
substance.
The state added glyphosate to the list in July 2017 based on findings by an
international agency that the chemical was a probable cause of cancer in
humans. But a federal judge has ruled that requiring Monsanto to put cancer
warnings on Roundup labels would violate the company’s freedom of speech
because a number of scientific studies have concluded that glyphosate is not
dangerous.
The company cited those studies, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s refusal to ban or restrict glyophosate, in defending itself
against a suit by Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who sprayed Monsanto’s products
for years as a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District and now
is gravely ill with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
On Friday, a San Francisco Superior Court jury unanimously found Monsanto
responsible for Johnson’s cancer and awarded him $39 million for wage
losses, pain and suffering, and $250 million in punitive damages against the
company for acting with “malice or oppression” in exposing him to the
chemical without revealing its dangers. Monsanto plans to appeal.
In Wednesday’s case, Monsanto challenged a Prop. 65 provision that requires
the state to list a chemical as a carcinogen if it has been classified as
one by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The agency is an arm
of the World Health Organization and has a governing council from 25
nations, including the United States.
The agency classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015
based on 17 scientists’ reviews of research on animals — though Monsanto
contended other scientists’ review of the same studies had reached the
opposite conclusion.
Allowing an international agency to name the chemicals that California then
classifies as dangerous amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of state
regulatory authority to a foreign entity, Monsanto’s lawyers argued. But a
state appeals court in Fresno ruled in April that the voters who approved
Prop. 65 had decided that state health officials had failed to provide
enough protection from hazardous substances and needed assistance from an
internationally recognized agency.
The voters “identified the broad policy goals” — identifying and listing
known cancer-causing chemicals — “and provided a framework within which
new chemicals could be added,” Presiding Justice Brad Hill said in a 3-0
ruling of the Fifth District Court of Appeal. He said Prop. 65 itself
changed state regulation of the chemicals, and delegated the factual
determinations to the international body.
The ruling became final Wednesday when the state’s high court denied review.
In response, Monsanto said in a statement that California’s listing of
glyphosate as a carcinogen “contradicts 40 years of science and the
conclusions of regulatory bodies around the world. The listing requires
judicial intervention and correction. We’re considering our options for
further legal action.”
The case is Monsanto vs. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
S249056. | s******n
发帖数: 518 | 2 The agency classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015
based on 17 scientists’ reviews of research on animals — though Monsanto
contended other scientists’ review of the same studies had reached the
opposite conclusion.
＂科学＂就是资本家的工具，想得到什么结论，就会有什么结论 |
|
