Roundup Settlement
 

I just read were a jury awarded $289 million in damages from cancer a groundskeeper
contacted using a form of Roundup.
I haven't been a Monsanto lover since they sued (and won) a farmer for replanting soybeans he bought at a grain elevator, some of which were roundup ready beans.
How can you still own a seed after it's been planted, harvested and sold?
Sometime KARMA takes time.

Problem is, this was a local county court in San Francisco where similar rulings have routinely been struck down by State and Federal courts. The jury was hand picked by the local environmental activists. To date no compensation has ever been paid on Round-Up lawsuits.

This is not a defense by me of Monsanto. I also hate the tactics they have used, but I do admit I use Round-Up occasionally if absolutely the last resort. For me, it is the least vile of herbicides. As with all chemicals, use sparingly and follow the instructions for use on the label.

[QUOTE=PaulF;711277]The jury was hand picked by the local environmental activists. [/QUOTE]




[SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond][B]That's not how jury selection works.
[/B][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond][B]I have no idea why you'd make such a blatantly erroneous statement.
[/B][/FONT][/SIZE]

It is strange a jury can be picked by one side in a case. If Monsanto were part of the case one would think they also had a say in the jury.

The problem with Round Up isn't selective use. The problem is the vast use.

[QUOTE=Koala Doug;711313][SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond][B]That's not how jury selection works.
[/B][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond][B]I have no idea why you'd make such a blatantly erroneous statement.
[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

People Good, Monsanto Evil

[QUOTE=zeuspaul;711323]It is strange a jury can be picked by one side in a case. If Monsanto were part of the case one would think they also had a say in the jury.

The problem with Round Up isn't selective use. The problem is the vast use.[/QUOTE]
The problem is GMO corn/beans have been fed to the pork and beef we have been eating for thirty years...
Here in Macoupin County, IL... I watched it happen.

I agree with you PMC, there are vast implications in the food chain. The whole Roundup-ready genetics is intended so that the crops can be sprayed with it any time and multiple times during the season. There is definitely residue on human food as well as fodder for animals.


This is just another nail in the coffin of chemical ag, to me. And reinforces my feelings about growing and eating organic. It's just too bad that I can't always afford or access the higher quality products that I don't produce myself. Bottom line, we all have some exposure, nobody knows how the various pesticides and herbicides interact out in the field and once they're consumed as residues. So I will continue on with my personal feeling, that is to keep that intake as small as I can and support alternatives to chemical ag in any way I can.


I am so thrilled to see even fast food chains are turning to no-chem, no-fake ingredients and putting it out there in their advertising... you'd have to be an idiot not to know there's a giant market share out there for uncontaminated food!



As regards the trial verdict, of course it will be appealed. However one important thing happened during this trial, which is that internal documents from Monsanto released in the discovery have become open to the public view. Those documents make it very clear that the "science" supporting safety was not really meeting scientific standards, it was edited for publication to support the company agenda. The dishonesty of Monsanto and fostering corruption in science is frankly more disgusting even than their products./puke

Here is a link to the story


[URL]https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Monsanto-case-Bay-Area-man-with-cancer-awarded-13147891.php#photo-8081477[/URL]


A few things I find noteworthy :)
They say this is the first trial against Monsanto regarding Roundup damages;


"The first trial on whether the world’s most widely used herbicide causes cancer came to an explosive ending Friday — a San Francisco jury’s award of $289 million in damages to a man diagnosed with a lethal illness while spraying school grounds with a weed-killer manufactured by Monsanto Co."


"The verdict could be a forerunner for the 4,000 lawsuits that have been filed across the country by individuals who claim they were sickened by Roundup. Johnson’s case was the first to go to trial."


Of course Monsanto uses the Defense that the EPA says its safe but everyone knows the EPA is corrupt.


"The jury’s decision also amounted to a rebuke of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, [URL="https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Does-Roundup-cause-cancer-Patient-s-case-13061244.php?utm_campaign=sfgate&utm_source=article&utm_medium=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fbusiness%2Farticle%2FMonsanto-case-Bay-Area-man-with-cancer-awarded-13147891.php%23photo-8081477"]which has long classified glyphosate as safe [/URL]and has not restricted its use, despite an other agencies’ findings that the herbicide probably causes cancer."





My opinion is that as long as these cases stay in the hands of impartial juries and not corrupt public officials, government agencies and potentially corrupt judges, Monsanto will be paying out a lot of settlements and awards in the future regarding Roundup :yes:

[QUOTE=zeuspaul;711323]It is strange a jury can be picked by one side in a case. [/QUOTE]

Well....there's a little more to that. The [I]venue [/I]was certainly hand-picked. The plaintiff is the one who files the first court papers to sue, and can thus pick which court they go to, provided the court has jurisdiction. It certainly is no accident that this case was tried in San Francisco. I live not too far from Madison County, Illinois, which contains East St Louis, and has the most generous juries in the country for lawsuits against corporations. Lawyers will usually pick it over every other court in the nation if they are trying to win a big verdict against a big company.

When the jury is being selected, each side may make challenges to particular individuals to get them excluded for possible bias. Here is an article about that process, written by one lawyer to other lawyers:
[url]https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8e895c07-33ab-49df-8dba-ca090da98c9a[/url]

Without knowing the specifics of the case, I don't know how hard Monsanto fought the jury selection process. They may have just given up on finding anyone in San Francisco who does not have bias against them. From a tactical standpoint, Monsanto's legal resources are probably best used on appeal. They probably knew they were going to lose at trial court, and are are fully expecting a very large reduction of that jury's award when the verdict is appealed. The appeal will take time, and in all likelihood, the unfortunate plaintiff will die before he ever sees any of that money.

[QUOTE=Cole_Robbie;711401]Well....there's a little more to that. The [I]venue [/I]was certainly hand-picked. The plaintiff is the one who files the first court papers to sue, and can thus pick which court they go to, provided the court has jurisdiction. It certainly is no accident that this case was tried in San Francisco. I live not too far from Madison County, Illinois, which contains East St Louis, and has the most generous juries in the country for lawsuits against corporations. Lawyers will usually pick it over every other court in the nation if they are trying to win a big verdict against a big company.

When the jury is being selected, each side may make challenges to particular individuals to get them excluded for possible bias. Here is an article about that process, written by one lawyer to other lawyers:
[URL]https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8e895c07-33ab-49df-8dba-ca090da98c9a[/URL]

Without knowing the specifics of the case, I don't know how hard Monsanto fought the jury selection process. They may have just given up on finding anyone in San Francisco who does not have bias against them. From a tactical standpoint, Monsanto's legal resources are probably best used on appeal. They probably knew they were going to lose at trial court, and are are fully expecting a very large reduction of that jury's award when the verdict is appealed. The appeal will take time, and in all likelihood, the unfortunate plaintiff will die before he ever sees any of that money.[/QUOTE]


I am not so sure the court was hand picked. The plaintiff lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay area and the trial was held in San Francisco. It is certainly possible that it was handpicked within the San Francisco area, I don't know:?!?:

I guess it could be looked at as the [I]plaintiff [/I]being hand-picked, given that there are thousands of lawsuits for which the legal team who represented this plaintiff could have chosen from. It takes a lot of money to go up against Monsanto in court, and even if you win at trial, you can still lose on appeal and never get paid. "Test" cases like this are often funded by special interest groups, in this case environmental groups I would presume, and they don't want to waste all that money on the wrong case. They needed to be in California, from what I read, because the state has a law that fast-tracks lawsuits for dying plaintiffs. Beyond that, they pick the case with the fact pattern most likely to succeed with the jury - the plaintiff here was a poor working man, just trying to do his job to support his family, and now he is dying of a horrible disease. That tugs at anyone's heart strings.

I don't mean to sound like I am on one particular side of a controversial issue; I'm really not. My point is that cases like this are more about larger battles between very powerful opposing forces. The particular plaintiffs involved are used as pawns in that regard. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Cole, does the appeal have a jury as well?


The amount of the award is certainly ample, and it's interesting that most of it is punitive damages. That is for the bad faith involved, in not warning users of risks...


I sure hope the guy gets something before the bitter end. :no:

That makes sense but CBS says Johnson was allowed to go first because of the advanced stage of his disease and the possibility he may not live to see a verdict.


Today is the first I have heard of this so I haven't really read the particulars. It was just a matter of time before this happened. How the Monsanto executives can lie to the camera and keep a straight face is amazing.


[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z5rWjxEt34[/url]

[url]http://www.courts.ca.gov/998.htm[/url]

A panel of three judges will hear the appeal. Juries determine questions of fact. The facts in the case are not disputed on appeal. Instead, the party appealing will argue that the trial court erred in some way, often procedural. It is possible to get the entire case sent back to the lower court to go through it all again. Or the lower court's award could just get reduced on appeal, which is probably more likely.

After speding 15 years doing corporate defense work for people claiming injury from product exposures, I can you the place the the trial takes place makes a HUGE difference, that those things are definitely planned by large plaintiff lawfirms who want the first trials to get the largest possible verdicts in order to make corporations settle and for the highest amounts possible on remaining cases. California is going to have some of the highest verdicts in the country for claims of toxic exposures and the juries most likely to favor plaintiffs. Connecticut is going have much lower verdicts and more skeptical juries. NY also gets some very high verdicts. It is all planned to the last detail. On the other hand, Defendants are more eager to settle in those places as well but feel they can drive a harder bargain in states that would not get such large verdicts should a case go to trial.

OK, so not necessarily a hand-picked jury but a hand-picked location and situation for the utmost publicity...it worked.

"CBS says Johnson was allowed to go first because of the advanced stage of his disease and the possibility he may not live to see a verdict."

[QUOTE=GrowingCoastal;711498]"CBS says Johnson was allowed to go first because of the advanced stage of his disease and the possibility he may not live to see a verdict."[/QUOTE]


And CBS is exactly correct. That is the reason this case went first.



According to CNN, "[URL="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&division=&title=1.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article"]Johnson's case is the first to go to trial because, his doctors claim in court filings, he is nearing death. And in California, [/URL][URL="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&division=&title=1.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article"]dying plaintiffs can be granted expedited trials[/URL]."


This made it easier to move past Monsanto's stalling tactics. If you look at section 36 D of this California code you will see this:


[FONT=Times New Roman](d) In its discretion, the court may also grant a motion for preference that is accompanied by clear and convincing medical documentation that concludes that one of the parties suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months, and that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[/FONT]
This is the main reason the first trial was held in California. The fact that it was in friendly territory was just an added bonus. The next case is in St Louis I think which is headquarters of Monsanto. So I guess Monsanto will have home field advantage in this trial.:panic:

I saw my first commercial from lawyers to sue Montsanto aver Roundup this morning.

"If you have used Roundup and been diagnosed with Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma.....call us"

Roundup Settlement
 

Im not biased towards or against one side... im biased towards what the science says. I havent heard of any studies in good peer reviewed journals that show any negative correlation between correctly applied roundup an human health, or improved health qualities of organic crops, etc. If there was a statistically significant correlation between glyphosate and cancer in a study published in Science or Nature it would make the careers of the authors. All I ever hear are bad studies with poor controls or things that get twisted into propaganda by conspiracy theorists or people making careers fearmongering. We have the safest best food supply in human history. Organic is great but t has downsides and for many farmers it isnt practical.

Roundup Settlement
 

One other thought.. the organic industry is large and trying to influence your choices too. Food labeling is also a big issue. Mostly from the organic/anti gmo industry. Hormone free meat and dairy dont exist, all plant and animal products have hormones. Yet you still see that label. All milk is gluten free, yet you see the label. Might as well put a lead free label on products too so people think the stuff without the label contains lead, even though it doesnt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas[/url]

Gots to remember this guy at one time worked for Monsanto.Made some crucial comments about the above.Plenty of info in our archives here.

Check his early career page.

[QUOTE=nbardo;711524]Im not biased towards or against one side... im biased towards what the science says. I havent heard of any studies in good peer reviewed journals that show any negative correlation between correctly applied roundup an human health, or improved health qualities of organic crops, etc. If there was a statistically significant correlation between glyphosate and cancer in a study published in Science or Nature it would make the careers of the authors. All I ever hear are bad studies with poor controls or things that get twisted into propaganda by conspiracy theorists or people making careers fearmongering. We have the safest best food supply in human history. Organic is great but t has downsides and for many farmers it isnt practical.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=nbardo;711527]One other thought.. the organic industry is large and trying to influence your choices too. Food labeling is also a big issue. Mostly from the organic/anti gmo industry. Hormone free meat and dairy dont exist, all plant and animal products have hormones. Yet you still see that label. All milk is gluten free, yet you see the label. Might as well put a lead free label on products too so people think the stuff without the label contains lead, even though it doesnt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]




I agree for the most part.



As said before, I feel badly for the guy with the cancer, but think he should also bear some responsibility in this as he used the sprayer in very windy weather and allowed himself to "become drenched" in the pesticide and kept on spraying and working.



No one should get drenched with ANY pesticide,organic or other wise, and especially go on working in the wet clothes.



Many problems arise when people either do not read or follow the directions and safety statements with many things, ranging from pesticides to know what may or may not be used with an extension cord or size of extension cord.

The Smoking Gun
 

This is part of what the jury saw. This article details the lies, deception and corruption of Monsanto executives complete with links to the internal company documents.



Basically what is, is proof that Monsanto knew that Roundup causes cancer and will do anything to keep this toxic substance from at least even having a warning on the product.


[url]https://usrtk.org/pesticides/how-monsanto-manufactured-outrage-at-iarc-over-cancer-classification/[/url]

I'm glad I don't own any Bayer stock ( the company that now owns Monsanto), it dropped 11% today, maybe more from what I heard on the radio today.

[QUOTE=nbardo;711527]One other thought.. the organic industry is large and trying to influence your choices too. [/QUOTE]:twisted:


Just thought I should point out, this "Gardening in the Green" subforum is dedicated to alternatives to chemical ferts and pesticides. So I don't think you're going to find any converts here, to your views about "the safest best food supply in human history". :lol: This subforum is for organic growers, farmers, and methods. Your comments don't belong here.



There is another thread on this subject though, in the 2 cents forum where all dissenting viewpoints are commonly aired, so I suggest that advocates of chemical ag should post your opinions there instead. ... thanks! :D

[QUOTE=seaeagle;711564]This is part of what the jury saw. This article details the lies, deception and corruption of Monsanto executives complete with links to the internal company documents.



Basically what is, is proof that Monsanto knew that Roundup causes cancer and will do anything to keep this toxic substance from at least even having a warning on the product.


[url]https://usrtk.org/pesticides/how-monsanto-manufactured-outrage-at-iarc-over-cancer-classification/[/url][/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting this one. It looks like the tobacco industry protests about their products' safety when they were challenged in court.

[QUOTE=imp;711557]I agree for the most part.



As said before, I feel badly for the guy with the cancer, but think he should also bear some responsibility in this as he used the sprayer in very windy weather and allowed himself to "become drenched" in the pesticide and kept on spraying and working.



No one should get drenched with ANY pesticide,organic or other wise, and especially go on working in the wet clothes.



Many problems arise when people either do not read or follow the directions and safety statements with many things, ranging from pesticides to know what may or may not be used with an extension cord or size of extension cord.[/QUOTE]

Yet I've been hearing, since the '80's at least, that roundup is safe enough to drink just like the scientist says in this article. Safe enough to spray wearing shorts according to my city's lands management office. :no:

[url]https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/monsanto-roundup-patrick-moore_n_6956034[/url]

If that's what people have been told by employers and scientists and they believe it who is really at fault?

I'e used Round up wearing shorts and a tank top. But, it's not what you are wearing when using ANY pesticide, it's following the directions for use. Never a good idea to get drenched clothes from spraying when it is windy and then not immediately getting cleaned up and changed out of those clothes.

Any pesticide should not be sprayed in windy conditions. No pesticide organic or otherwise, is good to have your clothing soaked with and continue to wear them through out the day. Common sense seems to be gone often these days.

Besides getting soaked with the pesticide himself in this case, how much pesticide drift did he cause?

People are responsible for themselves in so far as reading and following the directions of any pesticide they are using, yet many do not.

I have empathy for this man and his family, and would not wish any cancer on anyone, it's a dreadful disease. In this case, I would think there is shared culpability though as he did not follow the directions and made the choice to wear those clothes that were soaked with round up.

Beings that he was doing this while employed means there should have been a - I forget what it is called- a data sheet that he should have been familiar with in a book with other data sheets for each chemical in use at that work place.

How many of us, read the directions and warnings each time we use something such as a fertilizer or chemical, organic or not, before we use it each time?

Doesn't take long to read it, but many don't.

I did and still do, because Rob was really a maniac about that stuff, the data sheets and such. I even have poison control number in my phone, just in case.

My point being is that anyone, any place, that uses any chemicals, organic or not, should read the directions and warnings & follow them as well each time.

How many threads have we had about neighbors spraying and chemical drift damages on this 1 site? That comes from a bad choice, not from the product it's self, but from the person spraying it while not following directions.

It seems every one loves to hate Monsanto, but all for profit companies are in business to make a profit; that is the end purpose, no matter the company, no matter the product or service. I don't think Monsanto loves me or is looking out for me, but I do think Monsanto does clearly list directions and warnings on their labels for Round up and if one makes the choice to not know those things or to use incorrectly, then the culpability shifts to the person making that choice.


At what point does the individual take responsibility for their own choices?

[QUOTE=bower;711573]:twisted:


Just thought I should point out, this "Gardening in the Green" subforum is dedicated to alternatives to chemical ferts and pesticides. So I don't think you're going to find any converts here, to your views about "the safest best food supply in human history". :lol: This subforum is for organic growers, farmers, and methods. Your comments don't belong here.



There is another thread on this subject though, in the 2 cents forum where all dissenting viewpoints are commonly aired, so I suggest that advocates of chemical ag should post your opinions there instead. ... thanks! :D[/QUOTE]


You can tell others to post their opinions else where, I guess , but it's a bit odd you point out that this is for "alternatives to chemical ferts and pesticides", but this particular discussion is about round up.



Is that a teeny bit rude to tell another member their opinion can't be here just as yours is or any one else's as long as discussion is polite?


Are only certain members allowed to post in this sub forum and not others ?


I myself use a variety of methods to control problems, some organic, some not, so do you wish to exclude me from this forum?