Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 11 2018, @01:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the trial-roundup dept.

Monsanto 'bullied scientists' and hid weedkiller cancer risk, lawyer tells court

Monsanto has long worked to "bully scientists" and suppress evidence of the cancer risks of its popular weedkiller, a lawyer argued on Monday in a landmark lawsuit against the global chemical corporation.

"Monsanto has specifically gone out of its way to bully ... and to fight independent researchers," said the attorney Brent Wisner, who presented internal Monsanto emails that he said showed how the agrochemical company rejected critical research and expert warnings over the years while pursuing and helping to write favorable analyses of their products. "They fought science."

Wisner, who spoke inside a crowded San Francisco courtroom, is representing DeWayne Johnson, known also as Lee, a California man whose cancer has spread through his body. The father of three and former school groundskeeper, who doctors say may have just months to live, is the first person to take Monsanto to trial over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer. Thousands have made similar legal claims across the US.

Monsanto? Never heard of it.

Also at the San Francisco Chronicle.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @04:24AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @04:24AM (#705586)

    I never said any such thing, and I don't think the logical framework of our comments can adequately support the discussion of such an idea.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @04:28AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @04:28AM (#705589)

    So are you saying that Monsanto's behavior would not be changed?

    I am merely trying to follow your logic, and by asking questions, I am giving you the principle of charity.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @04:50AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @04:50AM (#705595)

      That translates to: "I'm better than you, and I'm pandering to your obviously lower intelligence."

      How about you ask a real question, rather than some hypothetical that only has meaning to your mind?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @12:42PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @12:42PM (#705688)

        lol

        In order to support the proposal, it must have advantages. Have you never taken high school debate class? I am running a negative argument, and you are running an affirmative argument.

        I think my question is fair. It is hardly hypothetical, when we are so faced with the question of corporations who have a market interest in manipulating scientific studies.

        I ask again. How would your proposal change Monsanto's behavior?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @02:04PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @02:04PM (#705722)

          same AC as parent

          How would your proposal change Monsanto's behavior?

          I realize I am asking the wrong question. Let me try again. How would your proposal help the free market drive a bad actor such as Monsanto out of business in favor of a more honest competitor?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @03:30PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @03:30PM (#705764)

            The dishonesty comes from the government policy of enforcing retroactive liability; the OP is arguing that to reduce the dishonesty, one should remove the retroactive liability.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @03:58PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @03:58PM (#705779)

              So we come back again to the want of an example! If the government did not enforce retroactive liability, how would Monsanto's actions be different?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12 2018, @12:13PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12 2018, @12:13PM (#706176)

                Monsanto would then have less of an incentive to cover up any problem; the path of least resistance would become acknowledging the problem, and thereby being able to put resources into some other revenue stream rather than defending itself at nearly all cost.

                I don't know how you can even dispute that.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12 2018, @02:40PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12 2018, @02:40PM (#706219)

                  The obvious rebuttal is Thexalon's having to do with well-defined property rights. Yet the story has dropped from the front page, alas.

                  Looks like that's it, for now, but until next time, may the power of the cosmos be with you!

                  Yes! Yes! Yes!

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 16 2018, @02:30PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Monday July 16 2018, @02:30PM (#707891)

        That translates to: "I'm better than you, and I'm pandering to your obviously lower intelligence."

        Says the guy who's complaining about "you wee humans" as if he's some higher form of life...

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"