What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

GROUNDSMAN AWARDED $289M for ROUNDUP CANCER!

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
Groundsman, 46, is awarded $289M by jury in historic trial that ruled weedkiller Roundup DID cause his terminal lymphoma - and company 'acted with fraud and malice' by claiming it was harmless


On Friday afternoon, jurors found Monsanto liable in a case over whether Roundup weedkiller caused a groundsman's cancer
Dewayne Johnson, 46, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014

Jurors have awarded Johnson $250 million in punitive damages, plus nearly $40 million in compensatory damages, bringing the total to $289 million

He worked a school groundskeeper in California and claimed he sprayed hundreds of gallons of weed killer Roundup per day
A chemical called glyphosate is the main ingredient and has been listed by the World Health Organization and California as cancerous
Monsanto said it will appeal the verdict and more than 800 studies prove Roundup doesn't cause cancer

The liable verdict means the case could open the door to hundreds of additional lawsuits against the company
Lawyers were demanding $412 million for the married father-of-two, who doctors say has just weeks left to live.

Roundup does cause cancer, a jury has declared in an unprecedented trial into the health dangers of Monsanto's weedkiller.

After three days of deliberations, jurors on Friday sided with terminally-ill groundsman Dewayne Johnson, 46, who has just weeks to live, awarding him $250 million in punitive damages, plus nearly $40 million in compensatory damages, bringing the total to $289 million.

Specifically, in eight weeks of proceedings, the jury was left convinced that Monsanto's product caused Johnson's cancer.

Addressing a press conference on Friday evening, Johnson thanked his legal team, his wife, and three sons.

'It’s taken a lot of prayer, I’ve taken energy from a lot of people. I’m glad to be here to help. Hopefully this thing will start to get the attention it needs.’

They also found Monsanto 'acted with malice, oppression or fraud and should be punished for its conduct,' Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos announced in court in San Francisco.

Lawyers were demanding $412 million for the married father-of-two, who doctors say has just weeks left to live.

The groundskeeper, who worked for years in Benicia, California, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - a cancer that starts in the white bloods cells - in August 2014. He mixed and sprayed hundreds of gallons of Roundup to keep grass and weeds under control.

The liable verdict means the case could open the door to hundreds of additional lawsuits against the company recently acquired by German-based pharmaceutical and chemical group Bayer.

Dewayne 'Lee' Johnson looked emotional as he heard the verdict on Friday, when jurors awarded him $289 million in damages

Johnson, 46, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014, and he believes it was caused by his repeated use of Roundup weedkiller as a school groundsman in California. He is seen here hugging one of the lawyers after the victory

They also found Monsanto 'acted with malice, oppression or fraud and should be punished for its conduct' towards Johnson (pictured with one of his lawyers on Friday)

The first-of-its-kind verdict was delayed as jurors spent hours analyzing the timeline of Johnson's symptoms, the validity of his expert witness's testimony, and the discrepancies between Monsanto's medical findings and that of their critics.

Reacting to the verdict, co-lead trial counsel Brent Wisner said it was a result of newly-revealed, confidential company documents.

'We were finally able to show the jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer,' Wisner said.

'Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's failure to require labeling, we are proud that an independent jury followed the evidence and used its voice to send a message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup is over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits.'

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said it was a victory for all workers.

'Monsanto made Roundup the oxycontin of pesticides and now the addiction and damage they caused have come home to roost,' he said. 'This won't cure DeWayne Lee Johnson's cancer, but it will send a strong message to a renegade company.'

Monsanto vice president Scott Partridge said in a statement that the company is already poised to appeal the decision.

'We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family,' he said, but insisted that '[t]oday's decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews...support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr Johnson's cancer'.

He added: 'We will appeal this decision and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others.'

The case is the first to reach trial alleging a cancer link from Roundup, one of the world's most widely used herbicides.

Johnson used a generic version of Roundup called Ranger Pro repeatedly in his job after being promoted to groundskeeper in 2012 through mid-2015.

One of Johnson's attorneys, Timothy Litzenburg, told DailyMail.com that Johnson called the Monsanto hotline in November 2014 about his diagnosis.

'He said: 'Hey I just want to let you know I have this and I want to ask could it be contributing to my cancer?'' Litzenburg said.

Johnson's concerns landed on the desk of Dr Daniel Goldstein, the lead of medical sciences at Monsanto, who told colleagues he would call Johnson back but never did, according to an internal company email.

Litzenburg told DailyMail.com that Johnson used hundreds of gallons of the products between 30 and 40 times per year.

Testimony was heard that twice Johnson became drenched in the Ranger Pro.

Before reaching their verdict, the jury asked for the testimony of Johnson's expert witness oncologist Dr Chadi Nabhan, the timeline of Johnson's first instance where he was sprayed with Roundup and all of his medical records, according to Courthouse News reporter Helen Christophi.

Johnson said he contacted the company in 2014 after he received his diagnosis to ask about a potential cancer link but never heard back. Pictured: Johnson's back covered in lesions

All was given but the medical records because they hadn't been entered as evidence.

In closing arguments, the attorney for Monsanto, George Lombardi, had railed against Dr Nabhan for claiming that glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup - causes mycosis fungoides, a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Lombardi said Nabhan was the only doctor to have found such a link and, if it was true, why he hasn't received awards for the discovery.

The jury also wanted a timeline of the first time Johnson was accidentally drenched in the pesticide.

While Johnson's attorney said the accident it occurred in 2014, Monsanto's attorney argued that it was in September 2013 and implied that Johnson's team lied about the dates to make it appear like it was closer to his diagnosis.

Litzenburg said Johnson, who is between rounds of chemotherapy, 'is actually on borrowed time, he is not supposed to be alive today.'

This is because in September 2015, doctors told Johnson that he was likely to die in less than a couple of years, Litzenburg said.

The case, filed against Monsanto in 2016, was fast-tracked for trial due to the severe state of Johnson's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The father-of-two testified on the stand that he would have 'never' sprayed Ranger-Pro if he knew it would cause harm.

'I would've never sprayed that product on school grounds or around people if I knew it would cause them harm,' he said on the stand, according to Courthouse News reporter Helen Christophi.

'It's unethical, it's wrong. I have children who go to school. People I don't deserve that. They deserve better.'

Another of Johnson's attorney's, Brent Wisner, told the court that he is seeking more than $39 million in compensatory damages and $373 million in punitive damages.

The father-of-two testified on the stand that he would have 'never' sprayed Ranger-Pro if he knew it would cause harm. Pictured: Johnson, right, with his wife Araceli Johnson

Johnson (pictured, with his sons) said he sprayed hundreds of gallons of the product between 30 and 40 times per year and was allegedly drenched in it repeatedly

Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - a cancer that starts in the white bloods cells - in August 2014 and believes Roundup is responsible. Pictured: Johnson's hand covered in lesions

Wisner said Monsanto opted against warning consumers of the risks and that instead 'they have fought science' by playing down the suspected link between the chemical herbicide and cancer.

'Monsanto made a choice to not put a cancer warning on the label, that is a choice that reflects reckless disregard for human health,' Wisner told jurors on Tuesday in closing arguments.

'Today is [Monsanto's] day of reckoning,' Wisner told jurors on Tuesday in his closing arguments.

THE SAGA SURROUNDING THE SAFETY OF GLYPHOSATE

Glyphosate is an herbicide first registered for use in the US in 1974.

It is marketed either as a salt or an amber-colored liquid with no smell.

Monsanto markets glyphosate as part of the pesticide Roundup.

Several studies found that high doses administered to laboratory animals caused cancer, although the evidence is 'limited' when it comes to humans.

In March 2015, the World Health Organizatrion ranked glyphosate a Group 2a carcinogen, a substance that probably causes cancer in people.

In 2017, California added glyphosate to its proposition 65 list, which requires Roundup to carry a warning label if sold in California.

Monsanto has vehemently denied that its product causes cancer and says and more than 800 studies that have established its safety.

Yet more than 4,000 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits - 800 over the past year - claiming Monsanto made them or members of their family sick.

'Every single cancer risk found had this moment, where the science finally caught up, where they couldn't bury it anymore.'

Monsanto has denied any link with the disease, saying the product has undergone stringent testing and more than 800 studies have established its safety.

'The message from the evidence is clear, and that is this cancer was not caused by Ranger Pro,' said George Lombardi during closing arguments.

'The facts are what should lead you in this case.'

Attorneys for the company also said that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma takes two-and-a-half years to develop and that Johnson developed symptoms of his cancer about one-and-a-half years after he began using the product.

They therefore argued that his cancer had already likely taken hold.

'The story just doesn't make sense,' Lombardi told jurors.

But Wisner argued that Monsanto ghost-wrote research citing the weed killer's safety and then cited it.

Wisner contended that the main ingredient glyphosate - a chemical compound declared carcinogenic by the World Health Organization - combined with other chemicals in the Roundup, resulted in a cancer-causing 'synergy.'

A key to Johnson's case will be whether jurors are convinced that Monsanto's pesticide caused or exacerbated his illness.

'We don't have to show Roundup was the sole cause; we only have to show it is a contributor,' Wisner said.

Groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson was adamant the weedkiller caused his terminal cancer.

Johnson's attorney say they are seeking $39 million in compensatory damages and $373 million in punitive damages.

Monsanto has denied any link with the disease, saying the product has undergone stringent testing and more than 800 studies have established its safety

'Your verdict will be heard around the world,' Wisner told jurors.

'Monsanto will have to finally do something - conduct those studies they never conducted and warn those people they never warned.'

Monsanto's flagship herbicide Roundup was launched in 1976.

Roundup has been approved the US Environmental Protection Agency, according to Lombardi.

Two years after the WHO labeled it 'probably carcinogenic', the state of California named glyphosate an ingredient that causes cancer under the state's Proposition 65, which requires Roundup to carry a warning label if sold in California.

Additionally, earlier this year, a peer-reviewed study found that women in agriculture-intensive areas of Indiana tended to have shorter pregnancies if they had been regularly exposed to glyphosate.

Founded in 1901 in St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto began producing agrochemicals in the 1940s. It was acquired by Bayer for more than $62 billion in June.

Bayer announced at the time that it would be dropping Monsanto's name and replacing it with Bayer as the company name.

'Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,' Bayer said in a statement to Reuters.

Bayer's decision to drop the name means Monsanto products like Roundup will still be Roundup, but now they will be Bayer's Roundup, not Monsanto's Roundup. Roundup will still contain glyphosate.

'Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,' Bayer told Reuters in a statement

In other words, products like Roundup would retain their name, but be advertised as Bayer's Roundup, not Monsanto.

Monsanto said it will appeal the verdict.

Company spokesman Scott Partridge said Friday that Monsanto sympathizes with Dewayne Johnson and his family.

But Partridge said hundreds of scientific studies and government agencies have concluded that its Roundup weed killer doesn't cause cancer.

The St. Louis-based company is facing about 2,000 similar lawsuits across the country. Dewayne Johnson's attorney, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., says the San Francisco verdict should bolster the chances of the other lawsuits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6049007/Roundup-cancerous-jury-declares.html
 

Iffy

Nil Illegitimus Carburundum
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Jeez, it gets worse....

Monsanto are among the front-line troops in this new 'profit at all costs', gloves-off kind of capitalism which mushroomed following the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Capitalism was no longer required to be held up as a model. This ruthless kind of world power-business seems to have gripped the world and their tentacles are vast and deep, corrupting all and right to the very top.
I have no answer but I thank Gypsy for this comprehensive report on just the latest in Monsanto's list of corporate crimes - every day is a lesson right!

Regards,
Iffy :tiphat:
 

Lester Beans

Frequent Flyer
Veteran
Farmers spray this death piss on all of their crops. Its nearly impossible to avoid consuming it unless you grow your own food. On my farm there are no chemicals and never have been. I spend a large amount of time pulling weeds. It's better than spraying that devil juice.

Good progress, this case.
 

Michael_Phelps

New member
Playing devil's advocate, if you all don't mind, you know, healthy argument for argument's sake:

If glyphosate were 100% the cause of cancer in this case, if a court were even qualified to prove that, wouldn't there be like at least 100's of thousands of other identical cases? I am trying to understand how a jury is even the appropriate arbiter of the science behind this claim, or how a court case could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the result of one chemical, among the countless unmentioned carcinogens we knowingly (or not) consume in day to day life in the US or the entire world. So this will result in a label on each bottle of roundup, no one wins here. This is not good news, but keep believing the horse shit we're being fed. At best roundup goes out of business, then what. If it is true, the damage is already done. Whats the next ONE single chemical we are all going to rush to blame? Everything gives you cancer, according to the state of California.

Sorry for anyone that has cancer though, even though there are probably cures for several types that are being held from general public, but let's hold "roundup" accountable in this case, that's just great! This all seems like a big smoke screen, big enough to warrant $250 million in distraction money.
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Theres a lot of information they can look at over 8 weeks. They must have had a lot there to be able to make a case and say it was the cause. I tend to agree that it may not have been the absolute best place to make a conclusion either way on how toxic Roundup is. I will say I'm glad I've been eating as much organic food as possible. Follow the 95:5 or 90:10 rule. You don't necessarily have to be all organic diet. Dr Edward Group recommends as much as 10% of your diet can be unhealthy food and you'll probably be alright. Just do your best with the choices you make. Its not always possible to eat an all organic diet.


I used to make applications of herbicide with round up in it, and it does get on you. There' no way to avoid it with low or high volume applications. Some locations its windy all the time. I tell customers to be safe with it if they use it. Its the cheapest and one of the most effective herbicides. We really need something to replace it as a total vegetation control for gravel, landscapes and lawns.
 

mr.brunch

Well-known member
Veteran
Nice one gypsy... I spotted this in the news this morning- didn’t realise Monsanto was a subsidiary of Bayer. Obviously they weren’t happy with fucking the world up by inventing heroin, now they got to give people cancer too.

They’re just missing the cloak and horns.

5000 cases pending, they must be shitting themselves
 

Dog Star

Active member
Veteran
Happy for him he will get a money... but fact is that you cant take anything with you
after cancer kills you..

now this is great stuff for others affected or health damaged,also great news for those
folks that love to use chems so now they will be proper schooled to not use dangerous
protectives of any kind..

cancers also come from hundreds other agro protectives,our food chain is hard
compromised,fruits and veggies if they are not heirlooms and growed old way
on ripe cow,horse,sheep manure and slow ciclus they dont have third of vitamins
and minerals as they use to have... thats road to illness as body dont get enough
of nutrients and we are witnesses lot of folks are ill,getting ill,etc..


Am was look local farmers who treat their veggies with protectives,lot of them think
if you add more than product will work better.. some green salads i was buy was still
stink on chemicals so hard you could not wash it so they go in garbage can..

and most of people when you ask them "In what way plants growing outside??"

most of them looks in you point blanc.. like.. WTF he asking me.. they dont know
basic things on plants while they try to grow them.. and offcourse use chems
and dangerous protectives like they know shit..
 

GMT

The Tri Guy
Veteran
Who wouldn't give their life for their children to inherit over 100 Million dollars each?
 

dddaver

Active member
Veteran
There ARE thousands of cases pending. I actually think such huge awards like this are negative in getting any real desired result. Dewayne Johnson (Rock 2?:biggrin:) will be lucky if can settle and ever sees a penny while he's still alive. You know Monsanto will appeal forcefully. This is not going to really get Monsanto to admit any culpability and change their business practices like a series of $10 million judgments might. But instead will only bolster their resolve in denying any culpability. Monsanto would much rather pay lawyers $300 mil. to nip this in the bud. (pun intended). But still, I think it IS a step in the right direction, albeit a misguided one.
 
Playing devil's advocate, if you all don't mind, you know, healthy argument for argument's sake:

If glyphosate were 100% the cause of cancer in this case, if a court were even qualified to prove that, wouldn't there be like at least 100's of thousands of other identical cases? I am trying to understand how a jury is even the appropriate arbiter of the science behind this claim, or how a court case could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the result of one chemical, among the countless unmentioned carcinogens we knowingly (or not) consume in day to day life in the US or the entire world. So this will result in a label on each bottle of roundup, no one wins here. This is not good news, but keep believing the horse shit we're being fed. At best roundup goes out of business, then what. If it is true, the damage is already done. Whats the next ONE single chemical we are all going to rush to blame? Everything gives you cancer, according to the state of California.

Sorry for anyone that has cancer though, even though there are probably cures for several types that are being held from general public, but let's hold "roundup" accountable in this case, that's just great! This all seems like a big smoke screen, big enough to warrant $250 million in distraction money.
This is a win for humans, hopefully Monsanto does go out of business. They only have a history of profiting off the most evil substances they can create. Your obviously a corporate troll.
 

mr.brunch

Well-known member
Veteran
I like the way they are saying ‘ glyphosate definitely doesn’t cause cancer ‘ .... from the same company that said ‘heroin is not addictive’

Things that make you go hmmm.....
 

EvergreenState

Active member
Understandable emotional jury decision. Bayer will win on appeal however. Science will always trump emotions in the end. Kind of like biology stating that there are only 2 sexes and it is not something you choose; you are born either female or male. Yes you can mutilate your body and take hormones to try to make yourself the other sex but it's like going to a movie set and getting made up to be a character. You can get make-up, wigs and costumes to make you look like the other sex but whatever you were born with or without between your legs determines your sex.
Documented science doesn't lie, 800 studies in fact. This one Dr. the plaintiffs lawyer found that stated the main active ingredient in Roundup caused the cancer, is not going to be able defeat all of the science Bayer has in it's favor at a higher court level. There have been lower court decisions like this many times where emotional juries have sympathy for a very sick person, they want to blame somebody and they like playing David sticking it to Goliath. It makes them feel all righteous and the righteous love to punish.
Also how in the hell do you get DRENCHED with this product SEVERAL times? What in the hell was he doing opening up a 5 gallon container of Roundup and pouring it all over his body? Reminds me of the jury decision that awarded a guy a large sum in damages after he tried to use his riding lawnmower to cut hedges. I kid you not the guy tilted the lawnmower up and tried to used it to cut hedges. Needless to say that didn't turn out well for him and he was severely injured. The manufacturer didn't specifically warn users not to use it in that way in the owners manual and a jury awarded the guy damages. Needless to say the decision was appealed to a higher court and a sane judge threw out the decision stating it was a baseless claim; of course.
So don't get too excited about sticking it to the man. The man became the man for a reason; he is a fierce, dirty fighting mother fucker who never gives up. Bayer will appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This thing is many years and far, far from over.
 

Gry

Well-known member
picture.php
Understandable emotional jury decision. Bayer will win on appeal however. Science will always trump emotions in the end. Kind of like biology stating that there are only 2 sexes and it is not something you choose; you are born either female or male. Yes you can mutilate your body and take hormones to try to make yourself the other sex but it's like going to a movie set and getting made up to be a character. You can get make-up, wigs and costumes to make you look like the other sex but whatever you were born with or without between your legs determines your sex.
Documented science doesn't lie, 800 studies in fact. This one Dr. the plaintiffs lawyer found that stated the main active ingredient in Roundup caused the cancer, is not going to be able defeat all of the science Bayer has in it's favor at a higher court level. There have been lower court decisions like this many times where emotional juries have sympathy for a very sick person, they want to blame somebody and they like playing David sticking it to Goliath. It makes them feel all righteous and the righteous love to punish.
Also how in the hell do you get DRENCHED with this product SEVERAL times? What in the hell was he doing opening up a 5 gallon container of Roundup and pouring it all over his body? Reminds me of the jury decision that awarded a guy a large sum in damages after he tried to use his riding lawnmower to cut hedges. I kid you not the guy tilted the lawnmower up and tried to used it to cut hedges. Needless to say that didn't turn out well for him and he was severely injured. The manufacturer didn't specifically warn users not to use it in that way in the owners manual and a jury awarded the guy damages. Needless to say the decision was appealed to a higher court and a sane judge threw out the decision stating it was a baseless claim; of course.
So don't get too excited about sticking it to the man. The man became the man for a reason; he is a fierce, dirty fighting mother fucker who never gives up. Bayer will appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This thing is many years and far, far from over.


[youtubeif]R5VOciXR0kY[/youtubeif]

'monsanto years', Compliments of mr Young
 

aridbud

automeister
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Next up .......Neotame, a neurotoxin. Neotame is yet another chemical sweetener, and chemical sweeteners are just that--chemicals. They are a manmade category of non-nutritious, chemically amplified sugar substitutes, and are not a natural form of food at all. Currently, the list of unsafe chemical sweeteners includes:

ACESULFAME-K
ALITAME
ASPARTAME
CYCLAMATE
NEOTAME
SUCRALOSE

On the relative sweetness scale with sugar (sucrose) = 1, neotame is 13,000 sweeter than sugar. Whoa.
Compound Sweetness Rating
Acesulfame K 200x sucrose
Alitame 2,000x sucrose
Aspartame 180x sucrose
Cyclamate 30x sucrose
Neotame 13,000x sucrose
Saccharin 300x sucrose
Sucralose 600x sucrose

At 7,000 to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar, neotame is the most potent sweetener marketed today. Neotame has changed hands from its original patent holder Monsanto Chemical Company, to The NutraSweet Co., to J. W. Childs Partnership, and now to Pharmacia. Neotame, simply a modified version of aspartame, contains all the same elements found in aspartame and more: the amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine, plus two organic groups, one known as a methyl ester group and the other as a neohexyl group. Joined together, these components equal 8,000 teaspoons of sugar.

https://www.change.org/p/usda-ban-neotame-as-a-general-use-sweetener-and-flavor-enhancer

Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be used in diet drinks. Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid.

Holisticmed.com
 

therevverend

Well-known member
Veteran
Kind of like biology stating that there are only 2 sexes and it is not something you choose; you are born either female or male. Yes you can mutilate your body and take hormones to try to make yourself the other sex but it's like going to a movie set and getting made up to be a character. You can get make-up, wigs and costumes to make you look like the other sex but whatever you were born with or without between your legs determines your sex.

That's not true at all and it should be obvious to cannabis growers. There's people that are born with both male and female genitals Or born with male genitals but their bodies release female hormones or vice versa. Or born with male genitals but their mind is functionally feminine (or vice versa)...

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P03079

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

Now that scientists are studying biology without cultural bias they're finding gender is much more complex then the western binary black/white on/off system. Of course western culture may be more the anomaly then other cultures that recognize more then two genders. Imagine not knowing whether you or your peers where boys or girls until you hit puberty!

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981
 

Brother Nature

Well-known member
It's already dropped Bayers stock by about 10% too. That's nothing to scoff at.


Bayer stock plunges after US$289m Roundup award to dying man


Rachel Siegel 09:26, Aug 14 2018







Bayer's stock slumped about 10 per cent three days after a California jury awarded US$289 million (NZ$439 million) to a former groundskeeper who said the popular weedkiller Roundup gave him terminal cancer.


The stock drop sent a cautionary signal to the company that acquired Monsanto, the maker of the weedkiller, in June for US$63 billion. The merger created the world's largest seed and agrochemical company, marrying Monsanto's dominance in genetically modified crops with Bayer's pesticide business.
Bayer's portfolio also includes pharmaceuticals with such household brands as Alka-Seltzer.


The verdict poses a new challenge for Bayer in its quest to combat contempt swirling around Monsanto by consumer, health and environmental advocates. For years, the company has drawn sharp criticism and allegations about the health hazards caused by Roundup, and Monsanto faces thousands of lawsuits that assert its product is linked to cancer diagnoses.


Monsanto's reputational problems are now Bayer's problems, said Anthony Johndrow, a corporate reputation adviser. Lawsuits against Monsanto are nothing new, Johndrow said, adding that Bayer risks souring sales of its other products because of the public perceptions of Monsanto.


"Any stakeholder is going to be asking right now, 'why would they buy Monsanto with this stuff hanging over its head?'" Johndrow said. "I think that's a question they have to answer, and they have to answer it sooner than they planned to."


Bayer had previously announced that the Monsanto brand name would be nixed as soon as this month. In a call with reporters in June, president of Bayer's Crop Science Division Liam Condon said the move to lose Monsanto's name was part of a wider strategy to win back consumer trust.


Separately, Bayer chief executive Werner Baumann said the company would "aim to deepen our dialogue with society" and "listen to our critics".


At the time, Bayer executives said they couldn't predict what form this reimagined consumer engagement would take. Neither Bayer nor Monsanto returned requests for comment.


"The more important point now, once we change the company name, is that we talk about what the new company will stand for," Condon said on the June call.


"Just changing the name doesn't do so much - we've got to explain to farmers and ultimately to consumers why this new company is important for farming, for agriculture and for food, and how that impacts consumers and the environment."


Monsanto has long maintained that its products don't cause cancer, and the company doubled down on its stance after Friday's verdict. Monsanto's vice president, Scott Partridge, said in a statement that the verdict "does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews ... support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer."


Partridge said Monsanto would appeal the decision "and continue to vigorously defend this product."


The groundskeeper in Friday's verdict, Dewayne Johnson, was the first to have his case go to trial after doctors pushed for it because he was close to death. Johnson's attorney said that his client used Roundup 20 to 30 times a year between mid-2012 and early 2016 while working for a school district outside San Francisco.


He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014. Timothy Litzenburg, one of Johnson's attorneys, told The Post that Johnson contacted Monsanto after the diagnosis to say that he had been exposed to Roundup and wanted to know if there was any correlation between the weedkiller and cancer. He was told there were no ties to Roundup and his cancer, and he continued to use the herbicide. Now, lesions cover up to 80 per cent of his body.


​Litzenburg said his firm is representing 2000 people in their claims against Monsanto, and that there are probably 5000 cases across the country.


In 2015, the World Health Organization said that glyphosate - the herbicide in Roundup widely marketed by Monsanto - was likely carcinogenic and could cause cancer in humans.
For years, environmental groups and consumer advocates have raised alarms about the health risks associated with workers applying the weedkiller on farms. But Monsanto and other agricultural companies say long-standing research upholds glyphosate's safety.


The herbicide is one of the most commonly used in the country, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In his statement, Partridge said the EPA, the US National Institutes of Health "and regulatory authorities around the world" have concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer.
Johndrow said that when evaluating its merger with Monsanto, Bayer probably factored in the costs of future litigation over thousands of Roundup lawsuits. But it remains to be seen, Johndrow said, whether Bayer also calculated the cost of reputational risks, including from whopping jury verdicts.


However it chooses to protect its reputation, Bayer's response must send a signal that it is concerned for consumer safety and "that they want to, and are trying to do right".


"What they do will determine whether this will have a really, really bad effect," Johndrow said, "or just a moderately bad effect."
As for the precedent set by Friday's verdict, Johnson's attorneys credited his bravery for helping bring the first trial against Monsanto. The ruling will help take care of Johnson's wife and young sons after he's gone. But it won't keep him alive.
Another one of Johnson's attorneys, Michael Miller, said that one of Johnson's sons asked for a chemistry set for Christmas. When Johnson asked why, the young boy said he wanted to invent the chemotherapy that could save his dad.


The Washington Post
 

therevverend

Well-known member
Veteran
Just listened to the guy's attorney on NPR. Cleared up a lot of questions I had.
Monsanto claims they've done over 800 tests to prove that glyphosates are safe. Turns out that almost all of them were studies of whether the chemical burned the skin or eyes. Only 22 of the studies were for cancer with only 8 studies of humans.
The big bombshell is that Monsanto had internal documents that were decades old showing they did know Glyphosates caused cancer but buried it. The reason for the verdict was that these documents were shown to the jury.
When the cancer was in it's early curable stage the guy called Monsanto, described what was happening to him, and asked if the Glyphosate could be responsible. They never returned his messages.
The reason the award is so high is because they knew about it, could have saved his life. Which shows malice and disregard for human life. Dude was spraying 150 gallons of that nasty shit at schools all over the school district every day.(Think of the children!)
Monsanto has been paying agencies and scientists to say good things about it. And they have a fund for attacking people that come out with studies against it. THERE ARE 5000 PEOPLE with lawsuits like this guy.
Another thing the attorney pointed out. Round Up is not just glyphosate. It contains other chemicals. They have not tested these chemicals together for synergistic effects on people's health. No one except maybe Monsanto knows what these chemicals working together do to the human body.

For more corporate insanity and corruption here's a link to an NPR story about an attempt to ban an evil Monsanto weed killer in Arkansas. Apparently this shit blows all over everyone's fields, millions of acres. Killing all the crops except for the genetically engineered soybeans that Monsanto sells. The state Plant Board tried to ban it but Monsanto pays for many fine lawyers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...s-lift-arkansas-weedkiller-ban-creating-chaos

In personal news I found out my old man has the same type of cancer the Roundup guy has yesterday. Hopefully it gets nipped in the bud. He's not a glyphosate user, I don't think, but it doesn't make me happy.
 
Last edited:
T

Teddybrae

Noticed on the bad News last night that a Spokesperson for our National Farmers Federation stated the association's alarm re a possible end to glyphosate use which he said was necessary for Australia's food production.
 
Top