Georgia becomes 2nd state to shield Roundup weed-killer maker from some cancer claims
Georgia has become the second state, after North Dakota, to enact legislation that protects pesticide manufacturers such as Bayer from certain lawsuits alleging failure to warn about potential cancer risks associated with their products. This new law, signed by Governor Brian Kemp, is broad enough to shield any pesticide maker that complies with federal labeling standards, aiming to mitigate the legal challenges Bayer faces over claims that Roundup, containing glyphosate, causes cancer. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not classify glyphosate as likely carcinogenic when used correctly, Bayer has ceased using glyphosate in residential Roundup and allocated $16 billion for settlements, while continuing its use in agricultural products. The Georgia law, effective January 1, does not apply to existing cases, including a substantial jury award in Georgia against Bayer for cancer claims. Bayer is also engaging in widespread advocacy, including legal appeals and public campaigns, to emphasize glyphosate's agricultural importance and combat rising legal expenses, indicating potential impacts on crop production and food costs if the ingredient is phased out.
Context:
Georgia has become the second state, after North Dakota, to enact legislation that protects pesticide manufacturers such as Bayer from certain lawsuits alleging failure to warn about potential cancer risks associated with their products. This new law, signed by Governor Brian Kemp, is broad enough to shield any pesticide maker that complies with federal labeling standards, aiming to mitigate the legal challenges Bayer faces over claims that Roundup, containing glyphosate, causes cancer. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not classify glyphosate as likely carcinogenic when used correctly, Bayer has ceased using glyphosate in residential Roundup and allocated $16 billion for settlements, while continuing its use in agricultural products. The Georgia law, effective January 1, does not apply to existing cases, including a substantial jury award in Georgia against Bayer for cancer claims. Bayer is also engaging in widespread advocacy, including legal appeals and public campaigns, to emphasize glyphosate's agricultural importance and combat rising legal expenses, indicating potential impacts on crop production and food costs if the ingredient is phased out.
Dive Deeper:
Georgia has followed North Dakota in enacting legislation that provides legal protection to pesticide manufacturers, particularly shielding them from lawsuits alleging a failure to warn about cancer risks associated with their products, like Bayer's Roundup.
The legislation, signed by Governor Brian Kemp, is designed to protect companies that adhere to federal labeling guidelines, which could significantly impact the legal landscape for Bayer and companies with similar products.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup through its purchase of Monsanto, faces numerous lawsuits claiming that glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, though the U.S. EPA maintains it is unlikely to be carcinogenic if used as directed.
Despite its stance on glyphosate's safety, Bayer has ceased using the chemical in residential versions of Roundup and allocated $16 billion for legal settlements, while continuing to use it in agricultural products due to its effectiveness in weed control.
The new law in Georgia will not affect existing legal cases, such as a recent verdict awarding $2.1 billion to a cancer plaintiff, but Bayer is actively pursuing legislative and public strategies to highlight glyphosate's role in agriculture and counter potential legal costs.
Glyphosate is valued in agriculture for its ability to control weeds with minimal tilling, thus preventing soil erosion, and is crucial for certain genetically modified crops like corn and soybeans, which could face yield declines and increased food costs if its use is restricted.
Bayer's strategy includes lobbying for similar legislation in other states and at the federal level, seeking intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, and running extensive public relations campaigns to support the continued agricultural use of glyphosate.