Top U.S. court rejects Roundup maker's appeal of decision that the weed killer causes cancer

The U.S. Supreme Court has let a $25 million verdict against Bayer, parent company of Monsanto, manufacturer of the popular weed killer Roundup, stand. 

The original jury found that Monsanto, the giant agribusiness that manufactures the pesticide, had failed to warn about cancer risks to those using the product.

The top court's decision not to intervene means not only that the decision in the suit brought by Edwin Hardeman, who was diagnosed in 2015 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, can remain intact but the way is cleared for thousands of similar lawsuits against Bayer. 

A story by Ann E. Marimow in an edition of The Washington Post this week notes that the "Biden administration had urged the court to deny the company's [stance], a departure from the Trump administration's position."

Hardeman's suit alleged that his use of Roundup for more than two decades caused his cancer and that Monsanto, which Bayer purchased in 2018, failed to warn about the risks associated with the active ingredient, glyphosate.

After an international research group in 2015 classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans," the state of California demanded a warning label on Roundup, the nation's most widely used weed killer — in opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency's repeatedly concluding that "glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans."

Two years ago, according to the story, "Bayer agreed to pay more than $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of potential U.S. claims" but it admitted no wrongdoing. It also said it was moving toward alternate ingredients to "manage litigation risk in the U.S. and not because of safety concerns."

Judge Michelle Friedland

Just days before the Supreme Court ruling about the Hardeman suit, "a separate ruling from the 9th Circuit ordered the EPA to reconsider its finding in 2020 that glyphosate did not pose 'any unreasonable risk to man or the environment,'" Marimow's article reports. As a part of the unanimous decision, Judge Michelle Friedland writes that the Trump-era opinion "was not supported by substantial evidence" and didn't meet the agency's "legal obligations for reviewing environmental impact."

More information on court battles over carcinogenics can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

FDA charged with not protecting patients

Women challenge risks of breast cancer implants at FDA meeting, but no changes are expected

Women linked to breast implants challenged plastic surgeons, regulators and implant-makers last week but apparently came away disappointed because no U.S. changes are in the offing.

Other countries, however, have taken steps to halt sales of the implants.

According to The New York Times, as cited in the Kaiser Health News Morning Briefing online, the women attended "an emotionally charged" federal Food and Drug Administration advisory panel meeting and called for a ban on at implants associated with a rare form of lymphoma.

In addition, they "asked implant-makers to disclose the materials used in the devices and also called for a 'black box' warning — a label that the FDA can require, noting heightened problems with a drug or device."

The Washington Post noted, as reported on KHN, that they told "searing stories about broken health, disrupted families and lost careers," and said they wanted the panel "to recommend more long-term research, bans or restrictions on certain products…and a beefed-up informed consent process so that women have a clear understanding of theorists and benefits of the devices before they opt for surgery."

Jamee Cook

Jamee Cook, a Texas paramedic who leads a group called Breast Implant Victim Advocacy, said "experienced chronic fatigue, numbness and migraines — symptoms that were resolved" when she had the implants removed, a story in The Wall Street Journal reported, according to KHN.

She charged that the FDA has not fulfilled its responsibility to protect patients."

The Journal also noted that nearly "three decades after the FDA first pulled silicone [gel] breast implants of the U.S. market [because of fear they might cause breast cancer or lupus] and then allowed some back on, women continue to report debilitating conditions to the agency. The FDA is revisiting the issue again this year and is grappling with efforts to study which issues are proven and which not proven."

By quoting the Associated Press, the KHN summary then showed what results evolved — and what didn't — from the meetings. It said that government medical advisers claimed "it's too soon" for any ban because "more information is needed to understand the problem."

The FDA panel, a day after reviewing the research presented, recommended no immediate restrictions on breast implants.

The bans imposed by other countries, however, came within days of the FDA's rejection of the idea of sales limitations.

In the United States, some 400,000 women get implants each year, 100,000 of them after cancer surgery.

According to a story by Marie McCullough last week in The Philadelphia Inquirer, health authorities in Canada and the Netherlands — "just days after France became the first country to ban sales of numerous brands of textured and polyurethane-coated implants" — announced plans to suspend sales.

That article notes that "since the first report of implant lymphoma in 1997, almost 700 cases and 17 deaths have been tallied worldwide, including 270 cases and nine deaths in the United States, according to the latest count from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons."

More data about implants, and reconstruction, can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

5 cups of java might halve malignancy risks

Drinking coffee may help prevent some liver cancers, new British study suggests

A new British analysis shows that people who drink more coffee, even decaffeinated, are less apt to develop liver cancer.

The analysis took into consideration 26 studies, according to a story in a recent Guardian.

For those who drank two cups a day, the risk of hepatocellular cancer (HCC), the most common form of primary liver cancer, dropped by 35 percent compared to those who drank no coffee, the article reported.

"Those who drank one cup a day had a 20 percent lower risk," it added, noting, too, that for those who drank five cups, "the risk was halved." 

The research — published in the journal BMJ Open — was done by experts at the universities of Southampton and Edinburgh. It "examined data involving more than 2.25 million participants." 

Results also showed that "the protective effect for decaf was 'smaller and less certain than for caffeinated coffee.'"

The analysis' lead author, Dr. Oliver Kennedy of the U. of Southampton, was quoted as saying that coffee "is widely believed to possess a range of health benefits [but] we're not suggesting that everyone should start drinking five cups of coffee a day...There needs to be more investigation into the potential harms of high coffee-caffeine intake, and there is evidence it should be avoided in certain groups such as pregnant women."

According to another article — in the Southern Daily Echo, also a British publication — "liver cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death globally because of its poor prognosis and high frequency…it is estimated that, by 2030, the number of new cases annually will have risen by about 50 percent to more than 1.2 million."

Cancer risks clearly come from a variety of sources, and reductions can come from multiple actions. Details can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Data from 1.2 million females reviewed

Daily glass of wine or booze can dramatically raise women's risk of breast cancer, review shows

Having just one glass of wine or another alcoholic drink a day is likely to boost a woman's risk of breast cancer.

That's what a new massive review indicates, according to a story by Laurie McGinley in today's editions of The Washington Post.

The increased risk is considered significant.

Statistically, McGinley's piece says, the difference is "5 percent for pre-menopausal women and 9 percent for post-menopausal women."

Reducing risk is also possible, the story also reports, by vigorous exercise such as running and bicycling.

That information translates, according to the study, into "pre-menopausal women who were the most active [having] a 17 percent lower risk of developing malignancies compared to the least active women, while post-menopausal women had a 10 percent decreased risk."

Why the added or diminished risks?

McGinley writes that "alcohol increases estrogen, which is linked to increased breast-cancer risk, while physical activity reduces it."

The review — done by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and the World Cancer Research Fund — "evaluated research in 119 studies encompassing data on 12 million women from around the world."

AICR estimated that 1 in 3 cases of breast cancer could be prevented if women didn't drink alcohol, were physically active and maintained a healthy weight.

Anne McTiernan

The Post article cites Anne McTiernan, a cancer-prevention researcher at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and one of the report's lead authors, to the effect that the review "suggests there is no level of alcohol use that is completely safe in terms of breast cancer. If a woman is drinking, it would be better if she kept it to a lower amount."

The review showed, too, that women who are overweight or obese run a higher risk of post-menopausal disease in general. Losing just 10 percent of their weight apparently can reduce blood estrogen and inflammation.

But even a healthy lifestyle is no guarantee.

The Post paraphrased the researcher as saying it's more like wearing a safety belt — with many women doing everything they can to reduce their risks but still get diagnosed with breast cancer.

"That's unfortunate, but that's what happens," the newspaper quoted McTiernan as saying.

Many more risks of breast cancer are outlined in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.