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