Who's on First? Well, WHO, of Course, and Greedy Trial Lawyers Who Are Smiling with the Biggest Grins Imaginable!

Guest Post by Bonner Cohen, Ph. D. of CFact.

In a move that will boost the spirits of trial lawyers and climate activists the world over, a branch of the United Nations-affiliated World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified “automotive gasoline and some oxygenated gasoline additives” as Group 1 “carcinogenic” compounds.

The agency is taking action as the Trump administration reverses Biden-era plans to phase out the production of gas-powered cars and trucks in favor of electric vehicles amid slumping sales of EVs in the U.S. and Europe. With regulatory actions against fossil fuels in the name of combating climate change losing steam, the research agency’s designation promises to open a new line of attack for green energy advocates, this one in the courtroom.

Greedy trial lawyers are celebrating!

Based in Lyon, France, the International Agency for Research on Cancer is tasked by the WHO to investigate the causes of cancer. It conducts hazard evaluations and publishes its findings in The Monographs. For decades, the agency’s evaluations, assembled by its monograph working groups, have served as the basis for litigation against whatever party or parties are deemed responsible for producing the substance designated as carcinogenic.

“Earlier IACR evaluations of the active ingredient in the pesticide Roundup (glyphosate), the active ingredient in the pharmaceutical drug Actos (pioglitazone), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and benzene either spurred or rekindled personal injury litigation surrounding those compounds,” notes a recent analysis by the Washington Legal Foundation.

Once a substance has been listed by the research agency as a carcinogen, it is fair game for personal injury litigants. The agency’s findings on gasoline, a fossil fuel long targeted for its alleged role in climate change, will be no exception.

One promising venue for launching lawsuits is California’s Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Chemical Enforcement Act of 1986. The law targets chemicals “known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals.”

“In addition to inciting personal injury litigation,” the Washington Legal Foundation analysis points out, “an IACR classification of ‘carcinogenic’ (Group 1) or ‘probably carcinogenic’ (Group 2A) results in automatic listing as carcinogenic under California’s Proposition 65 law. Under Proposition 65, bounties are available to private citizens or organizations who bring lawsuits claiming products containing levels of listed carcinogens that exceed the state’s safe harbor level. These Proposition 65 lawsuits have been brought alleging undisclosed carcinogens in coffee and French fries.”

How good is the science underpinning the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s carcinogenic findings? Historically, the Environmental Protection Agency was not shy about imposing regulations based on dubious science and refused to accept the agency’s evaluation of the pesticide Roundup, saying the data was substandard. Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found the agency’s data supporting its classification of the food sweetener Aspartame as carcinogenic, lacking scientific rigor.

“Additionally,” the Washington Legal Foundation analysis points out, “interested parties should be aware that an IARC evaluation is a ‘closed’ analysis — no peer review or public comment is permitted, and no transcript is kept of the meeting or its deliberations. Because IARC is shrouded in secrecy, exposing flaws in its process can be difficult [after the fact].”

None of this will likely dissuade plaintiffs from using the International Agency for Research on Cancer to shake down gasoline producers for personal gain, in connection with climate litigation, or both. The agency’s shaky scientific credentials may ultimately doom such cases in court, but not before vast sums have been wasted clogging up the court system.

The research agency’s action underscores the importance of President Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, a step he undertook on the first day of his second term. President Trump, disgusted with the WHO’s performance during the COVID-19 crisis, pulled the U.S. out of the organization at the end of his first term, only to have the U.S. rejoin it during the Biden administration.

In explaining his second withdrawal, President Trump cited the same reasons he gave for his first pullout, namely, “the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate influence of WHO member states.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a creature of the WHO, embodies its parent organization’s scientific pretensions and political arrogance. Its classification of gasoline as a carcinogen should be taken into account.

Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior policy advisor at National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

#BonnerCohen #TrlalLawyers #Trump #Gasoline #CancerResearch #WHO @CFACT