Monsanto is Suing California for Telling People the Truth About Its Chemicals

Monsanto-CaliforniaBy Claire Bernish

Monsanto is suing the State of California for its intent to include glyphosate — the main ingredient in its wildly popular herbicide, Roundup — on its Proposition 65 toxic chemicals list.

California’s decision came after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” in March 2015. Researchers discovered “limited evidence” of a link between the weedkiller and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in humans, as well as “convincing evidence” of its link to other forms of cancer in rodents. Thus, IARC decided unanimously that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”

California announced in September it would include glyphosate among the noxious chemicals under Prop 65, which “mandates notification and labeling of all known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and prohibits their discharge into drinking waters of the state,” Alternet summarized.


Monsanto has pushed back against the classification by the IARC from the beginning. Glyphosate-laden Roundup remains the most heavily used herbicide on the planet — despite an ever-widening list of nations implementing whole or partial bans on the substance.

Indeed, Center for Food Safety believes the addition of glyphosate to the Prop 65 list is so imperative, Alternet reports the organization filed a motion to intervene in the Monsanto lawsuit on Wednesday:

CFS was one of the first public interest organizations to raise awareness about how the use of glyphosate in Roundup Ready crop systems fosters herbicide-resistant weeds and increases the use of the herbicide and the detrimental effects associated with it, and has repeatedly sought to prevent the planting and approval of glyphosate-resistant, genetically engineered crops through federal litigation.

Echoing concerns of an increasingly knowledgeable public, CFS believes in transparency and the right to be informed of risks from being exposed to toxic substances. Monsanto’s lawsuit to block such labeling belies its indifference to harming the world’s population and contaminating the planet — or, worse, its intent to profit despite such harm.

Should Monsanto be victorious in this court battle, it would represent a major defeat for the people’s right to know when they could be harmed. Worse, it would be a victory for an already aggressively arrogant industry bent on profit at any and every cost.

This article (Monsanto is Suing California for Telling People the Truth About Its Chemicals) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

  • eddysach

    (1st comment disappeared)…This is like Mon$atan stabbing someone in the back …then turning around to say they just didn’t do what they just did… by placing a gaggle of 3-piece suit, mercenary Liars…errrr..Lawyers to explain why they should be able to sue us for us witnessing what they said they didn’t do …are you following this(lol) …coz Shakespeare had it right when he advised : “First …Kill all the Lawyers” (lol) as a good start…. as I have no pity for these souless satanic minions that will one day have to stand naked in front of their maker facing multiple lifetimes of atonement for each & every person they’ve deliberately transgressed upon…ps: get used to this type of litigation rearing it’s ugly corporate head IF the TTP gets passed by the fawning obsequious sycophants prostitutes that parasitically infest Capitol Hill….& wave goodbye to what was once a sovereign constitutional USA (imo)

  • Veri Tas

    I’d be happy with mandatory negative labelling (“contains no GMOs” or “grown pesticide-free”, etc).
    Let the people vote with their feet.

  • littljo

    The fda and it’s sister EPA are about as useless as any gubberment latte sipping scone eating agency.
    I only point this out as to bring the only reason that glysophart is an approved product – or should I say an approved and paid for product.

  • James Bennett

    Guess who funds the State’s defense?

    I’d rather fund a class action against Monsanto; with lotsa media coverage.

  • Yeims

    George Orwell really got it right! Truth is lie, lie is truth

    • LowellST13

      George Orwell didn’t get it right, that is biblical, THE LORD got it right. We all need to listen.

  • Paladin

    ONLY in an unjust legal system would this even be brought forth.

  • Noam Beefheart

    We cannot get in the way of a corporation’s constitutional right to make money at the expense of public health.

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to friend