WILMINGTON, Del. (Legal Newsline) – A man who sued Monsanto because it doesn’t include a may-cause-cancer warning label on Roundup weedkiller has no standing to bring suit because he has suffered no health effects, the company says.
On Dec. 3, Monsanto filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit of Scott Gilmore, who filed his case earlier this year through lawyers at Rhodunda Williams & Kondraschow and Milstein Jackson.
Parent company Bayer is trying to finalize a mass settlement of lawsuits that allege the active ingredient in Roundup – glyphosate – cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Gilmore’s case, filed in Delaware federal court, claims a warning label was required even though a California judge has ruled it was wrong to place on of the state’s infamous Prop 65 warnings on it and the federal Environmental Protection Agency has determined the product doesn’t cause cancer.
“Plaintiff offers no theory of economic harm other than that a ‘safe’ product is worth more than an ‘unsafe’ product,” the motion to dismiss says.
“He does not allege that the product he bought was ineffective at killing weeds, or that he has himself suffered any personal injury. He thus offers only a conclusory assertion that he did not get the benefit of his bargain…”
Monsanto goes on to argue Gilmore lacks standing for injunctive relief because he doesn’t allege he will be deceived again and that he is attempting to impose a state-law labeling requirement.
Nearly every regulatory body in the world says glyphosate does not cause cancer, with the exception of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Its former non-voting chairman, Chris Portier, signed on as a paid plaintiff expert shortly after IARC reached its conclusion.