U.S. court labelled genetically modified partners as carcinogenic

OFweek Medical Network News GMOs are unfavorable, this time some people have to sleep and eat even more. According to reports, California judge Kristi Kapetan issued a formal ruling that the genetically modified partner glyphosate (Roundup, Chinese name: Roundup) sold in California must be labeled as carcinogenic! The judge will issue a formal decision soon. Samdelson, a spokesperson for the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), told the Associated Press that the regulator is waiting for the judge’s formal decision before advancing the warning label. As soon as the news came out, major media in the United States, Reuters, Bloomberg and other world media reported that the use of corruption to conceal the truth about the harm of genetically modified organisms has become clear.

Not only that, but even more shocking is that California’s Bill 65 identified an important basis: California farmer Jack Kaul who died of cancer. Jack Kaul has been using glyphosate on his 20-acre fruit and vegetable farm for nearly 30 years and found that he had cancer. In this regard, Kaul’s wife and dozens of farmers jointly sued Monsanto. The grounds for their lawsuit were: Jack Kaul did not obtain relevant cancer risk warnings due to long-term exposure to glyphosate, which resulted in abnormal death from cancer. Monsanto deliberately played down the risk of genetically modified partner glyphosate.

Not only that, the plaintiff’s attorney once asked the judge to summon Jess Rowland, a senior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official who had resigned in 2016, in order to clarify his abnormal relationship with Monsanto. This request was opposed by Monsanto and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Monsanto even asked the court to prohibit the plaintiff from disclosing hard-earned information.

Recently, the plaintiff’s attorney obtained evidence such as emails from the late toxicology expert Marion Copley of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During his tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency, Copley wrote reports that basically confirmed that glyphosate would cause cancer based on the results of animal experiments. Senior official of the Environmental Protection Agency Jess Rowland once intimidated the staff, including Copley, to change the content of this report to meet the commercial interests of chemical giants such as Monsanto.

In other words, the California judge told people: “There is no problem with genetically modified and partner glyphosate.” It was based on the fact that Monsanto wooed and corrupted US Environmental Protection Agency officials to conceal the facts of the harm, and based on lies. “GMO hides the greatest transnational corruption”, this cruel reality once again revealed the tip of the iceberg.

It seems that the actions of the California judges have made it difficult to conceal genetically modified corruption in the United States.

The last thing to note is that California’s Act 65 has factual basis and the conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that the genetically modified partner glyphosate is “definitely carcinogenic” to mice and that it is “probably carcinogenic” to humans. Moreover, the United States is a case law country. According to the case law system, the legal rules in a certain judgment not only apply to the case, but also often serve as a precedent and apply to cases under the jurisdiction of the court or lower courts in the future. As long as the basic facts of the case are the same or similar, they must be handled in accordance with the rules set by the precedent. This is the so-called “stare decisis” principle. The day when California Act No. 65 was officially promulgated was when many courts in the United States sentenced the genetically modified partner glyphosate to “death penalty” based on the Act. In the future, no matter who, as long as they say that there is no problem with genetic modification, people will think that this is not only unethical and untrustworthy, but also shameless and rascal.