Showing posts with label International Agency for Research on Cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Agency for Research on Cancer. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Meet Monsanto"s Other Herbicide Problem...

Earlier this year we wrote about a series of court documents that were unsealed and seemingly revealed a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization"s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) related to their key herbicidal product, RoundUp.  The efforts to kill the research came even as Monsanto"s own lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, admitted that she "cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer" because "[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup" (see: Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal).


But, as Reuters points out today, RoundUp isn"t the only Monsanto herbicide causing outrage in the ag community these days as state regulators all across the country say they"re being flooded with reports from farmers that Dicamba, Monsanto"s other herbicide, is increasingly becoming airborne and killing crops far away from the fields where they were actually applied.








U.S. farmers have overwhelmed state governments with thousands of complaints about crop damage linked to new versions of weed killers, threatening future sales by manufacturers Monsanto Co (MON.N) and BASF SE (BASFn.DE).


 


Monsanto is banking on weed killers using a chemical known as dicamba - and seeds engineered to resist it - to dominate soybean production in the United States, the world’s second-largest exporter.


 


The United States has faced a weed-killer crisis this year caused by the new formulations of dicamba-based herbicides, which farmers and weed experts say have harmed crops because they evaporate and drift away from where they are applied.



Regulators in several major soybean-growing states, including Arkansas, Missouri and Illinois, each say they received roughly four years’ worth of complaints about possible pesticide damage to crops this year due to dicamba use.








Now agriculture officials face long backlogs of cases to investigate, which are driving up costs for lab tests and overtime. Several states had to reassign employees to handle the load.


 


“We don’t have the staff to be able to handle 400 investigations in a year plus do all the other required work,” said Paul Bailey, director of the Plant Industries division of the Missouri Department of Agriculture.


 


In Missouri, farmers filed about 310 complaints over suspected dicamba damage, on top of the roughly 80 complaints about pesticides the state receives in a typical year, he said.


 


Nationwide, states launched 2,708 investigations into dicamba-related plant injury by Oct. 15, according to data compiled by the University of Missouri.



Of course, Monsanto has bet on dicamba-tolerant soybeans to replace those that withstand glyphosate, the key ingredient in RoundUp, because it has become less effective over the years as weeds develop resistance...and because of that pesky European research which suggests the product causes cancer.


The problem is that if you"re not planting dicamba-resistant soybean seeds then you could quickly find yourself among the growing list of Monsanto"s spray drift victims....so you better buy Monsanto seeds...see how that works?



Of course, Monsanto has decided to simply blame spray companies saying that the "herbicides are safe when properly applied."








Monsanto and BASF say the herbicides are safe when properly applied. They need to convince regulators after the flood of complaints to state agriculture departments.


 


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year approved use of the weed killers on dicamba-resistant crops during the summer growing season. Previously, farmers used dicamba to kill weeds before they planted seeds, and not while the crops were growing.


 


However, the EPA approved such use only until Nov. 9, 2018, because “extraordinary precautions” are needed to prevent dicamba products from tainting vulnerable crops, a spokesman told Reuters in a statement last week. The agency wanted to be able to step in if there were problems, he said.


 


Next year, the EPA will determine whether to extend its approval by reviewing damage complaints and consulting with state and industry experts. States are separately considering new restrictions on usage for 2018.



In conclusion, with Dicamba usage up for regulatory review, it seems that it may be time for Monsanto execs to start pulling some strings at the EPA again...









Friday, May 5, 2017

Johnson & Johnson Loses Another Talcum Powder-Cancer Lawsuit Trial

On May 4, Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a Missouri jury to pay $110 million to a Virginia woman who claimed in a lawsuit that she developed ovarian cancer after using the company’s talc-based products for feminine hygiene for decades. [1]


Lois Slemp, 62, alleged that her use of J&J’s Shower-to-Shower and Baby Products over 4 decades, as well as asbestos particles found inside her, caused her cancer. [2]


The mother of 2 grown sons was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. The cancer has since spread to her liver. Slemp, a nurse, is undergoing chemotherapy and was too ill to attend the trial.


The jury awarded Slemp $5.4 million in actual damages, as well as $105 million in punitive damages, according to her attorney, Jim Onder. Slemp was also awarded $50,000 against talc supplier Imerys Talc. [1] [2]


The verdict is the largest so far out of 2,400 lawsuits accusing J&J of failing to adequately warn consumers about the cancer risks posed by talc-based products. [1]


Source: True Activist

Ted Meadows, another lawyer for Slemp, said of the verdict:


“Once again we’ve shown that these companies ignored the scientific evidence and continue to deny their responsibilities to the women of America.”


While J&J said in a statement that it sympathizes with Slemp, the company also said it plans to appeal.


In March, J&J won its first trial in the Missouri litigation, breaking a 3-trail winning streak by plaintiffs, when a jury sided with the company in a lawsuit by a Tennessee woman who said Baby Powder caused her cancer.


In February, a jury awarded $72 million to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer.


In May 2016, another jury awarded $55 million to a woman who claimed J&J’s talc-powder products caused her to develop cancer. Then, in October 2016, a third jury hit Imerys with a $70 million verdict.


In her lawsuit, Slemp claimed that J&J talc was contaminated with asbestos, a rare allegation in these cases. Jurors were told by a company lawyer that J&J’s products did not cause Slemp’s cancer, and that they don’t contain asbestos. [3]


Hush-Hush




The $105 million in compensation was calculated based on a formula starting with the number of years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a wing of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified talc as a possible carcinogen back in 2006.


Juror Lindsay Polley said that internal documents showed J&J was aware of the growing consensus that talc could cause cancer.


“The J&J documents acknowledge that. If we could, we would make them put on a warning label.”


Juror Jeremy King called the J&J documents “mind-blowing.”




Talc, the softest mineral on earth, is used on babies, so the assumption is that it’s a safe product. Based on that belief, women often apply talcum powder to their genital area, to tampons and pads, and underwear to prevent chafing. The powder is believed to cause cancer when particles migrate up through the vagina.


Talc products have been linked with cancer for decades. A study published in 1971 detailed how British researchers analyzed 13 ovarian tumors and found talc particles “deeply embedded” in 10. It was the first, but certainly not the last, study linking talc use to cancer. A 1982 study in the journal cancer was the first to show a statistical link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer. [4]


There have been 20 epidemiological studies since then that found long-term perineal talc use increases the risk of ovarian cancer by about 33%.


And because J&J’s Baby Powder is considered a cosmetic, it doesn’t need to be approved under the FDA’s 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Out of the 345-page document, only 2 pages are devoted to the safety of cosmetics. Congress is considering updating the law to give the FDA more authority to regulate products.


Of course, there have been studies that found no link between talc use and cancer. But people who have developed cancer after using talc say that’s not the point; they should have been warned about the products’ potential to cause cancer.


As for the rare claim that Slemp’s cancer was caused by asbestos-tainted talc products, it’s not as crazy as it may sound. Talc and asbestos are mined in close proximity to each other.


Sources:


[1] Reuters


[2] St. Louis Post-Dispatch


[3] Bloomberg


[4] Bloomberg


Dispatch Review


True Activist



Storable Food


About Julie Fidler:


Author Image
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.