Civil
court victory, but shouldn’t there be criminal charges?
The
first thing I heard about glyphosate — the active ingredient in the popular
weed killer Roundup — was that it was non-toxic. Whatever you wanted to say
about other pesticides, many of which are poisonous to humans, glyphosate was
safe.
It’s
not controversial to claim that some pesticides are toxic to humans. After all,
they were created to kill plants, insects, and other living things. Some
pesticides are so reliably toxic that people have used them to commit suicide.
Others may cause cancer or other diseases if you’re exposed to them over time.
But
glyphosate? There was nothing to say against it. It did its job, killing any
plant it came into contact with, and then it broke down into harmless
byproducts quickly. That was it.
Allegations that glyphosate caused cancer started years ago. When I first heard them, I was skeptical. After all, this was the flagship herbicide sold by Monsanto. It wasn’t just used by farmers but by homeowners and gardeners. You could buy it at Home Depot.
Of
course all
of the tree huggers wanted to take down glyphosate. It would be a powerful
proof that they were right, pesticides are all toxic, and their opponents were
wrong.
I
didn’t blindly jump onto that bandwagon. This was something that could be
examined cautiously, I hoped, with science.
When
I heard about the recent court decision, I approached it with hesitance. I
didn’t want to believe a story that may not be true.
But
I also knew that California had listed glyphosate as a chemical “known to
the State of California to cause cancer” a little over a year ago. There must
be credible evidence that it does.
Germany
is talking about banning glyphosate in the near future, and
the European Union may consider doing so down the road.
The
court found that glyphosate contributed substantially to the plaintiff’s cancer
and awarded him $289 million in damages. It also found that glyphosate’s
manufacturer, Monsanto, acted with “malice” by failing to warn consumers about
the product’s risks.
Put
another way, Monsanto knew that glyphosate was not safe. The company profited
from the product’s sales while covering up its toxicity.
For
me, this changes everything. It doesn’t take an in-depth understanding of the
science to understand a cover up. If the company that made the product found
out it wasn’t safe — if they believed their own evidence — and then chose
to hide it, that’s something to worry about.
That’s
like tobacco companies hiding their knowledge that cigarettes cause cancer for
decades while millions of Americans continued to smoke — and die.
The
glyphosate case illustrates larger issues. Our regulation of chemicals still
isn’t where it needs to be.
Many
chemicals on the market simply haven’t been evaluated for safety. Surely many of them are safe — but what about the ones that
aren’t?
An
Obama-era bill would have started requiring more chemicals to be tested and
proven safe… and the Trump administration partially rolled that requirement
back.
Arlene
Blum of the Green
Science Policy Institute offers a useful approach
by highlighting six classes of chemicals most likely to
cause harm. By focusing testing and enforcement on the chemicals with the
highest risk, we could aim to strike the right balance between keeping
ourselves safe and allowing useful chemicals onto the market.
We
should no longer put a company’s right to make profits from selling chemicals
above the public’s right to safety.
OtherWords
columnist Jill Richardson is pursuing a PhD in sociology at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. She’s written extensively about food and the environment.
Distributed by OtherWords.org.
