A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company's glyphosate-based weed-killers, including Roundup, caused him cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.
The case of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson was the first lawsuit alleging glyphosate causes cancer to go to trial. Monsanto, a unit of Bayer AG following a $62.5 billion acquisition by the German conglomerate, faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.
The jury at San Francisco's Superior Court of California deliberated for three days before finding that Monsanto had failed to warn Johnson and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by its weed killers.
It awarded $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/10/monsanto-ordered-to-pay-289m-in-california-roundup-cancer-trial.html
Monsanto ordered to pay $289m damages in Roundup cancer trial
Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.
In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers. It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.
Monsanto denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says it intends to appeal against the ruling. "The jury got it wrong," vice-president Scott Partridge said outside the courthouse in San Francisco.
The claimant in the case, groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, is among more than 5,000 similar plaintiffs across the US.
Monsanto? Never heard of it. Did you mean Bayer AG?
Previously: Cancer Hazard vs. Risk - Glyphosate
Monsanto Faces First US Trial Over Roundup Cancer Link
Monsanto Cancer Trial Begins in San Francisco
Related: Glyphosate Linked to Liver Damage
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Monday August 13 2018, @04:22AM (2 children)
I'd prefer a peer-reviewed study or two rather than just an anecdote like that. So I went fishing for some. Here's one systematic review [nih.gov]:
Here's another one [nih.gov] on all non-cancer health outcomes:
Another systematic review [nih.gov] concludes:
Well, there's three systematic reviews of the scientific literature that show pretty much that the endocrine disruption effects of glyphosate aren't really there. There's even more systematic reviews debunking the cancer link. Note that these three papers I've found are meta-analyses and systematic reviews that take a systematic look at as much of the relevant literature as they can, so they're probably rather stronger than even single peer-reviewed studies. Perhaps then there's something else at work rather than Roundup that's causing your observations?
As much as Monsanto has done a lot of wickedness in its time (toxic waste dumping, Agent Orange, many others), I'd like to crucify them for something that actually has scientific evidence behind it rather than something as nebulous as that.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday August 13 2018, @08:52AM (1 child)
You yourself are guilty of the very same sophistry that Monsanto indulges in: your citations only studied glyphosate and not RoundUp.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13 2018, @07:49PM
Roundup has been widely used for MANY decades.
If it were the superpoison some people think it is, you would have seen MANY, MANY cases of disease from it by now.
It's just not there. Still, it is prudent to minimize your exposure to any chemical.