ST. LOUIS — There’s a fierce debate swirling in Missouri and nationwide about the safety of the most popular weed-killer on the market: Roundup. Its parent company Bayer has shelled out billions of dollars to defend its product. Thousands of people nationwide have sued claiming the pesticide’s active ingredient glyphosate caused non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
While the majority of juries nationwide have determined that Roundup is not the cause of their cancer, others juries have found the pesticide’s active ingredient glyphosate caused non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, according to a Bayer spokesperson.
“What I went through was heartbreaking … No corporation should get away with anything like that in the United States," said Leon Smith, a St. Louis-based Roundup plaintiff.
Now, a week after the I-Team’s first report about newly proposed legislation in Missouri to shield pesticide-makers from liability, we sit down with a leader at Bayer at its sprawling St. Louis campus.
“There's unfortunately a lot of misinformation," said Jess Christiansen, a Bayer spokesperson. “These products are extremely safe to use, and have been used globally for over 50 years.”
“Are you saying there is no increased risk of causing cancer?” Senior Investigative Reporter Paula Vasan asked.
“Glyphosate does not cause cancer, nor do the uses of Roundup," Christiansen said.
It’s a statement at odds with the World Health Organization. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said it’s safe when used as directed.
Other pesticide regulatory agencies around the world largely agree. Agencies, including the European Chemicals Agency, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), have concluded that glyphosate does not pose significant carcinogenic risks to humans.
But amid continued legal battles over health concerns and billions at stake, attorneys and health advocates tell the I-Team that Bayer is using lobbyists to push for legislation—laws that would protect pesticide-makers from liability.
It’s something Christiansen did not confirm directly. But she tells the I-Team the company and much of the agricultural industry fully supports the legislation, because the future of American farming depends on it.
“If weeds grow, it will decrease how much a farmer can produce. So it takes nutrients, water, it takes away from the crop itself," she said. “What we want to do is be able to make sure that the that glyphosate remains on the market because of these products being so important to the American farmer.”
Attorneys like Tony Simon don’t have a problem with Roundup being sold. He does have a problem with the label.
“I think they should put a warning on the product that tells people use of this product increases your chance of getting cancer," said Simon, a St. Louis attorney. “Just like the cigarette companies."
He said he doesn’t trust the EPA’s assessment. The regulatory body does not conduct its own studies, and relies on companies to submit its own data. Bayer also said it works with third-party labs for research, chosen by the company. Many call it a flawed approach, riddled with conflicts of interest. Christiansen calls it a stringent and transparent process set by the government. The EPA has said it’s part of its “risk assessment” and “crucial” in its decision-making process.
We asked the EPA what steps it takes to address concerns raised by critics regarding the timeliness of banning or restricting known harmful substances. A spokesperson told us:
“There are many steps that must be taken in the registration and registration review process to ensure that relevant scientific data and public comment is received and effectively evaluated, but EPA’s goal is always to complete these steps as efficiently as possible to protect human health and the environment. EPA reviews each registered pesticide every 15 years to ensure that each pesticide can carry out its intended function(s) without creating unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. Since science is always evolving, this gives EPA the opportunity to evaluate new scientific information that changes our understanding of potential effects from pesticides. During this process, there are several opportunities for the public to make comments on our findings. If EPA identifies unreasonable adverse effects, pesticide registrants may address adverse effects by adding mitigation measures to their products’ labeling or by changing use sites. If no mitigation measure can resolve EPA’s concerns, EPA may cancel pesticides. Cancellation, however, is a lengthy process for EPA that requires the agency to seek input from USDA and provide an opportunity for an administrative hearing.”
"Do you believe that the warnings on roundup are as transparent as possible?” Vasan asked.
"Yes, they absolutely are … The fact of glyphosate, not causing cancer is backed by lots of regulatory authorities and hundreds of scientifically peer reviewed datasets," Christiansen said.
The I-Team emailed and called multiple times to hear from the sponsor of Missouri's Senate Bill 1416, Republican lawmaker Justin Brown. His office eventually told us he had no comment.
The Missouri Coalition for the Environment told the I-Team the proposed legislation shows how companies like Bayer do not want to pay the cost of harming people. The company continues to stand by the safety of its product, and the EPA—a regulatory body with a goal of protecting people’s health and the environment. But critics question the agency’s reliability. The EPA took 30 years to fully ban asbestos.
If you have a tip for Paula, leave a voice message at 314-444-5231, email tips@ksdk.com or use the form below.