Glyphosate Watchers Are Polar Opposites
February 5, 2020 In life, most things/trends tend to appear in shades of gray, with equal parts black/bad and white/good in evidence. There are a few topics, however, that always seem to divide observers into black or white camps, with no gray anywhere to be seen. Examples of this would include such hot-button topics as religion, abortion, and, more recently, impeachment.
For those in agriculture, it’s pretty clear that the topic of glyphosate can be added to this list. Those for or against the popular herbicide are definitely polar opposites.
For proof of this fact, let’s go back in time a bit. The ag industry in 2019 was busy following a pair of lawsuits in California involving glyphosate. In both cases, plaintiffs sued glyphosate owner Bayer because they claimed using the herbicide gave them cancer. Juries in the state agreed and awarded multi-million-dollar damage amounts (which were later reduced but still remained high).
Naturally, Bayer took the first of these cases to the court of appeals, arguing that it would have been impossible for the company to comply with the first glyphosate verdict because any warning label would conflict with “guidance from a federal agency.”
Late last year the U.S. government intervened in defense of glyphosate and Bayer. On Dec. 21 the EPA and the Justice Department both filed “friends of the court” briefs on glyphosate’s behalf, saying their internal research shows that the herbicide is not carcinogenic and that the appeals court should reverse a lower court verdict against Bayer. The U.S. government said that it had reaffirmed back in April of 2019 that glyphosate does not cause cancer and therefore “it is unlawful for manufacturers and sellers to make claims on their labels that differ from what EPA approves.”
In my mind the U.S. government actually defending its own internal research on glyphosate in court should have changed some minds among those opposed to the herbicide.
However, this is an example of one the anti-glyphosate emails I received after news of the U.S. government filing broke: “Trump’s government is owned by the likes of Bayer. They are absolutely not to be trusted.”
There were a few pro-glyphosate emailers that pointed out the reason California juries ruled against the herbicide tied back to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report calling glyphosate “a probable carcinogenic.” “[The IARC] List 1 — carcinogenic to humans — includes such things as alcoholic beverages and processed meat,” wrote one emailer. “So, having a beer with sausage and pepperoni pizza is a death sentence?”
One final emailer applauded EPA and the Justice Department’s move, saying more needs to be done. “Not only is it good that the government has spoken out, many more people need to speak out on behalf of sound science that is blatantly being ignored by the jurors in these cases.”
For pro-glyphosate forces, this would be great. However, even if this happens, it’s doubtful those entrenched in the “glyphosate is bad” camp will alter their views anytime soon. Or ever.
Subscribe Today For
