Having laymen decide whether something had a significant part in causing a particular person's cancer is some real dumb shit.
That's the defense's job is to get experts to explain; if they failed to do that Monsanto should fire their legal team.
They allege Monsanto tampered with the results saying it wasn't safe, which is why the Jury ruled in the man's favor.
The appeal's court case will be interesting, for sure.
Jesus Gramma on a pogo stick Christ.
The thing is, I would not be surprised in the lightest given Monsanto's known history and the fact that a lot medical 'studies' are often biased filled fuckfests.
I hope you keep that line around when the antivaxxers start suing (maybe they have already and lost, but it’s the principle).
I know how it works, though - but that doesn’t make it not some stupid shit in cases like these.
It's Monsanto, so regardless if they're right or wrong they'll be fine after paying the suits.
Anti-vaxxers have sued many institutions over the years and almost always lost. The times they do win is often because of the poor defense, as Swilly noted.
Also, as Saxon noted: They allege Monsanto suppressed the results saying it wasn't safe, which is why the jury ruled in the man's favor.
Not because they believe they are experts.
“Hardeman’s trial has been more limited in scope. While Johnson’s attorneys argued that Monsanto had “bullied” scientists and fought to suppress negative studies about its product, the federal judge barred Hardeman’s lawyers from discussing Monsanto’s alleged influence on research and regulations during the hearings.
The US judge Vince Chhabria went so far as to sanction Hardeman’s lawyer for bringing up Hardeman’s “personal history”, referring to internal Monsanto documents, and explaining the process behind various regulatory decisions about glyphosate in her opening remarks. With Hardeman’s trial limited to a strict discussion of whether Roundup exposure caused his cancer, his attorneys have argued they were facing a significant disadvantage.”
Isn’t that the exact opposite of what the article says though?
I mean, Monsanto's influence and instilling bias in safety related studies does seem pretty relevant to me? It's rather important to consider if you want to determine whether those studies are strong or weak as evidence.
I'm talking about the scope of the trial in the context of Saxon's post:
As far as I can tell (from this one article granted, but Saxon didn't link any other articles, so I'm not inclined to do a large degree of digging here), the jury wasn't told to consider whether Monsanto had suppressed evidence in this case, only if RoundUp was likely to have caused Hardeman's cancer or not.
I don't get how people can shit on companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart, then turn around and defend Monsanto like they defend their mothers. I don't get how people can trust a mega-corporation like that, especially one that is now owned by Bayer.
I get that they are the biggest company that produces GMO crops, but that's no excuse to have unwavering support for them.
I support GMOs, but I will never entertain a company of the likes of Monsanto, and Bayer if I can avoid it.
Damn, that stuff is still available in the US? In those huge ass canisters?
Worked in a plant store here a few years back (the Netherlands) and we used to have this, in like a 5ml vial.
And even that got outlawed because of serious health concerns.
Now you're telling me the US has been selling this shit for all this time?
I mean I could go buy a litre of RoundUp in a hardware store right now here in Denmark, so there are definitely no EU-wide regulations against it - obviously I can't speak for the Netherlands.
Well you do kinda have to do the former to do the latter.
So when the court instructs the jury to do one but not the other, it means they can't base their decision on available studies, since their validity can't even be discussed. This leaves them with nothing to inform their decision but their own opinion on the matter, and given Monsanto/Bayer doesn't exactly have a spotless track record, the end result isn't surprising.
If the court wanted the jury's decision to be scientifically-backed, they shouldn't have barred important aspects of available publications, such as conflicts of interest, from being taken into account.
Again:
“Hardeman’s trial has been more limited in scope. While Johnson’s attorneys argued that Monsanto had “bullied” scientists and fought to suppress negative studies about its product, the federal judge barred Hardeman’s lawyers from discussing Monsanto’s alleged influence on research and regulations during the hearings."
Obviously I'm not a lawyer, so I might be wrong on this, but jurors are supposed to base their verdict only on the evidence presented in court - if Hardeman's lawyers weren't allowed to discuss Monsanto's track record with regards to suppressing scientific studies (and beyond Monsanto's generally "bad" reputation, I have no idea what claims have been made about this specifically), the jurors can only base their decision on what else was presented; which would probably be something like Hardeman's history of glyphosate exposure and its relation to his NHL diagnosis and scientific studies. The validity of those scientific studies were probably discussed (and as far as I can tell, the quality of the data is low across the board), but from the brief snippet from the article, not on the basis on Monsanto's potential influence.
...And barring key aspects of those studies from being discussed most likely heavily decredibilised them in the eyes of the jury.
With available evidence in favour of Monsanto's product's safety being unconvincing, the jury has to fall back on their public track record, because they're not robots and they have to reach a decision. Monsanto having covered up disastrous environmental damage of their own making and being responsible for shit like agent orange in the past most likely led them to this conclusion.
Or perhaps jurors, like most people, are more susceptible to personal stories rather than talk about statistical significance and confounding variables.
Then if you believe that's a more likely explanation than mine you're welcome to be consistent with your own opinion and provide evidence for it.
As it currently stands, though, I see no more reason to believe that they made their decision out of pity for the plaintiff than to consider other, equally likely explanations.
Well my "evidence" is that the personal story of the plaintiff was most likely part of the evidence presented, and thus something the jury was supposed to deliberate, whereas Monsanto's general conduct (and with regards to scientific publications) was not, as well as the fact that jurors were probably selected to exclude those with negative perceptions of the company. Combined it makes me think that it's unlikely that the jury based their decision on Monsanto interference with the science published on the matter.
I'm also not talking about pity, I'm talking about people's tendency to believe anecdotal evidence - of course especially if the one delivering the anecdote seems sympathetic to them. That's not exactly a hot take.
But of course I can't "prove" anything no more than you can.
Then the court should have thought of that before instructing the jury to solely consider the evidence anecdotally. To base their decision scientifically would have required determining whether solid scientific evidence supports the claim that RoundUp is safe first - before considering whether the general risk it poses is likely to be the cause of this man's cancer - but that's not something that the jury was given the necessary leeway to do. So anecdotal evidence it had to be.
None of the responsibility falls on the jurors. It's the judge fault for arbitrarily limiting the scope of the lawsuit in a way that doesn't fit proper scientific reasoning.
I mean my entire point was that it probably shouldn't be the responsibility of a jury to determine whether RoundUp causes cancer or not. I will say, though, that the idea that the jury would've been any more capable of doing that if Monsanto's involvement was a point of discussion is kind of laughable, since the scientific consensus seems to basically be up in the air.
Juries aren't scientists, and this idea of bringing court cases before a scientific consensus exists seems to be very much putting the cart in front of the horse. It's dumb in my opinion. Doesn't mean I'm calling the jury are bunch of emotional idiots.
Seems to me like you're just opposed to the concept of jury in general. Jurors are never experts in the relevant fields, whether we're talking about autopsy results or health and safety concerns. That's not the point of juries.
The idea of having to wait for a scientific consensus to form before filing lawsuits when part of the issue is Monsanto allegedly suppressing publications that don't go their way seems equally dumb to me, if not more so.
The jury did not conclude that RoundUp causes cancer. They concluded that it's more likely than not (>50% likelihood) that RoundUp was a substantial contributing factor in the plaintiff's cancer. Those are not the same thing. This means that the cancer could have been caused by something other than the RoundUp itself, but that RoundUp did play a role (whether that is to cause the cancer in whole or in part).
Laymen juries are a vital component of the proper functioning of our (US / common law) legal system. I understand the concern about anti-vax folks, but laymen juries exist because courtrooms are filled to the brim with professionals. Judges, lawyers, and experts all are in a class above laymen. The court has an interest in preserving the role of juries as fact finders to preserve the democratic nature of law, due process, and even out the power imbalance between multi-billion dollar corporations and (often) low-income, vulnerable litigants - whether that be the plaintiff (in a case such as this) or the defendant (in a criminal case).
I know that the burden of proof in civil court is markedly lower, but if you conclude that "RoundUp caused his cancer in part" that means that RoundUp causes cancer (granted, many things are carcinogens). The way I see it, to make it probable that his cancer was caused by RoundUp, RoundUp - on its own, with no other contributing factors - should increase his risk of NHL by more than 100%. Otherwise you can't claim that it's more likely than not that RoundUp caused his cancer (since without RoundUp, his risk of cancer would've been more than halved).
Pre-post edit:
Actually looking at the court files, this is sort of what Monsanto ended up arguing (In re PTO85). The court agrees with you, though (not surprising I suppose - aren't you a court clerk or something?). The plaintiff's lawyers probably thought in the same vein, since they apparently based much on a 2003 study by De Roos et al. which showed an adjusted odd ratio of 2.1 - with a borderline insignificant confidence interval of 1.1-4.0. A 2005 study by the same team showed no association at all, but I digress.
I'm not against juries in general, but I have to question how useful they are in cases where the science simply isn't out yet. The court cites an argument that early victims of exposure to a new compound should be able to have their day in court, but does that really apply when a product has been out since 1974? These studies are not new, they came out in the 90's and 00's.
I guess I simply have a hard time seeing "science" work out in courts. These proceedings work so differently.
He ended up getting $80m btw: Roundup
Which brings up the question of how the other 11000 cases will be compensated.
Gee, who'da thunk a weed killer might actually be carcinogenic! It's designed to kill shit that shrugs off most methods of control. Of course it's not gonna be all that good on the user's health either.
That being said, Monsanto's a dickhead and probably tried to withhold information as such, so fuck 'em. Hope they lose the case. I've no problem with dangerous things being on the market as long as it's crystal clear that those things are dangerous and what precautions need taken to avoid those dangers while using the thing.
Yup, I could waltz into any home improvement, lawn and garden, or DIY store in the country...and the related departments in any WalMart in the country...and buy the stuff in bulk no questions asked. And I like that. I know weed killer's dangerous stuff(It better be, how the fuck else is it gonna kill weeds?!), no need to be all nanny state about it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.