Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jury Finds Bayer's Roundup Weedkiller Caused Man's Cancer (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cause-and-effect dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Shares in Germany's Bayer's fell more than 12 percent on Wednesday after a second U.S. jury ruled its Roundup weed killer caused cancer. Tuesday's unanimous jury decision in San Francisco federal court was not a finding of Bayer's liability for the cancer of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman. Liability and damages will be decided by the same jury in a second trial phase beginning on Wednesday. Bayer, which denies allegations that glyphosate or Roundup cause cancer, said it was disappointed with the jury's initial decision. Bayer acquired Monsanto, the longtime maker of Roundup, for $63 billion last year. The case was only the second of some 11,200 Roundup lawsuits to go to trial in the United States. Another California man was awarded $289 million in August after a state court jury found Roundup caused his cancer. That award was later reduced to $78 million and is on appeal.

Bayer had claimed that jury was overly influenced by plaintiffs' lawyers allegations of corporate misconduct and did not focus on the science. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called such evidence "a distraction" from the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. He split the Hardeman case into two phases: one to decide causation, the other to determine Bayer's potential liability and damages. Under Chhabria's order, the second phase would only take place if the jury found Roundup to be a substantial factor in causing Hardeman's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The jury found that it was on Tuesday.

14 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Science Disagrees... by moehoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict. This is insane. We have "votes" on climate change, and a "jury of your peers" to decide on medical and biological science.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Science Disagrees... by DogDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict.

      How do you know? Did you read articles that I didn't?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Science Disagrees... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, a jury found OJ not guilty. Don't sweat it.

      For what it's worth, most studies on Roundup were concerned with the level of exposure that consumers encounter. This is a bit different - these are agricultural workers with much heavier and different types of exposure. the typical consumer probably isn't breathing the stuff day in and day out.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Science Disagrees... by sycodon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Prove a negative?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Science Disagrees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      How do you know? Did you read articles that I didn't?

      He's probably American. In the US, science and logic has no place in the courtroom. It's just a drama room, where the most dramatic wins.

    5. Re:Science Disagrees... by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The bigger problem (as far as keeping people and corporations on best behavior) is that something can kill thousands, but still be almost impossible to prove.

      If round up increased one's risk of cancer by 50%, it'd still be nearly impossible to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that any given case of cancer was caused by it (in fact, even if it was responsible for 30% of all cancer, it most likely wouldn't be responsible for any given case).

      It's hard to prove a specific case of cancer was caused by anything since it can kind of happen anyway.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Science Disagrees... by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and "electoral colleges" to decide election results.

      How should the states vote for the president of their union? Should the federal senators and house representatives vote between the candidates? Should the governors of the states vote? Don't tell me the citizens should vote, because then there's not much reason for having individual states in a federated union.

      IF you ditch the electoral college, then you are right, the states really don't matter. Sadly that's NOT how this system was supposed to work, the states are a unique part of the division of power, or they used to be.

      IMHO we are rapidly departing from our founding principles to our peril because folks somehow think states don't mater or the division of power between the states and the people isn't being respected. Someday, we will look back and realize the genius of our founders, but most folks don't understand how the system was designed because we've not taught basic civics for more than a generation now.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re: Science Disagrees... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bagehot was referring to the original intent, which was pretty much discarded, and because the constitution remained largely silent on the functioning of the College, it ended up being decided by the states. The intent was a deliberative body, what was practiced in short order was little more than a pretense, and now really is just a sham. If it is the states that select the President, then why not just have each legislature make the pick, and get rid of the college entire?

      The whole point of the EC was to create a check on the popular vote. The College could, at its discretion, pick any of the available candidates. And, as I said elsewhere, the whole notion of the Faithless Elector, which is how the states try to guarantee an Elector votes for who they pledge, is probably unconstitutional, so what we have is a failed deliberative body that's little more than a part of the party machine.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Was it a jury of scientists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't care what a jury of Jerry Springer-watching automatons find about scientific subjects.

  3. Re: Put your hand out, let's experiment on you fag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Hurr durr go drink some vaccines and don't get teh autism's!!!!

  4. There have to be criminal charges. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    " GP is 100% right that these are ultimately paid for by the rest of us " = Monsanto does not get my money. I do not use ANY of their products or derivatives. If you paid them, you deserve their cancers.

    The fact that it's very, very, very difficult to prove cancers are caused by specific exposures and to sue to get compensation results in the large payouts, because the company responsible has KNOWN they are and CONTINUED this.

  5. Somebody on the linked /. story made a good point by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    roundup has other things besides glysophate in it, and it's likely those are the cancer causing compounds. e.g. Bayer is using glysophate as a red herring to get out of paying.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. Juries are stupid by mpercy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Juries are often filled with anti-corporate types who want to stick it to the man regardless of reality.

    Might Roundup be carcinogenic? Sure. Did a guy who used it in his lawncare regime get exposed enough to *cause* his *particular* cancer? I hugely doubt it.

    I mean, unless he filled his pool with it an swam around in it for a few days...the level of exposure with proper use is pretty much zero.

  7. Re:Science says "moehard" is a dumb faggot by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. "

    In other words, don't drink the stuff, and it's less carcinogenic than sunlight, diesel, or your computer screen.

    You really are doing more harm than good by trying to get glyphosate banned. It will be replaced by something more toxic and probably patent encumbered.

    Don't like Monsanto? Fine, no one will blame you for that, just buy your glyphosate from another source (they only own the Roundup trademark).

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife