COVID-19 Poses Potential Threat to 2020 United States Agricultural Chemical Supply

The COVID-19 epidemic which originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan and surrounding Hubei Province poses a threat to the 2020 agricultural chemical supply for the United States. Having been spreading for over a month as of this writing, there are now over 73,000 cases and at least 1,875 deaths reported.

The epidemic poses at least a short term if not longer term threat to agricultural chemical production, which could have a world-wide impact on agriculture. Exports account for two thirds of Chinese agricultural chemical production, and such exports constitute a significant portion of the supply for the US. In addition to the indigenous companies, many major international agricultural chemical companies produce in China. Of some 15,000 pesticide producing establishments registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, over 1,100, or some 7%, are located in China. That compares with 15% of FDA-registered pharmaceutical production facilities located in China. While only approximately thirty to forty pesticide establishments are in Hubei, the epidemic is presenting a nationwide threat to the industry supply chain. 

The China Crop Protection Industry Association (“CCPIA”) recently released results of a member survey assessing the impact of the epidemic. The short term was uniformly pessimistic, and while holding to the hope that the interruption will not be long term, respondents were united in their belief that annual exports will decrease for 2020. Several major industry international trade shows, including the CAC Exhibition in Shanghai in late February, have already been cancelled. 

Production has largely ceased nationwide, with only halting efforts at restarting production. While the Lunar New Year holiday is over, many Chinese citizens who did travel for the holiday are being impeded in their efforts to return home, many cities are confining residents to their homes. Some companies did anticipate this problem, and ramped up production prior to the onset of the virus.  However respondents stated that logistical obstacles are rampant and at present even if there is product on hand, none is able to be exported. Both inbound and outbound trans-ocean shipping has been significantly disrupted. While not directly relevant to agricultural chemicals, a major backlog of refrigerated containers requiring electricity has caused shippers to unload containers at other than the intended ports in order to find available power supplies. Further delays are anticipated as facilities seeking to restart operations must first secure local government approval. As of this writing the rate of expansion of cases has slowed, but the course of the epidemic remains uncertain.  It is likely that the next weeks will reveal whether a pandemic erupts, which will likely further impair production and exports. 

EPA Announces Registration of Ten Pesticides for Use on Hemp; Still No Products Registered for Use on Cannabis

 On December 19, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the addition of hemp as a registered use for ten registered pesticides held by three registrants: Agro Logistic Systems, Marrone Bio Innovations and Hawthorne Hydroponics. These ten products, which include nine biopesticides and one conventional product, join several others already registered for use on hemp.

The ten include the Registered biopesticides are:

Agro Logistic Systems: 

            EPA registration number: 70310-5; active ingredients: azadirachtin and neem oil. Product type: Insecticide, miticide, fungicide and nematicide.

EPA registration number: 70310-7; active ingredients: Azadirachtin and neem oil. Product type: Insecticide, miticide, fungicide and nematicide.

EPA registration number: 70310-8; active ingredients: Azadirachtin and neem oil. Product type: Insecticide, miticide, fungicide and nematicide.

EPA registration number: 70310-11; active ingredient: Neem oil. Product type: Insecticide, miticide and fungicide.

Marrone Bio Innovations :

EPA registration number: 84059-3; active ingredient: Extract of Reynoutria           sachalinensis. Product type: Fungicide and fungistat.

EPA registration number: 84059-28; active ingredient: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain F727. Product type: Fungicide.

Hawthorne Hydroponics, dba General Hydroponics:

EPA registration number: 91865-1; active ingredients: Soybean oil, garlic oil, and Capsicum Oleoresin extract. Product type: Insecticide and repellent.

EPA registration number: 91865-3; active ingredient: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747. Product type: Fungicide and bactericide.

EPA registration number: 91865-4; active ingredient: Azadirachtin. Product type: Insect growth regulator and repellent.

The registered conventional pesticide product is:

Hawthorne Hydroponics, dba General Hydroponics.     

EPA registration number: 91865-2; active ingredient: Potassium salts of fatty acids. Product type: Insecticide, fungicide and miticide.

When the hemp amendments were being considered, EPA had undertaken the unusual step of inviting public comment, which is required only for new active ingredients. With the rapidly growing number of acres planted in hemp as a result of the 2018 Farm Bill,  additional registrants can be expected to seek to add hemp as a target crop, although such future amendments are not likely to be the subject of public notice. In the meantime, however, EPA continues to assert that no pesticides are legal for use on cannabis being grown under state medical and adult use programs.

EPA Responds to Coronavirus; Reminds Registrants of Ability to Add Coronavirus to Disinfectant Product Target Pests on Expedited Basis

In response to the spreading coronavirus epidemic, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a reminder to the registrant community that an expedited process is available to add the 2019-nCoV coronavirus as a target pest on appropriate hard surface disinfectant products. 

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) pesticide products may be used only for the control of pests identified on the product label. On August 19, 2016 EPA issued a guidance document entitled Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels.  (“Guidance”). The Guidance outlines a two-stage process for disinfectant registrants to position themselves so that emerging viral pathogens can be identified as target pests without having to pursue a formal label amendment or supply efficacy data on the specific emerging pathogen.  EPA has now announced that the process is available to add the 2019-nCoV virus as a target pest.

In order to take advantage of this option, a disinfectant registrant must have first pursued a formal amendment adding a specific emerging pathogen to its label. Once so positioned, the registrant may communicate through off-label channels that the product may be used for a similar, previously unidentified emerging pathogen. Coronaviruses are enveloped viruses, which are among the more easily viruses controlled on hard surfaces. To utilize this mechanism in this instance registrants must have previously added a different enveloped virus to the label. 

To qualify for being promoted for a new emerging pathogen, the organism must either be appearing in a human or animal population for the first time or be rapidly increasing in scale or geographic range. EPA requires that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) must have so identified the organism in question, and that the virus presents a survival risk on hard surfaces. CDC has done so for 2019-nCoV. See Update and Interim Guidance on Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Once qualified, registrants are allowed to communicate to target users the ability to employ their disinfectants for the control of 2019-nCoV. These off-label mechanisms can include technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials, as well as consumer information sources, social media and websites under the control of the registrant. The Guidance prescribes statements that may be used to convey the availability of the product for emerging pathogen control. The availability of the product for control of the emerging virus may not be added to the product label without a formal amendment. 

EPA Announces Enforcement Settlement for Sale of Unregistered Biocides; Imposes Penalty of $1.498 Million.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has released a Consent Agreement and Final Order (“Order”) against AFCO C & S LLC of Chambersburg, PA which was signed on September 26, 2019. The Order alleges AFCO engaged in the sale of unregistered biocides, sales of registered biocides in conjunction with unregistered brand names and sales of registered pesticides with claims exceeding those registered. The Order imposes a penalty of $1,489,000, one of higher penalties ever imposed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”).

The sale of unregistered pesticides occurred 1,031 times from January 1, 2015 through August 9, 2018. During the same period, sales of a registered product misbranded with an unapproved brand name happened forty-one times while sales of registered products for which unregistered claims were made happened five times. To flesh out the scope of claims being made, EPA examined websites, Safety Data Sheets, sales promotional materials and sales contracts and technical data sheets.

EPA commenced this matter by conducting an inspection of AFCO on June 20, 2016.  However, while the sales of the unregistered products must have been obvious early in the investigation, a
Stop Sale Order was not issued until July 13, 2018, over two years after the initial inspection. Since the Order states that unlawful sales continued until August 9, 2018, it would appear that unlawful sales in violation of the Stop Sale Order occurred, although no such violation is identified in the Order.

Given the size of the penalty and an assertion by AFCO that due to the size of the penalty it would be unable to pay the full amount in the standard thirty days without financial hardship, the Order allows payment over twelve monthly payments plus 1% interest. An interesting background note is that on July 25, 2017, midway in the investigation, major pesticide registrant ZEP announced its intent to acquire AFCO. If adequate due diligence was not conducted, ZEP may have received a big surprise as a result of this acquisition.

One important lesson for registrants from this action is the scope of materials that EPA may examine in determining whether pesticidal claims are being made for unregistered products or whether claims beyond the scope of the registered claims are being made for registered products. Particular care needs to be taken that website statements regarding registered products conform to a product’s label.

New York to Adminstratively Eliminate All Uses of Chlorpyrifos [Updated]

Despite its registration having been upheld by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the insecticide chlorpyrifos continues to face multiple challenges to its continued use. The continued EPA registration continues to be challenged in Court by a collection of states, while California has secured the agreement of major registrants to administratively cancel all registration. Now the New York Governor has directed the Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) to administratively phase out most uses of the ingredient.

In New York, the legislature passed a bill which would in three stages eliminate all uses of chlorpyrifos by December 1, 2021. See S. 5343; A-2477B. Aerial application would be prohibited as of January 1, 2020, following which all uses except applications to apple tree trunks would end as of January 1, 2021. The apple tree use would then end December 1, 2021. In a somewhat contradictory move, rather than signing the legislation, the Governor vetoed it but has directed the NYSDEC to promulgate rules largely mirroring the vetoed legislation. The Governor’s Veto Message stated that pesticides should not be regulated by legislative mandate, but instead by NYSDEC on the basis of science. The Veto Message stated that NYSDEC will act to immediately ban aerial application; most remaining uses are to be eliminated by July 1, 2021.

New York has a procedurally complex rulemaking process. To propose a rule, the moving agency must first secure approval of the State Division of the Budget. A proposed rule is then published, which must be accompanied by a series of documents assessing the impacts of the proposed rule, including a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Rural Area Flexibility Analysis and a Job Impact Statement. If not finalized within a year of publication, a proposed rule expires. In fact, it often consumes most of that year to arrive and publish a final rule.  To achieve the objective of immediately eliminating aerial application, NYSDEC will need to promulgate an emergency regulation, followed by a proposed permanent rule.  The emergency rule will need to be supported by a statement justifying the need for an emergency rule.

Section 24(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 USC §136v(a), expressly authorizes states to regulate pesticides more strictly than EPA. That said, a state must still follow its own procedures and meet its own legal standards to support a rulemaking. Although EPA has concluded that chlorpyrifos does not present an unacceptable risk, that decision was arrived at in part by excluding epidemiological data developed by the Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health and Mt. Sinai Hospital.  EPA asserts that the data is not valid, complete and reliable data unless EPA is granted access to the underlying raw data.  The study sponsors have refused to supply such information, claiming that to do so would violated subject confidentiality. New York will be free to include that study as a basis for its action without demanding the underlying data and is likely to do so.  Bottom line: even if challenged, done correctly New York’s anticipated rule is likely to be upheld.

With chlorpyrifos on its way out in two major states, it remains to be seen whether chlorpyrifos remains on the market, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.

 

California Reaches Agreement with Registrants to End Chlorpyrifos Use 

           After previously issuing a Notice of Intent to Cancel the California registrations of chlorpyrifos, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (“CDPR”) has announced that an agreement has been reached with Dow AgroSciences and other producers to eliminate all agricultural uses.  Given its major role in agricultural, the cancellation in California could well be a harbinger of the end of chlorpyrifos.  As recounted in prior blog entries, EPA and chlorpyrifos registrants have been fending off challenges for almost ten years.  See our previous blog entry EPA Denies Chlorpyrifos Cancellation Petition; Six States File Challenge in 9thCircuit.  California’s action represents the most significant victory to date for opponents.

The California agreement provides for the following staged elimination of the product:

November 8, 2019:   Final date for sales by registrants into or within California;

February 6, 20020:   Final dates for any sales by dealers in California; and

December 31, 2020:  Final date for any use or possession other than for the purpose of disposal.

Any use until the deadline is subject to CDPR’s will now mandatorily be subject to the Chlorpyrifos Interim Recommended Permit Conditions issued in November 2018. See our previous blog entry EPA Denies Chlorpyrifos Cancellation Petition; Six States File ChLLCDPR also has created a “cross-sector working group” to develop recommendations for alternatives.

Meanwhile the litigation challenging the EPA registration continues in the 9thCircuit U.S. Court and the legislation eliminating use in New York still awaits a Governor’s decision as to whether to sign it.

EPA Seeks Public Comment on Pending Applications to Amend Existing Registrations to Add Hemp as a Target Site  

On August 23, 2019, the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a notice seeking public comment on ten pending applications to amend existing registrations of agricultural pesticides to add hemp as an approved target site. See 84 Federal Register 44296 (August 23, 2019)

Interest in hemp has grown enormously since the enactment of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, colloquially known as the Farm Bill. Hemp is simply another term for the cannabis plant, also known as marijuana. The Farm Bill legalized the cultivation of and interstate commerce in hemp, defined as the cannabis plant containing less than 0.03 % THC [delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; the psychoactive constituent of cannabis]. Plants containing above 0.3% THC remain classified as an illegal Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

The legalization of what is also known as industrial hemp has been greeted with great interest by the agricultural community. In some areas, such as upstate New York, hemp is seen as an alternative crop that might help save failing dairy farms. It is also seen as a natural corollary to increased cultivation of hops to meet the demands of the burgeoning craft brewery industry.

EPA has received applications to amend the registrations of ten products from three registrants:  Agro Logistic Systems, Inc. of Diamond Bar, California; Marrone Bio Innovations of Davis, California; and Hawthorne Hydroponics of Santa Rosa California. Hawthorne Hydroponics is a subsidiary of Hawthorne Gardening, itself a subsidiary of Scotts Miracle-Gro. Hawthorne is Scott’s vehicle for creating a space servicing the cannabis industry.

The ingredients in question are mostly biologic pesticides, and all hold exemptions from the requirement for a food tolerance. The proposed use patterns are within those already approved for the products in question.

EPA acknowledged that these proposed amendments do not meet the minimum standards of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) for required public notice of pending applications. Nonetheless it stated that sufficient public interest in hemp justified seeking public comment at this initial stage, but would not continue to publicize the increasing number of applications which it expects to receive.

Comments are due September 23, 2019, and can be filed at www.regulations.gov

 

 

 

EPA Denies Chlorpyrifos Cancellation Petition; Six States File Challenge in 9thCircuit

Despite its registration having been upheld by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the insecticide chlorpyrifos continues to face multiple challenges to its continued use. The continued EPA registration is again being challenged in Court by a collection of states, while California is moving ahead to administratively cancel all registration and New York awaits the Governor’s decision on whether to sign legislation phasing out all use.

Petition to Cancel EPA Registrations

A Petition to Cancel the registration of chlorpyrifos was filed in 2007. Its history and related litigation is recounted in the prior blog entry EPA Obtains Stay of Execution for Chlorpyrifos from 9thCircuit Court of Appeals.On March 29, 22017 EPA denied the Petition (See 82 Fed. Reg. 16581) although it expressly reserved decision on several issues. EPA stated that those issues would be addressed in registration review, due to be completed by 2022. Petitioners sought to overturn the denial by filing a Petition for Review in the 9thCircuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On April 19, 2019, the Court had ordered EPA to respond to the merits of the Petition within 90 days, making the deadline approximately July 19.

On July 24 EPA published its final order denying all aspects of the Petition.  EPA contends that the science addressing the risks of chlorpyrifos remains uncertain, and thus there is no legal basis for canceling the registrations and revoking the tolerances. One particular point of contention is epidemiological data developed by the Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health and Mt. Sinai Hospital.  EPA asserts that the data is not valid, complete and reliable data unless EPA is granted access to the underlying raw data.  The study sponsors have refused to supply such information, claiming that to do so would violated subject confidentiality.

In response to the Petition denial, six states – California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Washington – have again filed a Petition for Review in the 9thCircuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

California and New York Direct Actions

Following up on its earlier announcement, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (“CDPR”) on August 14, 2019 issued cancellation notices to all California chlorpyrifos registrants. CDPR stated expressly that it was relying on five animal studies as the basis for the cancellation. It remains to be seen whether registrants or agricultural interests challenge the proposed cancellations.  On the same day CDPR also appointed an Alternatives to Chlorpyrifos Workgroup to address the ramifications of the withdrawal of chlorpyrifos from the market.

In New York, the legislature passed a bill which would in three stages eliminate all uses of chlorpyrifos by December 1, 2021. See S. 5343; A-2477B. Aerial application would be prohibited as of January 1, 2020, following which all uses except applications to apple tree trunks would end as of January 1, 2021. The apple tree use would then end December 1, 2021.

The Legislature has yet to send the passed bill to the Governor. Once the bill is transmitted to the Governor,

the bill must be signed within thirty days, or it will automatically lapse in a so-called “pocket veto.” While the New York Farm Bureau is on record opposing the legislation, the Governor has given no indication of whether he will sign the bill. If he does so, opponents would likely have no recourse. Section 24(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 USC §136v(a), expressly authorizes states to regulate pesticides more strictly than EPA. That authority leaves opponents with little ground upon which to mount any challenge to a legislative action.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Determines that California Proposition 65 Cancer Warnings on Glyphosate (“Roundup®)” Labels Are Misleading; Orders Their Removal

On August 7, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced that it had determined that cancer warnings placed on glyphosate (“Roundup®)” labels in compliance with California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Proposition 65, are misleading, since EPA does not recognize the data used to determine that glyphosate is a potential carcinogen. In a letter to glyphosate registrants, EPA stated that the presence of such a misleading statement on a pesticide label renders the product misbranded, and has ordered registrants to file proposed amended labels removing the Proposition 65 statement.

The determination that glyphosate is a potential carcinogen was made by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), a unit of the World Health Organization. That determination in turn triggered an automatic classification as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, thereby triggering the obligation to place a cancer warning on glyphosate labels. EPA has disagreed with the IARC classification since it issuance. It issued its revised Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential on December 17, 2017, and in April 2018, issued its final determination that glyphosate does not pose a threat of cancer.

Industry brought a successful challenge to the automatic listing, and secured a preliminary injunction preventing California from enforcing the label notice requirement.  See National Association of Wheat Growers v. Zeise,  309 F. Supp. 842 (EDCA February 26, 2018).  Notwithstanding the lack of enforcement, a number of labels already bore the Proposition 65 notice, which, given the nature of pesticide label regulation, cannot simply be removed.

It remains undetermined how the label amendment process will play out. The EPA letter simply requested that a proposed amended label be submitted, without specifying whether a notification pursuant to EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 98-10 will suffice, or whether a formal amendment is required. Either way this process is bound to prove cumbersome for affected glyphosate registrants.

 

SCIENTIFIC DEBATE OVER GLYPHOSATE SAFETY CONTINUES AS 3RD JURY FINDS AGAINST MONSANTO

On April 23, 2019, EPA took another step toward upholding the registration of glyphosate by issuing a Proposed Interim Registration Review Document (“PID”) which concludes that the herbicide is not likely to be a human carcinogen. This decision comes as three juries have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to four individuals suffering from Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma alleged to have been caused by repeated exposure to glyphosate.

EPA Actions Support Continued Registration

A PID is a step in the Pesticide Registration Review process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) by which EPA regularly revisits registered ingredients to determine whether they continue to present an acceptable risk to humans and the environment.  It is the latest in a series of actions beginning in 2009 focused on the risks presented by glyphosate. The glyphosate proposed PID represents a major marker in the international debate over whether glyphosate is a potential carcinogen. It was posted in the glyphosate docket on May 6, 2019, and comments are due by July 5, 2019. See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2340.

EPA had in December 2016 convened a FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel meeting to consult on a draft risk assessment of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. Based on comments received from the SAP EPA revised its cancer assessment and issued theResponse to the Final Report of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) on the Evaluation of the Human Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate. EPA’s final cancer conclusion and its rationale for reaching this conclusion are described in the Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential.The EPA’s final cancer assessment includes the newly published analysis of glyphosate use and cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). The AHS study is a long-term epidemiological study of over 54 thousand pesticide applicators to investigate the association between pesticide exposures and incidence of various types of cancer and non-cancer outcomes. The EPA’s review of the AHS study is described in the Summary Review of Recent Analysis of Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. The agency has determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and therefore a quantitative cancer assessment was not conducted.

NGO and Organic Food Producers File Petition to Lower Glyphosate Tolerance for Oats

On September 27, 2018, the Environmental Working Group and a series of organic food producers filed a petition to lower the tolerance for glyphosate in or on oats from 30 ppm to 0.1 ppm and to prohibit preharvest use on oats. The petition was posted on Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0066 on May 6, and comments are due by June 5, 2019. EPA has stated that it anticipates responding to the petition as part of finalizing the PID.

IARC Classification & Proposition 65

The opponents to glyphosate use were bolstered by a March 2015 determination of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Review of Cancer (“IARC”), which found glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen. See https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/. That decision has been hotly disputed by industry and regulators, including EPA, but continues to be supported by IARC.  Neither the European Union’s Food Safety Authority (2015) nor the U.S. National Toxicology Program (2016) have classified glyphosate as a human carcinogen.

The IARC classification resulted in glyphosate being added as a probable carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65. While the listing continues in place, as a result of industry litigation registrants of glyphosate have been relieved of the obligation to advise persons exposed to it of the cancer risk. See National Association of Wheat Growers v. Zeise(Civ. No. 2:17-2401 WBS EFB) (February 26, 2018)

Private Tort Litigation

As the regulatory actions play out a series of thousands of private actions have been filed in Federal and state courts. Plaintiffs have prevailed in the first three trials to proceed to a verdict.

In Johnson v. Monsanto,the jury in a San Francisco County Superior Court action awarded approximately $289 million in damages, which was reduced by the judge to approximately $78 million.  Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, is appealing the verdict and the plaintiff is appealing the reduction of damages.

In Hardeman v. Monsanto,the first of thousands of cases consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) in the Northern District of California, the jury awarded $5.2 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. On April 11, 2019, the judge hearing the MDL cancelled the next scheduled bellwether trial, scheduled a hearing May 22 to address how to proceed in the MDL and ordered the parties to engage in mediation.

Most recently on May 13, 2019 the jury inPilliod v. Monsantoin California’s Alameda County Superior Court awarded a married couple $1 million each in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. This scale of punitive damages exceeds the permissible ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages allowed in California, so even if the verdict survives appeal the punitive damage amount will be reduced.

The litigation has proved to be a challenge for Bayer, whose stock has dropped approximately 50% from its 52-week high. In addition, at the April 26 Bayer annual meeting, in a non-binding resolution, a majority of shareholders voted to disapprove Bayer’s actions related to glyphosate.

Conclusion

It remains to be seen whether the two verdicts to date will withstand appeal. Expert testimony is critical to any toxic tort plaintiff’s case, because without expert testimony the necessary causation link can never be established. In Federal court the admissibility of any proposed expert witness testimony must be evaluated according to the five-part standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Federal judge in the Hardemanbellwether case held that “So long as an opinion is premised on reliable scientific principles, it should not be excluded by the trial judge; instead the weaknesses in an unpersuasive expert opinion can be exposed at trial, through cross-examination or testimony by opposing experts.”

More sense of the directions in which the Federal MDL litigation may go should be learned from the May 22, 2019 conference. Other than directing the parties to select a mediator, nothing further is scheduled at the moment. Several trials are scheduled for the fall of 2019 in St. Louis, Missouri County Court.

While the litigation continues, EPA appears determined to continue the registration of glyphosate. Evidence introduced in one of the trials contained assertions that the administration supports Bayer and the continued registration. Assuming EPA denies the petition related to oats, that mater will no doubt be litigated.

May 14, 2019