The fight to protect farmers from the harmful effects of glyphosate, the
active ingredient in Monsanto’s multi-billion dollar herbicide Roundup,
recently scored a legislative win in California after Fresno County Superior
Court Judge Kristi Kapetan
formalized her January ruling to allow the state to require Monsanto to label its product as a possible
carcinogen on Friday, March 10.
Judge Kapetan first issued a tentative ruling against the company on January
27 in Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
et al., one year after it sued the state of California for listing their
product as a Proposition 65 chemical in order to warn consumers about
its possibly carcinogenic effects.
Attorney David Domina is currently representing four farmers who claim
that using Roundup gave them non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Proposition 65 was passed in California in 1986, and requires the state
to publish a list of products that are known carcinogens, can cause birth
defects or other types of reproductive harm. Glyphosate was added to the
list in September of 2015 by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) after it was
classified it as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), overruling their previous conclusion following
their evaluation of the chemical between 1997 and 2007.
California is the first state to take this large of a step towards alerting
consumers of the potential danger associated with glyphosate. David Domina,
an attorney at Domina Law Group, is
currently representing four farmers – Larry Domina, Frank Pollard, Robert Dickey, and Royce Janzen –
who claim that using Roundup gave them non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
“Roundup is used by Nebraskans raising everything from grain to grass
and tulips to trees. Nothing on the label alerts users to health risks,”
Domina said in an interview. “Nebraskans deserve the benefit of
the WHO research, and protection against unknown exposure.”
While this California ruling may not directly affect the outcome of the
case in Nebraska, it could pave the way for broader changes across the
United States and potentially provide necessary protections for the countless
people who are affected by glyphosate every year.