A San Francisco Jury awarded $289 million in damages to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who said Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller gave him terminal cancer. The award consists of $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.
Johnson’s trial was fast-tracked due to the severe state of his non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system he says was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate herbicide that he applied up to 30 times per year. His doctors didn’t think he’d live to live to see the verdict.
Johnson testified that he had been involved in two accidents during his work in which he was doused with the product, the first of which happened in 2012. Two years later, the 46-year-old father of two was diagnosed with lymphoma – which has covered as much as 80% of his body in lesions.
Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict.
“Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews — and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world — support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.
Monsanto is a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June.
On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would “actually change the world” – after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information.
According to The Guardian, Johnson is the first person to take Monsanto to trial over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer although thousands have made similar legal claims across the United States. This lawsuit focuses on the chemical glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974. The company began by presenting it as a “technological breakthrough” that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. –SHTFplan.com
In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long assessment. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement – warning that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Johnson’s case isn’t part of the consolidated proceedings in Missouri, Delaware or California state court, where some 2,000 similar cases are pending. It’s also separate from a federal multidistrict litigation waiting to be heard by US District Judge Vance Chabria of San Francisco – who allowed hundreds of Roundup lawsuits to proceed to trial after ruling that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases despite calling a plaintiff’s expert opinions “shaky.”
Documents released in August of 2017 led to questions over Monsanto’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.
As the New York Times noted last year, new internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.
A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”
The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe.
“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern.”
And, here’s more:
The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.
In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”
In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
Not surprisingly, Monsanto’s lawyers have argued that the comments above have simply been taken out of context…
Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation.
“There is a standing confidentiality order that they violated,” said Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto. He said that while “you can’t unring a bell,” Monsanto would seek penalties on the firm.
“What you’re seeing are some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” Mr. Partridge said. “But the substance and the science are not affected by this.”
Glyphosphate – Roundup’s main ingredient, was first approved for use in weed killers in 1974, and has grown to become the world’s most popular and widely used herbicide.
I hope you die Monsanto.
While I did not read transcripts from this case testimony it comes across as if they knew for years there could be problems with the product/falsified tests ect.,if true,let em hang!Given what I do know about their cross pollination of corn to other farmers and then suing em makes me hate em.That,and obola passed a exec order they could NOT be sued for a few years during his term(wonder what that cost?!).
I as a kid used on poison ivy would kill the leaves but not the plant.Me mums place on the Vineyard had a lot of poison ivy,pulled for days by the root late fall,had roots literally one and a half inches thick,would have made good lashing!Two years of this and while a few shoots pop up(in fear!)I basically beat the poison ivy in all the areas we like to plant/travel on,piles of roots bigger then pickup trucks left to freeze during the winter!This,friends,is how you get rid of weeds!
The product has been on the market for 40 years. It’s probably the most tested chemical ever. Do you honestly think that if it were a carcinogen that this wouldn’t have been revealed prior to this? The hysteria over glyphosate amazes me. The same people that fear a chemical sprayed onto a plant will drink half a dozen energy drinks while they eat their deep fried donut. Glyphosate carries an ionic charge. Even mineral rich hard water makes it less effective. When it comes in contact with soil, it disappears, it’s pulled apart, back to the molecular level.
I still hate monsanto (no spell check,will not use a capitol M!)due to their lawsuits against farmers whose crops monsanto trashed,fuck em!
How much is Monsanto paying you to write such drivel?
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Well…at least we know what causes cancer now. A San Francisco jury was able to figure out in a couple hours what scientists have spent their careers looking for. They should all win Nobel prizes.
Keep in mind, a San Francisco jury pool would be composed of the following (I know these people well, I have home field advantage):
About four Chinese and one Vietnamese who speak broken English and don’t give a fuck, mostly on their cell phones to family members running small businesses, and will just vote with the majority.
One college aged nit wit, majoring in theater arts, who thinks EVERYTHING causes cancer and should be banned, drinks Kombucha from mason jars.
One fat, grey haired hippie woman, who’s bitter at anyone who’s ever made a thin dime, retired from the San Francisco Public Library system in 1999. Especially hates Monsanto and has seen all of the documentary hit pieces on the company.
A 60 year old flamboyant queen, who recently lost his partner to anal cancer, and blames Round-Up, even though it was from HPV contracted 30 years ago during an orgy they used to call “The Round Up.”
A crazy white woman who thinks she’s Latina because she lives in the Mission District, wears ugly Pashminas, distills her own water because she’s afraid Round Up got into the water supply somehow. Also gives her cats distilled water.
A 25 year old gay, lip gloss wearing Korean medical student who deep down knows that the science is iffy on this but will vote with the majority because he has no self esteem, won’t stand up for anything and was beaten by his dad, who he’s not on speaking terms with at this point. His dad once used Round-up.
A straight white guy who everyone thought was gay who works as a Sous Chef (vegetable chopper who doesn’t have the talent to cook anything) in a premier vegan restaurant. Thinks all chicken stock is contaminated with Round Up.
An old semi-retired lawyer with a pony tail who graduated from Hastings in 1969, and has been “sticking it to the man” ever since, even though he became the man in 1981. Hates capitalism, visits Copenhagen every other year.
That’s your San Francisco jury pool. It sounds funny, but I’m very serious, that’s this area. Thank God for appeals courts.
And keep in mind, none of these people are home owners, maybe a few condo owners. None of these people will need to kill a weed growing next to a driveway.
This is bullshit case. It’ll get tossed on appeal. The Roundup discussion basically splits down two lines. Those lines get blurred all the time, and they shouldn’t. Roundup has been used to kill weeds in ornamental situations for a long time, was virtually no controversy. The big deal for most is the idea of genetically modified crops where Roundup is sprayed directly over the young food crop. Genetic modifications prevent the Roundup from killing the food crop. Is that a good idea? I like Roundup, but even I don’t think so. Not by a long shot. Might that proved to be a negative practice at some point? Maybe. But that’s not what this guy’s lawsuit claimed. He won’t get paid in the end
You’re right, he won’t. His heirs will.
This kind of money is a slap on the wrist for Monsanto, it will change nothing.
There are literally 100s of other cases involving Roundup.
Monsanto; the makers of fine quality products like Agent Orange, DDT, Aspartame…
This will be much like tobacco cases. It is damn near impossible to prove that tobacco caused this particular case of cancer. And hence why tobacco companies still exists selling tobacco.
The amount of this award is meaningless. It will never be paid. Even if it was $1, Monsanto would appeal.
If you cannot 100% prove the cancer was caused by Roundup, which is impossible, then this will get tossed. Same as with tobacco. As the case makes its way up the appeals route, somewhere it will get overturned. And it suits Monsanto to drag its feet for years and years and years and years.