French court rules Bayer not liable in landmark glyphosate birth defect case
Bayer, which produces the herbicide, said it acknowledged the court's decision, 'which did not find the company liable'.
Lawyers for the Grataloup family said: 'It is clearly a big disappointment for the Grataloup family and for us ... The case deserves to be submitted to the appeals court.'
The lawsuit was one of the first high-profile cases centring specifically on prenatal exposure to glyphosate and congenital malformations in a child.
Research has suggested prenatal exposure to glyphosate may affect babies' health at birth, but successful lawsuits have been rare. Bayer has said the product is safe for human use.
The German pharmaceutical and biotechnology group has paid around $10 billion to settle disputed claims in the United States that its weedkiller Roundup, based on glyphosate, causes cancer.
The European Union last renewed the approval of the use of glyphosate in 2023, through December 2033.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
8 hours ago
- Euronews
Pfizer earnings strong despite Trump's new 'up to 250%' tariff threat
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer reported better-than-expected quarterly results on Tuesday and improved its predictions for full-year profits, beating Wall Street expectations. The New York-based company reported second-quarter sales of $14.7 billion (€12.74bn) and earnings per share of $0.51 (€0.44). As of around 16.00 CEST, Pfizer shares were up over 4% at $24.58. "Our business is performing well and I'm pleased with the progress we achieved in the second quarter," chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. "We continue to be actively engaged with policymakers as we navigate a complicated and rapidly evolving geopolitical environment while also remaining focused on advancing our business," Bourla continued. This despite several policies announced by the current US administration that could hurt drugmakers. In May, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order whereby pharmaceutical companies would be compelled to lower prices based on a "Most Favored Nation" policy. The price-slashing scheme seeks to ban drug companies from selling products in the US at prices above those in other developed countries. In Europe, the comparison becomes complex, as a significant portion pharmaceutical costs are covered by national healthcare or insurance systems, lowering prices for consumers. Experts warned at the time that this could slash their US revenues and affect availability. Even so, the president doubled down on his plans, sending letters last week to 17 drugmakers, calling for concrete steps to cut prices by 29 September. That includes agreeing to provide their full portfolio of existing medicines at no higher than European prices to every single Medicaid patient. On Tuesday, in an interview with CNBC, he announced that tariffs for pharmaceuticals and semiconductors would be coming in "next week". 'We'll be putting an initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals, but in one year, one-and-a-half years, maximum, it's going to go to 150% and then it's going to go to 250% because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country," he told CNBC.
Euronews
3 days ago
- Euronews
How do mineral and chemical sunscreens affect our health?
Mineral sunscreens have gained in popularity in recent years, fueled by claims that they're gentler or safer than their chemical counterparts. But the real differences between the two types of sun protection are more technical than many consumers realise, making it easy to misunderstand what scientists know about their health effects. The differences between these sunscreens mainly come down to their active ingredients and how they block ultraviolet (UV) rays. Chemical sunscreens absorb UV radiation, converting it into heat and releasing it from the skin. Mineral sunscreens, sometimes called physical sunscreens, create a thin barrier that primarily reflects or scatters UV rays away from the skin. Even the terms 'mineral' and 'chemical' can be misleading, though, given all sunscreens use chemicals. Many mineral-based formulas also use other substances, called 'boosters,' to help the active ingredients work better. More accurate descriptors could be 'soluble' sunscreen filters – those that could permeate the skin – and 'insoluble' filters that could not do so, said Christian Surber, a dermatopharmacologist (someone who studies how drugs affect the skin) at the University of Zurich and the University of Basel. 'It's just the mechanism of action [of the filters] that is different,' he told Euronews Health. 'It can be absorption, and it can be scattering'. Euronews Health has chosen to use the terms that consumers are most likely to see when they shop for sunscreens. Sunscreen and health Concerns around how sunscreens affect our health are nothing new, prompting the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) to assess the safety of three non-mineral UV filters – oxybenzone, homosalate, and octocrylene – in 2021 over concerns that they may have endocrine-disrupting properties. The SCCS determined that homosalate and oxybenzone were not safe at the concentrations commonly used at the time, and that octocrylene was safe at a concentration up to 10 per cent – though it cautioned that the data was inconclusive. One analysis, for example, estimated that a person would have to apply sunscreen daily for 277 years to experience the same hormone-disrupting effects observed in rats that were fed oxybenzone in a lab. Even so, the European Commission issued new restrictions in 2022 to lower the amount of these filters allowed in sunscreens. 'We pretty much don't see them anymore on the market, because producers know that [they may] cause problems or will not be allowed anymore on the European market in a few years,' Laura Clays from Euroconsumers and the Belgian consumer protection group Test-Achats told Euronews Health. Beyond these potential risks, some people with sensitive skin prefer mineral sunscreens, which use ingredients like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, because they are less likely to cause skin irritation, Clays said. However, when her group ran consumer tests, several mineral-only formulas offered weaker SPF protection than their labels claimed, meaning 'the ones that contain only mineral filters do not protect you enough,' she said. Because the sunscreen does not absorb into the skin, people should make sure they are fully covered. That could be another challenge, according to Clays' tests: people tended to reapply mineral sunscreens less often, partly because they disliked the thin layer of white residue it left on their skin. But when used correctly, both chemical and mineral sunscreens are widely considered safe and effective by dermatologists and health authorities. 'In principle, all sunscreen filters have a safety profile that has been regulatory-wise assessed and deemed safe,' Surber said. Ultimately, skin experts agree: the best sunscreen is the one you will actually use on a regular basis. 'There's really no big difference, health-wise, between the two,' Clays said.
LeMonde
4 days ago
- LeMonde
France says it cannot save contraceptives US plans to destroy
France said Friday, August 1, it could not seize women's contraception products estimated to be worth $9.7 million that the United States plans to destroy, after media reported the stockpile would be incinerated in the country. The contraceptives – intended for some of the world's poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa – were purchased by the US foreign aid agency USAID under former president Joe Biden. But France's health ministry told Agence France-Presse Friday there was no legal way for it to intervene. The administration of Biden's successor Donald Trump, which has slashed USAID and pursued anti-abortion policies, confirmed last month it planned to destroy the contraceptives, which have been stored in a warehouse in the Belgian city of Geel. According to several media reports, the unexpired products were to be incinerated in France at the end of July by a company that specialises in destroying medical waste. France's government has come under pressure to save the contraceptives, with women's rights groups calling the US decision "insane." The health ministry told AFP that the government had "examined the courses of action available to us, but unfortunately there is no legal basis for intervention by a European health authority, let alone the French national drug safety authority, to recover these medical products. Since contraceptives are not drugs of major therapeutic interest, and in this case we are not facing a supply shortage, we have no means to requisition the stocks." The ministry also said it had no information on where the contraceptives would be destroyed. Leaving Belgian warehouse Sarah Durocher, head of the French women's rights group Family Planning, told AFP that some contraceptives had already left the Belgian warehouse. "We were informed 36 hours ago that the removal of these boxes of contraceptives had begun," Durocher said Thursday. "We do not know where these trucks are now – or whether they have arrived in France," she added. "We call on all incineration companies not to destroy the contraceptives and to oppose this insane decision." French company Veolia confirmed to AFP that it had a contract with the US firm Chemonics, USAID's logistics provider. But Veolia emphasized that the contract concerned "only the management of expired products, which is not the case for the stockpile" in Belgium. The products, mostly long-acting contraceptives such as IUDs and birth control implants, are reportedly up to five years away from expiring. Outrage over decision The US decision has provoked an outcry in France, where rights groups and left-wing politicians have called on their government to stop the plan. "France cannot allow itself to become the stage for such actions. A moratorium is necessary," wrote five NGOs in an op-ed in Le Monde, condemning the "absurdity" of the US decision. Among them was MSI Reproductive Choices, one of several organisations that have offered to purchase and repackage the contraceptives at no cost to the US government. All offers have been rejected. Last week, New Hampshire's Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen pointed to the Trump administration's stated goal of reducing government waste, saying the contraceptives plan "is the epitome of waste, fraud and abuse." A US State Department spokesperson told AFP earlier this week that the destruction of the products would cost $167,000 and "no HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed." The spokesperson pointed to a policy that prohibits providing aid to non-governmental organisations that perform or promote abortions. The Mexico City Policy, which critics call the "global gag rule," was first introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It has been reinstated under every Republican president since. Last month, the US also incinerated nearly 500 metric tons of high-nutrition biscuits that had been meant to keep malnourished children in Afghanistan and Pakistan alive.
