Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto Ordered To Pay $289 Million In Roundup Cancer Trial (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report from the BBC involving glyphosate, the world's most common weedkiller: Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289 million in 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 claimant in the case, groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, is among more than 5,000 similar plaintiffs across the US. Mr Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014. His lawyers said he regularly used a form of RangerPro while working at a school in Benicia, California. Jurors found on Friday that the company had acted with "malice" and that its weedkillers contributed "substantially" to Mr Johnson's terminal illness.
The claimant in the case, groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, is among more than 5,000 similar plaintiffs across the US. Mr Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014. His lawyers said he regularly used a form of RangerPro while working at a school in Benicia, California. Jurors found on Friday that the company had acted with "malice" and that its weedkillers contributed "substantially" to Mr Johnson's terminal illness.
Is that roundup doesn't cause cancer.
groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson,
I bet his case was rock-solid.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
290million is way beyond legal compensation. The appeal will bring it down to maybe a mill at most but would like to see what basis was used to claim it caused his cancer and if it even is valid to prove it was reason and not something else.
Please stop spreading disinformation everywhere. The problem isn't glyphosate, the problem is everything else that's put into Roundup. Monsanto goes around saying glyphosate is safe and waves a bunch of valid studies in your face. They are correct. Other people go around saying roundup is dangerous and wave a bunch of valid studies in your face. They too are correct. Then everyone fights and bitches at each other. Too bad people are arguing over two different things.
Basically A is claiming the sky is blue therefore the sky is blue. B is claiming the grass is green therefore the sky is green. So A ends up laughing at B every time A goes to the bank.
Stop saying glyphosate/roundup. Stop saying "glyphosate" or "containing glyphosate". The glyphosate doesn't matter and is only a distraction from the real issue. Stop being easily manipulated sheep, you don't even notice how many people are fucking you. Words matter so use the correct ones and pay attention to the ones other people use.
The payout wasn't to compensate the victim. It was to punish the company who suppressed information that the product was dangerous.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Shouldn't it first be scientifically, or at least statistically proven, that glyphosate can cause cancer
No. The courts should be accessible to everyone, even janitors. Nobody should have to wait for permission from scientists before seeking justice. It is not the janitor's fault that no conclusive research has been done, so why should he be denied his day in court?
Second-highest paid actor and now second-highest paid De?wayne Johnson.
Then why is it awarded to this one victim of a widely distributed herbicide?
The courts should have awarded it to medical care, cancer research, etc - or do they think they can award this to ever cancer sufferer who used roundup?
You are talking about the US and specifically California. Science and reality has no place in the courtroom.
Upon careful examination, I've discovered that the parent does not include any ad hominem attacks. This is no way to win an argument on the modern web!
The post also needs more false analogy, circular reasoning, and slippery slope conclusions!
Keep trying. You'll learn one day!
That's easy-it was in California. EVERYTHING in California causes cancer. EVERYTHING. Therefore, if someone says RoundUp gave them cancer, then in California it's an automatic win, because EVERYTHING in California causes cancer.
Perhaps you should name which specific chemical you're referring to, instead of saying 'everything else'. What else is in Roundup?
According to this source:
ethoxylated tallowamine (surfactant)
Related organic acids of glyphosate
Excess isopropylamine (chemical used to turn the glyphosate into a more stable salt form)
Furthermore, it was found by a toxicologist 30 years ago that Roundup's surfactant was contaminated with small amounts of 1,4-Dioxane, which is known to be carcinogenic in animals. However, it's less than clearly carcinogenic to humans. Furthermore, this is a frequent contaminant of chemicals ubiquitous in toothpaste and shampoo, which is arguably a larger problem than incidental Roundup exposure. Does roundup even still contain this contaminant? They may have improved their processes in the past 30 years, or use a different surfactant. There are other glyphosate formulations that use different surfactants/salt forms, so the only common ingredient would be glyphosate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html
The courts should have awarded it to medical care, cancer research, etc - or do they think they can award this to ever cancer sufferer who used roundup?
It's the court. They can do whatever they want within existing legislation. That includes ordering a company pay out of 289 million to a victim for killing him while covering up information that could have saved his life.
If an individual person did the exact same thing instead of a group of people behind a corporate veil, they would be convicted of murder and spend the rest of their life in prison.
Real justice would be liquidating the company and putting all board members and executives in prison.
Remember Roundup Ready seeds? Engineered to produce crops that would survive direct application of the herbicide. Farmers were coerced to use Roundup and also buy seed instead of saving or banking seed from a previous season. Adjacent fields were affected by Roundup and pollen that drifted on the wind. https://www.sourcewatch.org/in... .
Exactly. Apparently this guy was constantly working with 50 pound bags of the stuff every day or whatever. Breathing in the dust all time, having it on his skin dissolved in sweat all the time, etc. That's very different from the tiny amount of residue a typical person might be exposed to.
Sunlight increases cancer risk (and has health benefits), the human body naturally produces formaldehyde, a carcinogen. All the other things make your exposure and my exposure to Roundup statistical noise, insignificant compared to other things. The plaintiff here had a million times as much exposure than average people do, it seems. That could very well make a difference.
I swear the autism level here is worse than 4chan.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I wonder how long it will be before we get that "perfect storm" team. Let's say, for the sake of argument, a guy with Special Forces training, a phishing expert, and somebody with a lot of money. Let's say all of them are suffering from terminal diseases everybody, including Monsanto's team of lawyers, know were caused by Monsanto products. And when they meet up at some kind of "accept your mortality" workshop, they decide no cost is too high, if the end result is the Monsanto board of directors kicking away their lives at the end of a rope.
Sooner or later, as the environment steadily degrades, we're going to get to the point where the people who made it happen, or their descendants, are going to be held accountable. No doubt there's a fun-filled action adventure movie to be made out of such a story...or maybe a few headlines.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Did not Bayer just acquire Monsanto for 66 Billion ? That amount should just about cover the damages that are going to be discovered. This cover up is going to make Mesothelioma look like a common cold. Bayer knew long ago that Round-Up was malignant and caused a wide variety of issues, up to and including Colony Collapse Disorder, or the disappearing Bee issue felt around the world.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
What tosh. Accessibility has nothing to do with whether the case has merit.
But it's more worrying that you believe facts should not be required in a court of law.
From TFS:
a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers
That's all that matters.
And that information was presented to the jury via the lawyers and this was why they came to the result they did. Why would YOU come to such a conclusion? Because you're venal and a liar? Well, don't project that onto others because you didn't read the fucking article.
It has been scientifically proven through Monsantos own documents which is how they lost in court.
The EU has already banned it and here is a citation: https://www.scientificamerican...
http://saveie6.com/
From some reading I did two years ago, Monsanto is Very Careful to state that _glyphosphate_ has been tested for toxicity in harvested agricultural products and has at most a very weak link to cancer in some test animals.
That said, the other ingredients in the Roundup product which are intended to optimize its effects are a closely held secret, and (as of my reading two years ago) no entity, scientific or government regulatory agency has been able to study their health effects properly.
So _glyphosphate_ is reported by its manufacturer to be safe for its intended application, and leave the question about Roundup unanswered. Given the known behavior patterns of corporate managers throughout history, they are probably telling half the truth and making sure it's impossible to know the whole truth, whatever it may be.
Here is a citation that shows glyphosates are toxic and should go NOWHERE NEAR are food: https://www.scientificamerican...
http://saveie6.com/
Even vague and generalized research implications of cancer for a product that every homeowner uses successfully on his lawn are worth a huge amount of money, while Nicholas White, the New Yorker who, riding an elevator to work on a Friday evening, was stuck there for an entire weekend, got nothing but his legal expenses back after a 4-year struggle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/video...
If only it had been a Monsanto elevator.
Thanks. I didn't know if it was mixed with water after sale in commercial / large applications. You can tell I'm not a farmer.
You mention "the applicators are designed to". I use some stuff that is sprayed and then the droplets harden. I the end up sorting them by size. to spraying process produces mostly droplets in the size range it's designed to, and fewer that are much larger or much smaller. I'm also reminded of the sprayer on the end of my garden hose, which mostly produces a stream of very large drops, and also produces a mist around the sprayer which cools me off on a hot day. I wonder if the sprayer he used was similar - producing MOSTLY drops in the size range it designed to favor.
Yeah, sure thing. No possible way those 'studies' could be falsified, or cherrypicked, and no way they could be supressing studies that don't support their narrative, because after all it's only a measly BILLIONS OF DOLLARS that are at stake for them, why would they POSSIBLY BE LYING!? Because Monsanto is just such a wonderful advocate for humanity!
Also, yeah sure the entire EU is smoking crack and that's why they've banned glyphosate.
How much is Monsanto paying you to astroturf, by the way? Where do I apply? I could use some extra income.</sarcasm>
I'm paying attention to your words but there is no content in them. You tell us we are ignoring the real issue and conveniently never go over what that issue is.
More smoke and mirrors than Justin Timberlake collaborating with Snoop Dogg.
The link is the same link you find between water and cancer: some people who use it also happen to get cancer. Idiots think that this is somehow significant.
This guy basically covered himself in the stuff regularly. You HAVE to read the labels and wear appropriate gear. Sounds to me like it was mostly his own fault. I do feel bad for the man but common sense needs to be used. MILLIONS of people use this stuff with no issues at all.
It has been scientifically proven through Monsantos own documents which is how they lost in court.
No, it hasn't.
The EU has already banned it
No, it hasn't. Last november the EU renewed the glyphosate license for 5 more years. You're just making shit up.
and here is a citation: https://www.scientificamerican...
That "citation" is a crappy article about some idiots who - when they couldn't prove that glyphosate itself was dangerous - instead tested one of the additives. That additive is essentially soap.
That's right, these utter morons put soap on a bunch of cells in a Petri dish and then yelled "OMG this shit kills cells in a Petri dish!"
Yes, we know that soap kills cells in a Petri dish. We've known that for a long, long time. It tells us absolutely nothing about the safety of glyphosate, or of roundup.
Did you even read the GP?
He's explicitlysaying that Round-up is cancerous, it's just it's not the active ingredient, glyphosate, that's causing the cancer:
The first sentence I quote BTW is the second sentence of the OP. The first is just a call not to spread disinformation, and the rest of the comment implies that this is because it lets Monsanto off the hook to concentrate on the non-cancerous part of Round-up and ignore that it's Round-up, not the active ingredient, that's the problem here.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
False comparison. Nobody can to do a controlled trial with water, but they can for glyphosate. If the glyphosate group had higher incidence of cancer than the control group, then it's valid to say there's a potential link between the two.
> Insecticide sprayers use very high pressure and tiny nozzles, because they need the mist to reach the underside of the leaves, where bugs are more likely to be.
Interesting. Makes sense. I read that the mosquitoes are probably hanging out on the bottom of the leaves in my hedges, but I wasn't sure how to get a good spray there. A high-pressure mist makes sense.
I once bought a canister of oxygen for doing some plumbing work. While hooking it up I noticed warning label stating that the contents were known to cause cancer in the state of California. If oxygen can cause cancer, than anything can cause cancer.
The British Medical Journal, the Lancet.
https://www.thelancet.com/jour...
It would be valid, yes. But since no such link has been demonstrated, my comparison is entirely valid.
It was introduced in 1974, but its popularity really took off in the 1980s. Interestingly, cancer incidence in the United States has been on a steady climb in the U.S. since about 1980. That increased incidence could entirely be a side effect of better detection, or Monsanto could be responsible for one of the biggest public health crises in our nation's history, or anything in between.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
glyphosate is likely not something you're going to want as a seasoning on your food but...
On the contrary. According to Monsanto spokesperson Patrick Moore, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...>"You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you"
Possibly claims like this didn't help them in the lawsuit.