• Monsanto ordered to pay $289m damages in Roundup cancer trial
    8 replies, posted
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45152546 Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.
Good. Many years ago I got stranded in Jackson Hole Wyoming during a blizzard. Delta agreed to shuttle me all the way to Salt Lake City overnight. Somewhere along the way, during my sleep deprived dehydrated stupor, I recall driving by a Monsanto plant. There were actually security checkpoints and the place gave off a truly foreboding and sinister aura. Companies like these represent the very worst in corporate greed and deserve to have every possible penny sued from them.
These megacorps that always appeal when they lose a suit are annoying, they can make the money back but that's greed for ya.
Monsanto will appeal because theres really not a whole heck of a lot of evidence that glyphosates are carcinogenic. The only study that said it was was put out by the WHO who completely falsified the paper. The only other is a "probably" The guy suing had a lot of gross negligence on his part, to the point of breaking federal law since he didnt follow the label.
It's because they view a failure to appeal as an admission of guilt. They can never accept responsibility, even when a court orders them to.
Yeah losing money is the only thing that will teach them a lession so of course they'll appeal.
Your disdain for Monsanto comes from a factory that produces deadly chemicals having good security? You realize that DoD requires them to have that right? Goddamn what a dumb reason to hate a company.
This is stupid. Glyophosphate has been studied extensively. It's not carcinogenic at the levels you would find in food and it's of doubtful carcinogeny at higher levels. Juries are really not well versed in determining what is scientifically correct or not, especially in a topic as complicated as this. Hating a company because a potentially hazardous chemical plant has good security. That's moronic.
It's not entirely just about the lesson. Generally speaking people don't like to claim responsibility for crimes they didn't commit. There's been no evidence linking glyphosate to cancer in humans, if they just agree and pay the fine then they will have set legal precedent that will essentially let anyone who's ever been near weedkiller claim a similar fine from them with no contest in court.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.