ウィリアム・シャブ名誉裁判所判事へ：

ラウンドアップとグリホサート除草剤に関するガンの警告を防ぐための最近の判決に反対することを表明するために書いています。我々は気づく あなたの裁定 利用可能な科学に基づいて根拠がなく、危険であり、司法制度にとって恥ずべきことである。正義は提供されず、私たちは母親として、家族の安全が危険にさらされ続けることに憤慨しています。グリホサートベースの除草剤の使用に毎日苦しんでいる子供、父親、母親、友人がいます。グリホサート系除草剤がガンを引き起こす可能性があるという警告がないため、孫が高校を卒業するのを見たり、結婚するのを見たりすることのない愛する人を失いました。 

We have scientists and physicians ready to go to court with an appeal regarding your unfounded decision.  Especially during this time of an American crisis, is this the best time to have ruled as you did?  What motivated you to promote this ruling when we are faced with many other critical health and immune system issues?  The question that is brought to mind is whether this was an attempt to do industry’s bidding when the rest of the nation is busy and distracted combating a deadly virus and civil unrest.  Your action is shameful.

We find your ruling unfounded and we would like to know which studies you based your decision upon?

The fact is that the opposition claiming that the EPA has found glyphosate to not be carcinogenic is irrelevant.

Did you consider this evidence?

“How did the U.S. EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?”, Environmental Sciences Europe, 1月 15, 2019, DOI: 10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7

The EPA, as you will see in this article based on Hygeia Analytics paper, completely ignored 67 studies that the International Agency for Research on Cancer reviewed when they found glyphosate herbicides do cause cancer in animals and probably causes cancer in humans. Therefore, the EPA's opinion about glyphosate is irrelevant and not based on available science and therefore should not have been a part of the court's decision-making process. Nor should any studies submitted by Monsanto/Bayer, who has been found to ghostwrite their studies.

In addition, you may have considered Monsanto/Bayer's claim that glyphosate does not cause cancer without considering that glyphosate is never used alone. Glyphosate herbicides contain many toxic and cancer causing adjuvants and therefore not labeling the final product is a dangerous decision and leaves the public uniformed about the reality of the product.

To not require a warning label that glyphosate based herbicides could cause cancer is a dangerous ruling for animals, pets, and humans. Over 50 percent of our beloved pets are expected to get cancer and die too soon, suffering too much. It was not like this 30 years ago.  1 out of 2 males and 1 out of 3 females are expected to get cancer in America today. When faced with a product that could increase those numbers, why did you not choose to support a ruling which would help to decrease those numbers, those precious lives of our loved ones? Why should you not be held personally responsible for future cancer cases related to glyphosate-based herbicides in California? Your decision will resonate across the country, and therefore your decision is an affront to health in California and future generations of America.

We ask you to retract this decision or step aside and not get in the way of an appeal. We also ask you to direct us to the studies that you used to make this decision. We will follow up with you within 1 week, 7月 1, regarding this information.

Thank you.
 
--
 
Zen Honeycutt, Founding Executive Director, Moms Across America, Author, UNSTOPPABLE
Lawren Pulse, Ayurvedic Practitioner, Board President Moms Across America
Dr. Sina McCollough, Nutritionist, Co- Author of Beyond Labels, Board Secretary, Moms Across America
Natalie Paffrath RN., Board Treasurer,  Moms Across America
Dr. Michelle Perro, Executive Director, GMOScience.org and Co-Author, What’s Making our Children Sick?

Take action and send letter and/or call Judge Shubb.