Roundup (cancer causing substance) cases underway

[dan d]

For halloween im gonna wear a trumpsanto costume,it will only scare poor people. Lol
Aloha

Dan D
HPP

[glinda]

Thankfully, predictably, another jury found Monsanto/Bayer guilty for pedaling a product that causes cancer.

From... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer...SKCN1R02O3

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.

Bayer shares were 12.5 percent lower at 1110 GMT, the biggest intraday loss in 16 years, wiping some 8 billion euros ($9.1 billion) off its valuation.

“This looks like 2-0 plaintiffs, and clearly not helpful for the overall payout calculus and resolution of the litigation,” said Bernstein analyst Gunther Zechmann.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used weed killer. Monsanto’s Roundup was the first glyphosate-based weed killer but is no longer patent-protected and many other versions are now available. Bayer does not provide sales figures for the product.

“We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto’s conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman’s cancer,” the company said.

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.

Any bets on how Bayer will fair in the next cases? Any bet on how long before we change our approach to weed control? Before we no longer have to deal with all that 'Roundup Ready' crap in our food supply?

[ElysianWort]

You know, I know and many others do too Glinda.

But of course there will always be deniers, and stubborn fools (you know who you are) (and if you don't know them, you soon will if you just read the responses to this, or just scroll back some 25 pages of this thread). And there are the type like bananahead that devotes there life to it's use in killing invasives and would have to rethink their whole existence if they were to accept the harsh new enlightening facts about their beloved Roundup.

Then there will be the types like P.W. who simply enjoy arguing and negativity.

And of course there will be the scientists that keep saying give me more proof and pretend not enough is given, or the web site is bunk, or the experimental data wasn't relevant or whatever such horsrcrap.

[PaulW]

I’ll bet that truth and science will ultimately prevail.

[MarkP]

What new facts? What's new is the verdict which is an interpretation by a limited number of people.

[ElysianWort]

The fact that screams the loudest besides all the other information, (and there's so much information online and in this thread) MarkP, is that now, two juries of peers, in enormous and monumental cases vs the best lawyers that Bayer could buy, 2 juries have determined that this product is indeed the cause of cancer and illness that the defendants are suffering from. That is a new FACT MarkP.

I can already hear many of you saying: "but you don't know what really caused the defendants non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He or she could have made a myriad of other poor choices that caused it." Maybe, but you weren't there on that jury! And you weren't presented with all the data and facts that the plaintiffs provided. Just sitting back and speculating and arguing just for the stubborn case of bickering.


For those of you that don't want to change, I suggest you don't change. Make yourself feel better. Go on ahead and make your choices and deny and spray away.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

2 juries have determined that this product is indeed the cause of cancer and illness that the defendants are suffering from. That is a new FACT

I am also convinced Roundup caused the defendant’s illness.


I can already hear many of you saying: "but you don't know what really caused the defendants non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He or she could have made a myriad of other poor choices that caused it.

It’s doubtful it was a myriad of unknown factors, rather one and only one cause. The defendant poured Roundup, full strength, on himself. At least twice.


make your choices... and spray away.

I plan to, while following the directions on the label.

[glinda]

quote:

---

make your choices... and spray away.

I plan to, while following the directions on the label.

---

Ah and therein lies the rub.

You may safely use Roundup without incident. But having had an accident with the stuff myself I am able to say they happen. But be that as it may, imo our personal use is not the issue as much as the broad exposure we are all subjected to.

Earlier in this thread some suggested we could avoid exposure by limiting our food consumption. I think it was pointed out how limited one's choices would be if they followed that to it conclusion. Enough so as to not be a tenable solution.

I see someone suggesting that ultimately science will decide Roundup's fate. I agree.. and suspect the juries in those trials did too. Maybe not to a point of absolute irrefutable but enough so that they came to the conclusions they did.

Right now Monsanto/Bayer is batting 0 for 2. How many more strikes will it take before they are called out? Before the science is considered irrefutable? Before the court of public opinion turns on them?

[MarkP]

Juries reaching verdicts and courts of public opinion are different than science. Any number of jury verdicts would still say nothing about the science. Your point is valid about the court of public opinion but leave the science out of it if you are not going to address it honestly.

I have been on a couple of juries. Holy crap, the idea of those juries realistically dealing with science is frightening.

[glinda]

the idea of those juries realistically dealing with science is frightening.

Would that be the plaintive's or the defense's version of science?

My point is that science itself often leaves a lot of wiggle room and only gets settled when tried, as is the science of glyphosate, repeatedly, until the same conclusion is reached over and over again.

People bias facts to reach the conclusions they want. Lots of contact with glyphosate and lots of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Is one the cause of the other? It seems kind of like it to me. But hey I also think CO2 and the warming of the atmosphere is a no brainer, but folks will argue that one until we all are screwed, settle science or not. Right?