Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
More than 50 US ag groups have sent a letter to President Joe
Biden calling on him to withdraw opposition to Bayer's request for
the Supreme Court to review and reverse a glyphosate cancer
verdict. They warn that the administration's view on the legal
dispute threatens US agricultural production by allowing states to
mislabel pesticides.
The letter echoes Bayer's view that the state-based cancer
claims at the heart of the case are pre-empted by federal pesticide
law and criticises Mr Biden for abandoning the Trump
administration's support of the company's position.
"At a crucial time when American farmers are striving to feed a
world threatened by food shortages and insecurity, the likes of
which we have not seen in decades, this reversal of policy greatly
risks undermining the ability of US agricultural producers to help
meet global food needs," according to the letter.
"With so much at stake, it is vital that we have durable,
predictable, science-based policy on this matter that does not
fluctuate between administrations," the ag groups say. "We strongly
urge you to withdraw the brief establishing this new policy, fully
considering the implications it holds for global food security,
environmental sustainability, and the future of science-based
regulation."
Pre-emption issue
Led by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean
Association, National Cotton Council, National Corn Growers
Association, the ag coalition is targeting a brief filed on May
10th by US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar that rejected
Bayer's view that federal pesticide law pre-empts the state-based
cancer claims and called on the Supreme Court to deny the company's
request for review.
Bayer is keen for the Court to intervene and reverse a decision
by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a
federal jury verdict that ordered the company pay California
resident Edwin Hardeman some $25 million.
Mr Hardeman sued Monsanto after developing non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma (NHL), alleging that years of exposure to glyphosate from
the mid-1980s until 2012 had caused his cancer while relying on the
International Agency for Research on Cancer's 2015 classification
of glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen". A federal jury
sided with Mr Hardeman, concluding that glyphosate had played a
"substantial factor" in causing him to develop NHL and determined
that Monsanto was negligent in failing to warn him and other
consumers of the cancer risks from its popular herbicide.
Bayer disputes the IARC classification and notes that the US EPA
and other regulators across the globe have found that glyphosate
does not pose a cancer risk. The company argues that Mr Hardeman's
state-based, failure-to-warn claims are pre-empted by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and that adding
a cancer warning to glyphosate would be misleading and illegal.
"The Ninth Circuit's errors mean that a company can be severely
punished for marketing a product without a cancer warning when the
near-universal scientific and regulatory consensus is that the
product does not cause cancer, and the responsible federal agency
has forbidden such a warning," Bayer said in its petition. "That is
not, and should not be, the law."
Opposition and stakes
The stakes are high for Bayer, which has failed with appeals of
the Hardeman case as well as two state jury verdicts that ordered
the company to pay damages of $86 million and $20.4 million,
respectively.
The company has committed some $11 billion to settle around
96,000 cases, but as of the middle of last year, still faced nearly
30,000 additional lawsuits and is keen to find a way to fend off
new litigation. It has since set aside a further $4.5 billion
against potential payments. A favourable ruling by the Supreme
Court on the pre-emption issue "would effectively end potential
future litigation", Bayer group chief executive officer Werner
Baumann told investors in July 2021.
The stakes are also high for food and ag interests. US growers
spray some 280 million lb (127 million kg) of the herbicide on a
wide array of food crops, including maize, soybeans, canola, wheat,
and sugar beet.
Reversal and ramifications
In their letter to Mr Biden, the ag groups warn of far-reaching
ramifications if the administration's legal position is
persuasive.
"The Solicitor General's brief adopts a position that permits
states to mislabel glyphosate—or any pesticide—with cancer
warnings despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it does not
pose a cancer risk," the ag interests say.
They contend that the "dangerous reversal in position" violates
FIFRA and opens the door to "an impractical of state labelling
requirements" that will hurt US farmers and ag exporters.
"We are concerned this monumental change in the federal
government's policy will not just threaten science-based
regulation, but it risks undercutting food production and important
environmental practices at a time when we cannot afford to hinder
either." The letter concludes: "We strongly urge your
administration to withdraw the brief and to consult with the US
Department of Agriculture regarding the implications of this
decision for food production, environmental sustainability, and
science-based regulation."
Posted 27 May 2022 by Jonathan Pegg, US Correspondent, IHS Markit
This article was published by S&P Global Commodity Insights and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.
RT @SPGlobal: June marks the start of Pride Month, where we commemorate and celebrate the LGBTQ+ community in countries across the globe. S…
Jun 01
{"items" : [
{"name":"share","enabled":true,"desc":"<strong>Share</strong>","mobdesc":"Share","options":[ {"name":"facebook","url":"https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fresearch-analysis%2fus-ag-groups-press-biden-not-to-oppose-glyphosate-case.html","enabled":true},{"name":"twitter","url":"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fresearch-analysis%2fus-ag-groups-press-biden-not-to-oppose-glyphosate-case.html&text=US+Ag+groups+press+Biden+not+to+oppose+glyphosate+case+%7c+IHS+Markit+","enabled":true},{"name":"linkedin","url":"https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fresearch-analysis%2fus-ag-groups-press-biden-not-to-oppose-glyphosate-case.html","enabled":true},{"name":"email","url":"?subject=US Ag groups press Biden not to oppose glyphosate case | IHS Markit &body=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fresearch-analysis%2fus-ag-groups-press-biden-not-to-oppose-glyphosate-case.html","enabled":true},{"name":"whatsapp","url":"https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=US+Ag+groups+press+Biden+not+to+oppose+glyphosate+case+%7c+IHS+Markit+ http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fresearch-analysis%2fus-ag-groups-press-biden-not-to-oppose-glyphosate-case.html","enabled":true}]}, {"name":"rtt","enabled":true,"mobdesc":"Top"}
]}