California Argues For State Law In Appeal Of Roundup Case

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
On March 23, 2020, the California attorney general's office asked the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reject an appeal by Bayer AG to overturn a $25 million verdict.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On March 23, 2020, the California attorney general's office asked the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reject an appeal by Bayer AG to overturn a $25 million verdict.

On March 23, 2020, the California attorney general's office asked the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reject an appeal by Bayer AG to overturn a $25 million verdict favoring a man's claim that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer's Roundup product, was the cause of his cancer and Bayer did not properly warn that the product had cancer risks. Bayer's appeal argues that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the sale of glyphosate, found that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen, and argued that states may not apply further product package labeling requirements beyond those required by the federal government in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). California state law requires businesses to include a cancer warning for products that include glyphosate and the state argues this law does not contradict FIFRA because California requires a "point-of-sale warning" rather than a warning on the product's package label, which is disallowed by the EPA. Bayer's appeal also argues that the lower court should not have allowed the plaintiff to present a research claim by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic" and, furthermore, should not have rejected Bayer's attempt to present evidence against IARC's claim. A copy of the case filing can be accessed here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More