On 5/13/19, the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, handed down the third conviction in a few months against Monsanto, for damages caused to a couple of regular glyphosate users who contracted two forms of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). US$2 billion in ‘punitive damages,’ in addition to the US$55 million in compensation. (1)
Glyphosate, the exemplary condemnation
Black year for the Bayer Group. It was in August 2018 that a professional gardener was first convicted of lymphoma caused by glyphosate. The penalty imposed, $289 million, was later reduced on appeal to ‘only’ $78 million. In March 2019, the second compensation conviction rained down in favor of another professional user. And new scientific evidence has emerged on the occurrence of NHL in users of GBH(Glyphosate Based Herbicides).
The exemplary conviction came just now, thanks to a 70-year-old couple living in Livermore (40 miles east of San Francisco), Alva and Alberta Pilliod. Who have been using ‘Roundup‘ for more than three decades, in home garden maintenance. In 2011, Alva was diagnosed with bone cancer, with spread to the pelvis and spine. In 2015, Alberta faced a brain tumor. Two forms of NHL(Non Hodgkin Lymphoma), a malignant tumor that attacks lymphocytes, the main cells of the immune system. A recent meta-analysis, by the way, associates glyphosate exposure precisely with the specific subtype of NHL suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod. (2)
The jury thus awarded the couple US$2.055 billion. 18 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages to Alva Pilliod, another $37 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in ‘punitive damages‘ to his wife Alberta. A drastic decision following extensive investigation, during which ample evidence of the following emerged.
A sea of m… Monsanto and misdeeds
On 4/29/19 the EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, had made an unexpected and premature decision in which it theorizes the safety of glyphosate without even having completed studies of its health and environmental impacts. (3) Specifically, the agency failed to:
– Complete the assessment of the impact of glyphosate on the endocrine system of humans,
– Evaluate the human health risks of commercial pesticides that are based on glyphosate but contain additional ingredients. Which may be toxic per se or increase the adverse effects of glyphosate. (4)
Monsanto exploited the EPA’s ‘tentative ruling proposal‘ in a clumsy failed attempt to persuade jurors that glyphosate does not cause cancer. But the judicial inquiry-in the case ‘Pilliod v. Monsanto company‘ – allowed the court to ascertain the following:
– Monsanto has never conducted epidemiological studies on Roundup and various other glyphosate-based herbicide formulas. And he was aware of the even greater toxicity of Roundup, compared to glyphosate alone, because of the surfactants that are added to it,
– the company had adopted safety recommendations for its workers that required them to wear a full range of personal protective equipment when applying glyphosate herbicides. However, without warning the general public to take similar precautions.
– the ‘Corporation‘ invests millions of dollars in ‘lobbying‘ activities that include funding studies, articles by ‘ghostwriters‘ and investigations (so-called ‘dossier’) aimed at discrediting independent scientists who have identified dangers related to the use of its products,
– Monsanto ‘bought’ the assistance ofEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) public officials when the agency was asked to re-evaluate the toxicity of glyphosate in 2015. For the dual purpose of delaying the evaluation and seeing their deductions accepted,
Donald Trump’s administration is being called into question at the highest levels. A report sent to Monsanto by a corporate ‘intelligence‘ firm, Hakluyt, specifically cites assurances gathered from a White House domestic policy adviser. (5) ‘We have Monsanto’s position on pesticide regulation (…) Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation by this administration.’ Glyphosate safety concerns, raised by some EPA officials, ‘are not shared by EPA’s politically appointedtop leadership,’ which ‘favors deregulation and rejects expert risk analysis.’
Spraying continues
Another 13,400 compensation cases are pending before U.S. courts. New research emerges each month confirming the serious dangers associated with glyphosate exposure. The most recent studies attest to the substance’s impact on the microbiome and DNA. The studies so far used by regulatory authorities are based on partial documents provided by the applicant, in large parts literally copied.
In Europe, the Berlin Zoo has prevailed and poisons continue to be sprayed on our fields as well, with the dangerous ‘drift effect‘ affecting the entire population. But where corrupt politics don’t reach are the consumAtors, on the ‘organic’ supply chain but also in their largest cooperative.
Coop Italy has started a revolution in Italian agriculture, banning glyphosate and three other poisonous pesticides in the fruit and vegetable supply chains of Coop-branded products. Conad, which with the acquisition of Auchan Italia aspires to become the national leader in large-scale retail, should follow this shining example, and so should all other retail operators in Italy. Coldiretti in turn-after professing to fight the renewal of glyphosate authorization and even pledging to promote organic farming-must also take a stand. The talk has had its day and the pressure from below continues to mount. Wake up!
#Égalité!
Dario Dongo
Notes
(1) Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Pilliod et al. case. V. Monsanto company et al., judgment 13.5.19,
(2) Leon Me et al. (2019). ‘Pesticide use and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoid malignancies in agricultural cohorts from France, Norway and the USA: a pooled analysis from the AGRICOH consortium‘. Int J Epidemiol. 2019. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz017
(3) EPA, ‘
Glyphosate, Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, Case No. 178, April 2019
‘,
(4) In fact, EPA’s assessment applies only to glyphosate, not also to pesticide product formulations that people actually buy and use. This also explains, at least in part, the divergence of assessments between EPA and IARC. See Charles M. Benbrook (2019). ‘How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?‘ Environmental Sciences Europe 2019 31:2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
