TNF production is increased by glyphosate in the brain, which has consequences for neurodegenerative diseases

By Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo & Plotkin LLP

Glyphosate causes possible risks to health

Due to the possible risks they represent to human health, herbicides are an environmental pollutant that has received a lot of attention. The most widely used herbicide in the world is glyphosate, which is the main component of many commercial herbicides.

Greater death rates from Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological diseases are positively correlated with increased glyphosate spraying to maize and soy crops in recent years. In vitro models have demonstrated that glyphosate can pass the blood-brain barrier, but in vivo testing is still pending.

Similarly, studies have demonstrated that glyphosate exposure raises blood plasma levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, notably TNF.

Bayer filed a “Hail Mary” petition to the U.S. Supreme Court following the rejection of their case alleging that Roundup and glyphosate cause cancer.

A lower court decision holding Bayer accountable for harm resulting from the usage of its weed killer Roundup was challenged by multinational chemical firm Bayer before the U.S. Supreme Court. Following its 2018 acquisition of Roundup-maker Monsanto, Bayer is currently embroiled in a flurry of legal disputes brought by aggrieved customers throughout the nation who claim that their usage of the glyphosate-based herbicide caused their cancer diagnoses. For its part, Bayer has continually lost these legal battles.

Bayer is presenting the Supreme Court with two key defenses. First, the business asserts that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal pesticide statute of the United States, preempts state-level “failure-to-warn” charges that serve as the foundation for the Hardeman lawsuit.

According to California’s failure-to-warn law, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the product had known risks, that those risks were significant if used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable, that consumers would not have recognized those risks, that defendants failed to warn consumers of those risks, and that as a result, consumers were harmed.



Related Posts