Monsanto ordered to pay $289m damages in Roundup cancer trial

[Confounding]

It could be bad news for Monsanto if other people start suing.

Monsanto told to pay $289m in cancer trial

Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.

In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers.

It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.

Monsanto denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says it intends to appeal against the ruling.

"The jury got it wrong," vice-president Scott Partridge said outside the courthouse in San Francisco.

 

[rightwinger]

Big money in Roundup

This will be appealed for years

 

[mudwhistle]

Big money in Roundup

This will be appealed for years

Anything that works is going to get attacked by fruits and nuts in CA.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It could be bad news for Monsanto if other people start suing.

Monsanto told to pay $289m in cancer trial

Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.

In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers.

It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.

Monsanto denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says it intends to appeal against the ruling.

"The jury got it wrong," vice-president Scott Partridge said outside the courthouse in San Francisco.

The jury did get it wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the doses to which this man was exposed cause cancer. Britain is getting pretty notorious for its affection for woo woo nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It could be bad news for Monsanto if other people start suing.

Monsanto told to pay $289m in cancer trial

Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.

In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers.

It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.

Monsanto denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says it intends to appeal against the ruling.

"The jury got it wrong," vice-president Scott Partridge said outside the courthouse in San Francisco.

Glyphosate is the world's most common weedkiller and the science about its safety is still far from settled.

Far from settled? Hardly.

 

[gipper]

It could be bad news for Monsanto if other people start suing.

Monsanto told to pay $289m in cancer trial

Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.

In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers.

It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.

Monsanto denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says it intends to appeal against the ruling.

"The jury got it wrong," vice-president Scott Partridge said outside the courthouse in San Francisco.

The jury did get it wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the doses to which this man was exposed cause cancer. Britain is getting pretty notorious for its affection for woo woo nonsense.

Monsanto is a big donor to big government politicians. They are the poster boy for the Mafia like racket that is our central government. As such, they are protected. They can murder and sicken thousands of Americans and get away with it. It is the American Way after all.

Our criminal government protects big corps, while failing to protect the American people. Nothing new here.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In b4 ambulance-chaser lawyers are on TV saying: "Have you or a loved one died from cancer after using Roundup?" If so, call..

How you gonna call if you're dead?

Guess I better get that good stuff ordered up quick. I'll buy moar to sell to people after they ban it.




Like with DDT and Dursban.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Farmers use Roundup for years at much higher quantities. I'd be curious to see the cancer rates amongst them.

 

[Silhouette]

Farmers use Roundup for years at much higher quantities. I'd be curious to see the cancer rates amongst them.

I've seen a gang of illegals spraying gallons and gallons of the stuff from backpacks, no masks, "mists" of Roundup all in the air around them on undergrowth sprouting up in clearcut logging sites, just before they replant, so the young trees can grow up through the (dead) brush. Luckily I was at enough distance to not be exposed myself, but wow was I sad for those guys. They can't complain because if they do, they're deported (yes snowflakes, there's an ugly side to your letting in illegals: it's called "slavery").

That was about 9 years ago. Probably half of them have cancer by now. They were in their mid-20s to mid-30s, all of them. They can't sue either. But farmers and other legal residents can. How they get away with it is big timber land owners subcontract to "gypo" logging crews. These are private crews who then hire out cheapest labor they can get. Since the locations are remote and shifting nebulously (via agreement with the timberland owners and the Gypo owners), no ICE raids are possible. So they employ illegals liberally.

In a crew of some 30 men working this clear cut, not one was white. All looked and dressed like they were straight out of Mexico. Only the foreman, another mean-looking badass Mexican spoke English and Spanish. I marveled at how the scene looked straight out of the 1800s in the deep south. All that was missing was the foreman mounted on a Tennessee Walking Horse with a bullwhip.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Farmers use Roundup for years at much higher quantities. I'd be curious to see the cancer rates amongst them.

Not aware of any cancer around here
And we have the largest sugar beet factory in America

 

[Nosmo King]

Big money in Roundup

This will be appealed for years

Anything that works is going to get attacked by fruits and nuts in CA.

So even the justice available through the courts is to be eschewed in pursuit of profit? Where are people to go for justice if not the court? You hate unions, you hate protests. Where can people find justice?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It could be bad news for Monsanto if other people start suing.

Monsanto told to pay $289m in cancer trial

Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.

In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers.

It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.

Monsanto denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says it intends to appeal against the ruling.

"The jury got it wrong," vice-president Scott Partridge said outside the courthouse in San Francisco.

The jury did get it wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the doses to which this man was exposed cause cancer. Britain is getting pretty notorious for its affection for woo woo nonsense.

Monsanto is a big donor to big government politicians. They are the poster boy for the Mafia like racket that is our central government. As such, they are protected. They can murder and sicken thousands of Americans and get away with it. It is the American Way after all.

Our criminal government protects big corps, while failing to protect the American people. Nothing new here.

That's nice. If you are proposing that their patents become public domain,to undercut their power, I am open to this suggestion. However, what you just said has no bearing on the safety of glyphosate, or lack thereof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So even the justice available through the courts is to be eschewed in pursuit of profit?

But, in this case, a group of ignorant people passed down a verdict at odds with the empirical evidence. Is that truly justice?

 

[Nosmo King]

So even the justice available through the courts is to be eschewed in pursuit of profit?

But, in this case, a group of ignorant people passed down a verdict at odds with the empirical evidence. Is that truly justice?

The prosecution laid out a case. The defense laid out a case.

Are you saying the jury was too stupid to understand, or did the defense fail to make their case?

Since you clearly side with the defense, are you blaming jurors while excusing the effectiveness of the defense team?

This is how justice is meted out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you saying the jury was too stupid to understand,

Not necessarily. Too ignorant? Definitely.

I side with an idea, not with a group of people. And that idea is that there is not a shred of evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in the doses to which humans are exposed.

"And this is how justice is meted out"

Correct... By the judgment of a judge, or a consensus of a small group of jurors. But this is NOT how scientific knowledge is meted out, and sometimes these two processes are at odds with each other and reach different conclusions. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand which is the better way of deciding the truth of complicated, scientific ideas.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are you saying the jury was too stupid to understand,

Not necessarily. Too ignorant? Definitely.

I side with an idea, not with a group of people. And that idea is that there is not a shred of evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in the doses to which humans are exposed.

"And this is how justice is meted out"

Correct... By the judgment of a judge, or a consensus of a small group of jurors. But this is NOT how scientific knowledge is meted out, and sometimes these two processes are at odds with each other and reach different conclusions. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand which is the better way of deciding the truth of complicated, scientific ideas.

Should we then take it as truth that tobacco is not a harmful substance because the studies by the tobacco industry says so? Should we take it as true that lead is harmless because studies conducted by those who refine, use and distribute lead containing products say so?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Should we then take it as truth that tobacco is not a harmful substance because the studies by the tobacco industry says so?

No, you should consider all of the evidence. And you would be incorrect to say that the only studies done on glyphosate are done by employees of Monsanto. So that is not a good comparison.

 

[Nosmo King]

Should we then take it as truth that tobacco is not a harmful substance because the studies by the tobacco industry says so?

No, you should consider all of the evidence. And you would be incorrect to say that the only studies done on glyphosate are done by employees of Monsanto. So that is not a good comparison.

Was all the evidence presented by the defense?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Should we then take it as truth that tobacco is not a harmful substance because the studies by the tobacco industry says so?

No, you should consider all of the evidence. And you would be incorrect to say that the only studies done on glyphosate are done by employees of Monsanto. So that is not a good comparison.

Was all the evidence presented by the defense?

I don't know. I imagine they tried to demonstrate that there is no good evidence that glyphosate causes cancers, in the levels to which we are exposed.

 

[Nosmo King]

Should we then take it as truth that tobacco is not a harmful substance because the studies by the tobacco industry says so?

No, you should consider all of the evidence. And you would be incorrect to say that the only studies done on glyphosate are done by employees of Monsanto. So that is not a good comparison.

Was all the evidence presented by the defense?

I don't know. I imagine they tried to demonstrate that there is no good evidence that glyphosate causes cancers, in the levels to which we are exposed.

So, instead,of blaming jurors, why not blame the defense?