Bayer AG’s Monsanto has been ordered to pay a staggering US$2.2 billion to a former Roundup user who linked his cancer to the herbicide.
This significant sum is the largest verdict in the ongoing five-year litigation involving the weed killer. However, the legal battles are far from over. There are still more than 50,000 cases pending in the United States.
It’s important to note that out of more than 165,000 cases initially filed, over 110,000 were either dismissed or deemed unjustified by the courts. This situation underscores the complexity of the issue, and it’s unfair to solely blame the individuals pursuing legal action. The industry also bears responsibility for the glyphosate controversy.
Read Also
Farm equipment sales sector sees significant structural changes
Farming equipment sales have been declining for a number of years now, and one industry professional believes structural changes in the industry are needed to curb that trend.
Glyphosate, the primary component of Roundup, was patented by Monsanto in 1971 and introduced to the market in 1974. It is a widely used herbicide with broad-spectrum capabilities. Extensive use by farmers worldwide led to its widespread presence in the environment, including Canada. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a potential human carcinogen, placing it in Group 2A, the same category as red meat and very hot beverages above 65 C. This categorization ignited ongoing debates regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenic effects.
Recent studies, including a comprehensive one published in Environmental Research, shed new light on glyphosate’s environmental presence and its potential impact on human health. Consequently, the question of whether glyphosate is carcinogenic remains a subject of ongoing discussion. While numerous studies suggest strong associations between glyphosate and human diseases, as well as environmental harm, other meta-analyses suggest the risks are minimal.
Glyphosate has arguably been one of the most extensively studied chemicals globally, resulting in a plethora of research, primarily negative. Monsanto itself faced accusations of manipulating its research and results to influence governments and public opinion on the matter. The common thread among these studies is the call for more research to better understand the risks.
Nearly 50 years after Roundup’s introduction, more than 30 countries have banned glyphosate use. Various interest groups have effectively demonized glyphosate over the years, creating doubts about its safety.
After years of scientific evaluation, Health Canada claims glyphosate is safe, although many still advocate for its ban.
The latest review in suggests that epidemiological studies offer limited evidence to definitively establish glyphosate as a carcinogen. These findings align with IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in Group 2A. Banning glyphosate would be akin to banning red meat or hot beverages above 65 C, which may seem overly dramatic.
The ongoing debate and fear surrounding glyphosate can be attributed to the biotech industry’s inadequate risk communication strategy over the years. Since 1974, the industry has primarily focused on selling to farmers and increasing agricultural yields.
Genetic engineering, reliant on herbicides like Roundup, has undoubtedly improved agricultural efficiency. However, it has also exacerbated the rural-urban divide, leaving many city dwellers without an understanding of genetic engineering. Interest groups opposing industrial agriculture have capitalized on this information gap.
Ultimately, Bayer AG, Monsanto, and other biotechnology companies have only themselves to blame for taking consumers for granted. Consumers have been served food without adequate transparency about what was happening in farmers’ fields.
Advocates who call for GM labelling are justified, as it would increase transparency in the agri-food sector and empower consumers to make informed choices.
With gene editing now permitted in Canada since last year, the industry mustn’t repeat the same mistakes. Ignoring consumers’ concerns could have financial consequences.
It’s essential to value consumers and address their questions and apprehensions to build trust in the industry and its products.
