Jury Finds Roundup Caused Cancer

[jberryhill]

In the continued attack on the courts and other institutions of law, a fairly mundane evidentiary ruling and an admonishment from a judge about that prior ruling was, among the DU legal brain trust, proof-positive of the generalized corruption and untrustworthiness of the federal courts:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10142274480

A few weeks ago, despite a mixed bag of rulings for or against either side, as is normal in litigation, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the primary Monsanto RoundUp litigation decided to violate a pre-trial ruling, and was rebuked by the judge for doing it.

This, naturally, meant the judge was bought-off, the fix was in, and the usual litany of accusations intended to erode and undermine confidence in the rule of law generally.

The silence from those quarters is deafening, now that the jury has ruled on the first phase of the trial - causation:

https://abc7news.com/society/sf-jury-rules-monsantos-roundup-caused-sonoma-co-mans-lymphoma/5206462/

San Francisco jury rules Monsanto's Roundup caused Sonoma Co. man's lymphoma

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/bayer-shares-slide-after-latest-roundup-cancer-ruling-idUSKCN1R02O3

Tuesday’s unanimous jury decision in San Francisco federal court was not a finding of Bayer’s liability for the cancer of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman. Liability and damages will be decided by the same jury in a second trial phase beginning on Wednesday.

...

Bayer had claimed that jury was overly influenced by plaintiffs’ lawyers allegations of corporate misconduct and did not focus on the science.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called such evidence “a distraction” from the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. He split the Hardeman case into two phases: one to decide causation, the other to determine Bayer’s potential liability and damages.

Under Chhabria’s order, the second phase would only take place if the jury found Roundup to be a substantial factor in causing Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The jury found that it was on Tuesday.

[Guilded Lilly]

1. Killing us softly...for profit.

[womanofthehills]

9. So true - Roundup is sprayed on many crops pre harvest

just to make sure we don't miss our daily Roundup dose.

[lagomorph777]

2. They're advertising Roundup like crazy on TV now.

They must have gigantic cesspools full of it to get rid of before it's banned (by the next administration, of course).

[Mariana]

20. They always advertise heavily in springtime. nt.

[malaise]

3. Good

Now lock them up

Important - get thee to the greatest page

[jberryhill]

4. Lock who up?

Whom do you expect to get locked up as a result of a civil trial?

[malaise]

5. No one but one can hope that yjose who profit from murder for profit

will face consequences.

[FakeNoose]

6. I'll never understand why Bayer bought Monsanto

Now they own all the liability this company created with their terrible products. Bayer was actually a good and profitable company, but this will take them down the tubes.

[NeoGreen]

7. I'm not taking a side, but maybe...

...the "those quarters" crowd differentiated between a decision by a judge and a decision by a jury.

It is possible that the judge was "bought off", so to speak, and yet the jury was not and found causation without undue/outside/judicial influence.

Plus, I see it as pedantic to say that a finding of roundup causation <=> a finding that Bayer is liable.

Apparently, all that we are waiting for is the jury's assessment of the $ value of that liability.

However, in parting I will submit that maybe this post is my Exhibit A on how to be pedantic.

[jberryhill]

24. I require a lot of pedants

Because I feed them to my pedaardvark.

[NeoGreen]

25. I only notice...

...pendan/tics on other people. I find myself to be surprisingly immune.

[cilla4progress]

8. There was a Roundup ad on

Joy Reid's podcast recently.

Some also have slightly kinky ads for IKEA bedroom furniture (Kama sutra)?

New thing, these ads on MSNBC podcasts. Other podcasts have had them for awhile.

[Ron Obvious]

10. I'd hardly trust juries to draw scientific conclusions.

This is the wrong way to go about this.

[jberryhill]

11. What would be the right way?

[Ron Obvious]

12. Peer-reviewed Scientific Journals

Which juries could then use to award damages.

Ideally, this sort of research would be conducted in universities, but I agree that the corporate influence on university research is far too great.

Still, juries aren't competent to draw these sorts of conclusions.

[andym]

13. +1 juries have problems with science

because lawyers for both sides try to get pliable citizens who understand science poorly and keep people with scientific knowledge off juries, especially in cases dealing with science or medicine.

[Dr. Strange]

14. The same kind of journals that push the climate change nonsense?

Please! Scientists can't be trusted.

[Brother Buzz]

19. Independent peer-review tipped the scale in the former school groundskeeper case

And it was these independent and peer-reviewed works that convinced the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization to determine that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. In the wake of that WHO finding, California added glyphosate to the state’s list of cancer-causing chemicals.

What's not selling in the courts is Monsanto's in-house studies. And after this second case, the floodgate of litigation, or whatever those lawyers call it, is wide open, and you can bet your bottom dollar Monsanto will move mountains to try the cases outside California.

Will it play in Peoria?

[eallen]

15. I'd like to see something else tried. Hard to see how that will happen.

The groups most interested don't want rational reform. Those who do don't have much political leverage.

You're right, of course, that no one should take a jury decision as meaning diddly with regard to a science question.

[Cal Carpenter]

23. I'm afraid I agree with you

To be clear - I think it is extremely likely that Roundup does cause cancer. I don't know the current scientific perspective on this, but the truth lies in science, not a jury. I'm guessing it is pretty clear scientifically or the jury wouldn't have come to this conclusion, but that's not necessarily the case in other, hypothetical situations like this.

Using a jury decision itself as evidence or proof that "Roundup causes cancer" is just like the anti-vaxxers using the Vaccine Injury Court settlements as proof that vaccines cause autism or whatever else.

I think this is likely a good result for this case (haven't followed it closely so it is hard to have a strong opinion) but I think one needs to be careful not to use this jury decision as their main argument that Roundup causes cancer.

[Archae]

17. Who should I sue for the cancer I had?

[panader0]

18. I was in Lowe's a week ago and there were huge displays of Roundup.

I couldn't believe it.
The problems with Roundup have been known, perhaps not proven, for
a long time.

[Mariana]

21. But there's money to be made.

Most people who buy that crap pick the Round-up brand, even though the store-brand glyphosate weedkiller costs MUCH less.

[spanone]

22. I was just at Lowes and they had LOTS of Roundup and knock-offs of Roundup.

It's everywhere.