|
(Second column, 8th story, link)
Related stories:
Riding Into 2028: On the Midterms Trail, Beshear Eyes Bigger Prize...
|
|
(Second column, 7th story, link)
|
|
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to restrict thousands of lawsuits claiming Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, had a duty to warn consumers about potential cancer risks from its popular weed killer Roundup. The case before the Supreme Court began in St. Louis, Missouri, where a resident named John Durnell, who had used Roundup for decades and was later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, sued Monsanto under Missouri state law for not putting a warning label on its product. But because the federal Environmental Protection Agency found no cancer risk in its assessment of Roundup, the court has ruled against Durnell.
"The ruling essentially says that only the EPA can make a determination that something is harmful to us and has to carry a warning label," explains reporter Nate Halverson, who has been documenting health and environmental harms allegedly linked to Roundup, as well as efforts to hold Monsanto accountable. In his reporting, Halverson found that scientific studies cited by the EPA in its Roundup assessment were "ghostwritten" by Monsanto itself — and "that ghostwritten information has now made its way into the Supreme Court's decision."
|
|
