Public policy analyst and business executive Charles Laverty, wrote on his blog this week about the EPA intervention against a California product labeling law. Last year the state passed a law that required product labels containing glyphosate to state the it is ‘known to cause cancer.’ The most well-known target of California’s law is the weed killer Roundup.
Charles Laverty argued that, at its core, the move reasserts the federal governments roles in these kinds of labeling and prevents manufacturers from having to have separate warnings. More importantly the move serves to intervene against California’s strong trial lawyer lobby, who, Laverty says, are cashing in on questionable science with California craziest trial verdicts.
A norther California school groundskeeper named Dewayne “Lee” Johnson was awarded $289 million in a lawsuit against Monsanto. Sadly, Mr. Johnson is one of the 200,000 Americans each year to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
The disease may have many causes, but it has not been proven that glyphosate is one of them. California listed glyphosate, on their Proposition 65 list based on findings from the International Agency on the Research for Cancer who said that it is "probably carcinogenic to humans. “The EPA's research found that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans," adding that their research was "more extensive and relevant."
Mr. Johnson wore protective gear but did get soaked in the product a few times on the job.
As CEO of Nuzuna Zone Fitness, Charles Laverty has had a career dedicated to healthcare and wellness. Laverty says that it is natural to hate to see people suffer, but for law firms to use that to profit by convincing well-meaning but arguably easily swayed jurors to blame a company for the sole purpose of going after their money is bad for everyone.
By using a lower, less rigorously tested standard, the trial lawyer lobby hopes to continue to use things like product labeling to sway public opinion against the product. This will make the job convincing jurors that a causal relationship between cancer and Roundup exists, despite there being no conclusive science to supports that.
Laverty argues that human tragedy is combined with junk science and junk arguments on incomplete science to form the primary tools lawyers use turn human suffering into ruinous verdicts.
Monsanto developed glyphosate and has been using it in agriculture since 1974 and helped patents on it which finally expired in 2000. Bayer acquired Monsanto for $66B. Bayer has very deep pockets. So, it is not hard to see why a German, based multinational would be less sympathetic than a deeply ill Californian. Bayer’s most recent revenues are estimated around $43B USD. Bayer announced in April that over 13,000 lawsuits related to Roundup had been launched in the US.
Still $289M goes beyond any calculation of actual damages. The jurors in Mr. Johnson’s case were convinced to punish Monsanto. The product has been used for over 45 years and with all that time and use not causal link to cancer has been proven. Clearly then Monsanto didn’t know when they launched the product or even when they marketed it to Mr. Johnson’s employer enough to do anything different.
Charles Laverty has written extensively about public policy. He argues that even if you agree with the principles behind these moves, you should still oppose the tactic. For starters, it wastes the state’s time and money defending the court and federal challenges that come from clearly trying to defy federal law. In the end the labeling law puts money in attorney’s pockets by taking it out of voters’ pockets.
Further, if you support this then states you don't agree with will follow suit with values that oppose your own. Do you want South Dakota to override federal laws related to drilling and fracking? What about Texas overriding federal environmental and employment law? How about Utah creating competing law on LGBTQ matters?
California, you can't have it all your own way.
Charles Laverty argues that the EPA’s move shows federal willingness to defy local special interests working against the common good. This is a valuable and essential role of the federal government. Awards like this, Laverty says, are “cash grabs,” organized by wealthy trial lawyers to dip into the pockets of all Americans. The costs of trials and awards like this are passed on as costs and risks to everyone who purchases everything. This represents a ‘shadow tax’ that we all pay while also adding unneeded uncertainty and risk. Ironically, it hurts product innovation and smaller businesses even more because they are less able to bear the risks of out of control awards like this.
Charles Laverty argues that the EPA’s moves were proper but that it addresses one symptom of a much larger problem. Out of control trial lawyer lobbies have hijacked the legal system to drive up product liability awards. Also, Laverty argues, they are so ingrained into state legislatures that they can regularly circumvent the common good and states rights for personal gain. This, Laverty says should be a rallying point for Americans of all creeds to seek trial reform.
Press Information
Charles Laverty & Associates
2927 Bristol St. Costa Mesa
California, 92626 USA
Charles Laverty
Chief Executive Officer & Founder
949-432-4824
