Home | About | Donate

'Historic' Verdict as Jury Orders Monsanto to Pay Record $2 Billion to Couple in Roundup Cancer Trial

#1

'Historic' Verdict as Jury Orders Monsanto to Pay Record $2 Billion to Couple in Roundup Cancer Trial

Jake Johnson, staff writer

A California jury ruled Monday that Monsanto must pay a record $2 billion in damages to a couple that was diagnosed with cancer after using the company's weedkiller Roundup.

#2

$2 Billion for one couple. Just think what that number would be if class action lawsuits were still available? $200 Billion, $600 Billion? That could put Monsanto out of business - and that’s what we need.

4 Likes
#3

The problem is, Monsanto’s (Bayer’s) production of glyphosate pales in comparison to the overall Chinese herbicide industry’s. Monsanto makes roughly $2 billion/year in profit on Roundup but something tells me they’ll be exiting that market to concentrate on selling “Roundup ready” genetically modified seeds that will absorb China’s output of glyphosate – that’s where Monsanto’s bigger revenue and higher profit margins are.

I’m not anti genetically-modified crops in general, but this “Roundup ready” bunch is a clusterfuck.

2 Likes
#4

Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird, no it’s a plane spraying bug spray on us all!
Who hired who to spray us with what?

#5

FYI re GMO’s.

3 Likes
#6

The jury is correct in charging $2 billion in punitive damages. Bayer/Monsanto needs to actually have a financial reason to correct what it’s doing (or manslaughter charges against their executives might also work). However, it’s entirely likely that somebody in the judicial system will turn around and annul the jury’s decision.

The jury wanted to go with $1.9 billion but they rounded up.

Maybe another 1000 cases will finally get Roundup off the shelves.

2 Likes
#7

My wife is a research microbiologist whose experiments often center upon genetically modifying micro-organisms that are human pathogens. She takes a much more nuanced approach to GMOs than the authors of your rather outdated link, especially considering how complex the issue actually is. She is concerned about unintended downstream effects, yes, but also believes that with several decades of evidence behind us, and centuries of informal tinkering with plants and animals prior to that, GMOs are here to stay and a staple of every common diet, with lifespans going up worldwide. In truth, there is no avoiding GMOs.

That said, the public is hopelessly (and unsurprisingly) misinformed on all matters scientific, and GMOs are no exception. And the current labeling system for food leaves lots of leeway for producers to introduce plenty more confusion on what is “organic,” “natural,” and GMO-free." From my brief 2016 link:

“Inducing inheritable genetic changes with ionizing radiation or mutagenic chemicals is considered a conventional breeding technique, so the results are not regarded as GMO and can even be labeled as organic. There’s no evidence the kiwi fruit is harmful, but because it is a 20th Century product developed in New Zealand from a hard and unpalatable Chinese berry, the report notes, its safety was tested in the United States during the 1960s only by putting it into the commercial market and letting people eat it.”

#8

The bottom line here is that the EPA again is allowed to side with a Chemical Company that makes a Carcinogen that will still be sold to the public. I cannot believe this poison will be on the shelves of Home Dopey, Lowe’s and Garden Centers that the stupids will buy. Trump’s EPA needs to be shut down and members jailed.

3 Likes
#9

So, when do we get to stop eating it?
Midwest farmers are required to soak the ripened grains to dry out the stems for harvest a couple of weeks earlier. This leaves Round Up in all of our grain products.
When do we get to stop eating it?

1 Like
#10

A good victory. Nice to see that victories keep mounting against Monsanto. A slow process, but as the decisions continue against them and more people hear, fewer and fewer people will use this poison - eventually it will go from geometric to exponential.

Maybe we’ll get an EPA that actually does its job - or at least a better job - in 2021.

#11

Sadly, “science” is as or more compromised than that rather outdated link that I posted and even the biggest simpleton knows that and is rightly suspicious of GMO’s and their so called safety.

And, lifespans may be going up but quality of life is going down as are the many species in GMO harms way.

The only thing complicated about the questions is the truth surrounding the profits made by those attempting to hide GMO’s in what they market.

#12

Specious claim and deliberately misleading. You directly benefit from GMO and are thus extremely prejudiced. People who work directly on something are often no better educated than someone who has never heard of it. In fact people who work on something are, as the well known saing goes " “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it !” Upton Sinclair.

Natural genetic change through traditional breeding tecniques and gene editing are NOT the same. Period. Many science papers have found GMO to be dangerous and disease and damage causing.

I avoid GMO easily and so can others. Grow your own, buy from farmers and distributer who do not use them, buy from brands who are certified GMO free.

1 Like
#13

I m not sure why ‘several decades’ would be considered sufficient to determine long term effects of entirely new organisms when the original benchmark, evolution, operates in much longer time spans, including millions of years. There are no experiments comparable to the way nature tests the outcomes. And nature is not biased toward any particular outcome. We are, insofar as we would like to see an outcome that doesn’t destroy the biosphere or smaller, but important units thereof.
It is true that I don’t know whether there is a significant downside to GMOs but the fact that shrimp (foreign organism’s) genes aren’t part of a cabbage (or other domesticated crop) plant might suggest something important, rather than negligence on the part of natural selection. Some are not really up for being a guinea pig for yet another corporate profit-making product. And it’s not as if there’s a corporate track record to fill anyone with confidence that the corporate model is dedicated to the benefit of humanity or other forms of life on Earth.

#14

Yes we’ve heard the carefully constructed bias with a clever biological verbiage designed to confuse the lay person.
The fate of GMo will be in the hands of the Court of Public Opinion whether safe or not.
Fear will win in the end whether it is for good or bad.
Ciao Roundup and all your GMO family members.

#15

Someone obviously didn’t read the article I linked to.

And I advise you stay away from anti-viral and anti-bacterial drugs. They modify organisms.

#16

Actually, evolution can take just weeks, depending on the organism.

Just curious: Are you aware of how much viral DNA is a part of your genome?

#17

Well, to help you out in avoiding GMOs, here are the 10 commercially available GMO plant types:

apples
potatoes
corn
canola
alfalfa
soybeans
rainbow papaya
cotton
sugar beets
summer squash

#18

Are you referring to the evolution of living systems. By definition changing a gene characteristic is not evolution.

“In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.”

#19

You might be surprised to learn that characteristics are based in genetic code. Gene mutation is a continuous process – that’s what happens when trillions of cells divide continuously.

#20

Yes, I agree with your statement about characteristic change is genetic. The article here is about how Round up influences those changes that result in pathology. I think the conflict here is natural boundary. Or, the example of golden rice in terms of benefit.