The American Tort Reform Association today congratulates the Health and Human Services and State Departments along with Secretaries Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio for acknowledging that exaggerated scientific claims create “unnecessary public confusion” and “undermine confidence in everyday products and industries.”
“After years of spouting both bizarre and unscientific claims, we’re pleased to see Secretary Kennedy listening to experts and recommitting himself to the ‘gold standard science’ he said HHS would follow under his leadership,” said Lauren Sheets Jarrell, ATRA’s vice president and counsel for civil justice policy.
HHS and the State Department issued a joint statement this week on the preeminence of the U.S. government regulating health risks for Americans and specifically called out the prolific purveyors of junk science, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, noting that the group’s research advances “politicized narratives that are often cited for U.S. domestic legal contexts.” The statement further cited concerns with the “consistency, transparency, and real-world applicability” of certain assessments by IARC.
IARC’s “probably carcinogenic” categorization of glyphosate, the main ingredient in the widely used weedkiller Roundup, has served as the foundation and primary piece of evidence for thousands of lawsuits claiming that the weedkiller causes non-Hodgkins lymphoma. IARC’s assessment stands in stark contrast to hundreds of other studies that show the product is safe. In addition to baseless litigation that costs millions and clogs the courts, the war on pesticides has spurred fear among the agricultural community who relies on these products to safely grow food.
“We are encouraged by Secretary Kennedy’s recognition of IARC’s problematic research and appreciate that he is willing to stand up to the made-for-litigation science pushed by his historical allies in the trial bar,” Sheets Jarrell said.
ATRA’s “Junk Science Playbook” report, released in March, delves into these issues more deeply, revealing how trial lawyers use junk science to manipulate both public policy and courtroom outcomes. ATRA long has pointed to various concerns with IARC, its classification of glyphosate, and the ongoing Roundup litigation.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, a case involving Roundup and whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.
ATRA filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that requirements for herbicide labeling should not be made case-by-case in litigation sparked by a flawed IARC classification, highlighting that IARC’s process is contrary to sound science, criticized as fearmongering and riddled with conflicts of interest. ATRA’s brief further raises the question of who decides warnings — agencies, based on a comprehensive evaluation of the science, or inconsistent verdicts influenced by outlier views?
The Court is expected to issue a decision in Monsanto v. Durnell this summer.
Prior to his appointment, Kennedy was a trial lawyer and was specifically involved in litigation related to Roundup, among others, including vaccine lawsuits. Following concerns about his financial interest in litigation, he opted to “divest his interests in cases involving vaccine manufacturers” — by handing them over to one of his sons, a trial lawyer at Wisner Baum which is still pursuing Roundup lawsuits and cites IARC as its main source of evidence.
