BAYER/MONSANTO'S legal victory in the Roundup litigation may end one lawsuit, but it does not end the public health concerns. The Supreme Court's decision effectively leaves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the sole authority to determine whether a product is harmful and requires a warning label.
That would inspire greater confidence if the process were beyond reproach. However, investigative reporter NATE HALVERSON, who has documented the alleged health and environmental harms linked to Roundup, reported evidence that some scientific studies cited by the EPA in its Roundup assessment were "ghostwritten" by MONSANTO itself. If regulatory decisions rely on industry-influenced science, public trust is inevitably undermined. HALVERSON further argues that this ghostwritten material has now found its way into the Supreme Court's reasoning.
Whether or not one agrees with every claim made against Roundup, Americans deserve regulatory decisions based on transparent, independent science—not research shaped by the very companies whose products are under scrutiny. Justice should place public health above corporate profits, and those who believe they have been harmed should have a fair opportunity to seek their day in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment