The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just sent the court an amicus curiae brief, written testimony in support of Monsanto to clarify the role of the company and that of the regulator.

http://www.glyphosatelitigationfacts.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/32.-United-States-Amicus.pdf

Monsanto was convicted at first instance not for manufacturing a hazardous product but for failing to inform the user (the plaintiff) of the dangers of the product.

The EPA explains that it is its role to approve the label text and therefore the manufacturer cannot be blamed for hiding something or for not including other indications such as the possible carcinogenicity of the product. States, which are not competent to evaluate these products, do not have to require other label texts. But California has a law (Prop 65) that requires substances known to the State to cause cancer to be included in a particular list (the gaieties of US federalism).

The EPA then explains the approval procedure under FIFRA, the federal pesticide law, and reviews the history of glyphosate carcinogenicity assessments to conclude: “In 2017, EPA concluded that “the strongest support” was for a conclusion that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic in humans.” This was confirmed in writing on 7 August 2019 to all manufacturers (not only Bayer/Monsanto, the product is a generic substance).

Based solely on the hazard assessment of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classifying glyphosate as a probable carcinogen (2A), and against all other risk-based assessments made elsewhere, California, according to its law, has therefore misbranded the product. The EPA says this “false and misleading.”

Let us remember that it is in no one’s interest that false and misleading warnings be made at every turn, thus creating confusion and trivializing such warnings when they are justified. This is a crucial point for any regulator in any field.

The rest of the brief reviews the outstanding court cases to show that they are to be dismissed.

It is extremely rare for an administration to take such a clear position. It will be difficult for a court not to follow the advice of that agency, which is competent under the law.

Since you are sympathetic to what I am writing, you will have understood everything.

However, I doubt that it would interest an opponent of pesticides in general and of capitalism in particular (or the opposite, I may be confused).

It will be said that it is biased by Trump, that the EPA is sold to the interests of Monsanto (now a German affiliated company), etc. And they’ll be right, since there is no need to prove it since it’s obvious. Isn’t it?

Yet the European (EFSA, ECHA), Canadian, Swiss, Brazilian and Chinese homologation agencies have an opinion identical to that of the EPA. They are of course also sold to capitalism and Bayer. Only the IARC has ruled differently, without considering the risk but only the potential danger, and did it in a very strange procedure in which the environmental lobby played a decisive role. Even WHO, its supervisory authority, does not agree with IARC, and neither does FAO.
So it is because IARC is right that everyone is wrong. Isn’t it?

Ironically also, even if IARC were right to classify this substance as category 2A, it would not change the insignificance of the risk of contracting cancer from this molecule in the course of a human life.

IARC classification: https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/
Let us recall that in the probable carcinogenic to humans category 2A there are (my selection, arbitrary of course) red meat, hot drinks at over 85°C, occupational exposures of hairdressers and barbers, acrylamide (in fried potatoes and grilled meats). And among category 1 (carcinogenic to humans) there are, apart from tobacco and other really scary substances, processed meat, wood dust, alcohol, and solar irradiation. We all live quite well with this but we should better commit suicide before dying too prematurely from all of that. Wouldn’t we?

But go and tell that to emotional people no matter what. They’ll kill you, which isn’t cancerous, it’s just dangerous.

Merci de compartir cet article