Loc: Waterloo, NY
RFK, Jr.: “Breaking news! Monsanto ordered to pay $81 million in Roundup cancer trial”
Monsanto ordered to pay $80 mn in Roundup cancer trial
A San Francisco jury Wednesday found the firm, which is owned by Bayer, had been "negligent by not using reasonable care" to warn of the risks of its product, ordering it to pay Edwin Hardeman $75 million in punitive damages, a little over $5 million in compensation and $200,000 for medical expenses.
It was the second stinging legal verdict for Monsanto in recent months after it lost a case to a California school groundskeeper suffering from terminal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and was ordered to pay out tens of millions of dollars.
The jury also found that Roundup's design was defective and that the product lacked sufficient warnings of potential risk.
SECOND ROUNDUP CANCER PLAINTIFF WINS CASE AGAINST MONSANTO
Six years ago, in July of 2013, when I learned about the fact that glyphosate was not only sprayed on GMOs, but on many grains and food crops as a drying agent, I knew we must not only raise awareness about the risks of GMOs, but glyphosate as well. I was told not to go after Roundup. That is was "too big." That it was the most widely used herbicide in the world and we would never stop the chemical companies. Many saw me and our mom's group as irrational and perhaps even naive. But we were determined and we initiated glyphosate testing in water, urine, and our breast milk. The results were shocking and the public realized that their families were being contaminated by this dangerous weedkiller. Many other groups began to test for glyphosate in foods, beer, snacks, sanitary products (all positive) and eventually the media picked up the results. New scientific studies were conducted and lawyers began to take interest.
Today for the second time over the past eight months a jury has unanimously found Monsanto guilty of hiding the fact that they knew their glyphosate-based herbicide product, Roundup, could cause cancer. This time, the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, in a federal trial, was awarded $80 million dollars. $5 million was in compensatory and $75 million in punitive damages. In the first trial, Johnson v. Monsanto the jury awarded the plaintiff $289 million dollars and the judge reduces the award to $79 million. At this rate, with thousands of other cases filed against Monsanto, Bayer may be facing payments of $880 billion dollars. Bayer purchased Monsanto for $63 billion just last year.
There are more than 760 other federal cases against Monsanto pending in the same court before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria and 11,200 across the United States.
The results of this trial are a huge win, not only for the plaintiff and their family, but for mothers, fathers, and the public everywhere, who have been struggling to protect their families from Monsanto's chemicals. It is a win against resignation and doubt. An example of what can happen when people stand up for their health and face the largest corporations in the world, and say, "No more."
Zen Honeycutt, Moms Across America
Seneff: “Glyphosate Girl has put together another informative and entertaining blog post on the closing arguments in the ongoing second trial for glyphosate & non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Well done!”
PHASE 2, DAY 4 – THE FINAL ACT by Glyphosate Girl
“Just think about all they knew, yet they still conducted a pattern and practice of deceit. When targeting the amount, in view of Monsanto’s final position, what amount is necessary to punish Monsanto and discourage future wrongful conduct? All I can tell you is that this company, after all this time, still comes to this courtroom and says there is no evidence across the board. They didn’t take it off the shelf or tell anyone it causes cancer. They just kept selling it.”
“Nothing else – IARC, studies – NOTHING has stopped this company because the only thing that they care about is profit.”
She continues, missing absolutely no beat.
“It’s your power and job to say NO MORE. It stops today, the lying, ghostwriting, manipulation. Test your product, put a warning on it. Send that message loud and clear.”
Monsanto exec reveals $17 million budget for anti-IARC, pro-glyphosate efforts
That detail and others about the internal workings of Monsanto public relations operations have come to light in a Jan. 22 video-taped deposition of Monsanto executive Sam Murphey. Murphey’s job at Monsanto included directing global media relations and “advocacy efforts in support of major litigation, policy matters, and reputational threats” involving the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide business. And one of the biggest threats came from those cancer scientists. Murphey now works for Bayer after the German company purchased Monsanto last summer.
U.S. District judge Vince Chhabria did not allow Murphey’s disclosure of the anti-IARC budget to be introduced into evidence in the Hardeman V. Monsanto trial, which went to the jury for deliberation on Tuesday. Jurors in that San Francisco case already determined that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup caused Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but now are weighing damages.
He was asked about a host of actions undertaken to minimize or discredit IARC’s work that were laid out in that and other internal Monsanto communications. Several pages of the deposition are completely redacted, per court order, so it is not possible to see all of what was said by Murphey in his deposition. But here are a few examples of what was discussed:
* Amplifying pro-glyphosate/Roundup messaging through “third-party channels.” One example of using an outside party to parrot Monsanto talking points was an article that appeared on the Forbes contributor platform that appeared to be written by Henry Miller, who at the time was a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Internal Monsanto documents show the piece criticizing IARC was actually drafted by Monsanto and sent to Miller with a request for him to publish the materials.
* Other Op-Ed maneuvers. Just prior to the IARC classification, Monsanto executive Dan Goldstein discussed five “potential draft Op Eds he said he had written for “medical toxicologists to work from” that included “paragraphs on criticism of IARC.” Goldstein was emailing the draft opinion articles out to doctors and scientists with the hope that they would adopt the drafts as their own and have them published, the records show. Monsanto was available to “coordinate Op Ed versions” as needed, Murphey said in his deposition.
* “Let Nothing Go” strategy. According to Murphey, the initiative involved “carefully monitoring media coverage” with a focus on the European Union…
Convincing a Reuters reporter to write a story undermining the validity of the IARC classification was another example of Murphey’s work....
Portland’s ban on synthetic pesticides goes into effect
Adopted just over a year ago, Portland’s pesticide ordinance bans synthetic pesticides use on lawns, gardens, landscaped areas, patios, sidewalks, driveways, parks and playing fields. Only organic treatments can be used to beat back weeds and insects such as grubs.
“It’s very exciting that Portland has become a leader in the worldwide movement to minimize synthetic pesticides and adopt organic land care techniques,” said Avery Kamila, a co-founder of Portland Protectors, which advocated for the ban. “The challenge now becomes educating property owners, lawn care companies and retailers about organic land care.”
Tests show glyphosate is prevalent in restaurant food
Foods from Chili’s Grill & Bar, Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts, IHOP, Le Pain Quotidien, McDonald’s, Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse, Panera Bread, Papa John’s, Pizza Hut, Pret a Manger, Subway, Taco Bell, and Whole Foods Market were tested.
The Pesticide-Free Towns movement is gathering pace across the UK as public concern about the use of glyphosate and other pesticides in our parks, playgrounds and streets continues to grow.
Not long after the recent news from the London Borough of Croydon, which has ended the use of pesticides in all its public parks and green spaces, we have news from three major UK cities that are switching to pesticide-free: Bristol, Derry and Trafford, joining the ranks of Hammersmith & Fulham, Lewes, Wadebridge, Glastonbury and others.
Can there be a lawsuit against Monsanto Bayer for the glyphosate found in vaccines, since we can’t sue pharma?
Pesticides Tied to Autism Risk in Kids
While the researchers stressed that it's premature to say that pesticide exposure actually causes autism, they pointed out that theirs is not the first investigation to sound alarm bells on the dangers that pesticides might pose to brain development.
Will More GMO Foods Be Approved Under FDA’s New Leadership?
As a professor who studies FDA and health law at Saint Louis University, I have been working with the Center for Health Law Studies to monitor changes in FDA regulations and policies. Most recently I've been tracking progress on the FDA's regulation of genetically modified food and think I can explain what consumers can expect from the agency after Gottlieb departs.
As with plants, the FDA considers genetically engineered animals safe for human consumption. The agency reviews these types of products as new animal drug applications.
Consumers should therefore count on increasing numbers of genetically modified plants and animals entering our food supply. Absent a change in scientific consensus, FDA will smooth the pathway for companies to bring these products to market.
...Shoppers can’t yet buy the oil, a product of soybean plants that have been edited to produce fewer saturated fats and zero trans fats, but Calyxt’s CEO Jim Blome says people are already eating it. The company’s first client—a restaurant with multiple locations in the Midwest—has begun using the oil to fry, make sauces, and dress salads, as the Associated Press reported last week…
Gene-silencing GMO dsRNA insecticides can be taken up by soil microbes
Lead author of the new study, Kimberly Parker, assistant professor of energy, environmental and chemical engineering at the McKelvey School of Engineering at Washington University in St Louis, commented, "Now that we have identified the major processes controlling pesticide degradation in soils, we will next investigate in detail the variables that control these processes to enable accurate ecological risk assessment of double-strand RNA pesticides. This will allow us to understand whether or not these new pesticides pose a risk to ecosystems."
EPA May Limit State Restrictions on Pesticide Use, Such as Dicamba
"EPA is under duress because they have twin legal threats: Registrants who claim they have fulfilled all the obligations under the law to market these new formulations and environmental groups that desire to halt the use," he said. "The latter have and are suing EPA, the former are likely to act if they feel they are not being treated fairly under the law."
AAPCO will soon issue a letter to EPA detailing state regulator concerns, and is working to clarify when and if the agency will conduct an official public comment period on any proposed changes, Kachadoorian said.
For now, all 2019 state 24(c) restrictions for dicamba still stand. But 2020 could be different, Thostenson noted.
"EPA is putting everyone on notice for 2020," he said. "I suspect this will be a very messy process moving forward."