This has the potential to have a huge impact:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/10/h...ict/index.html
Printable View
This has the potential to have a huge impact:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/10/h...ict/index.html
Interesting. May be overturned on appeal but no idea what the odds are of that.
It will no doubt get reduced. But even if that doesn't happen Roundup made almost $5 billion last year. This verdict will change nothing.
It certainly will change something. We have Roundup. Not anymore. And I'm sure I'm far from the only one who will not buy Roundup stuff anymore.
I doubt the impact will be significant. People screaming "Roundup causes cancer" have been around for almost as long as Roundup itself has. They would probably take this verdict as some sort of proof of Roundup's carcinogenicity, despite the fact that biological properties of any chemical can only be researched and established, not decided upon by a court. However, these very people don't use Roundup anyway, so nothing changes there. The amount of people who are on the fence about using Roundup is not that large, I imagine, and many of them probably will realize that the verdict doesn't qualify as evidence for any harmful effects.
Not comfortable having courts decide on scientific questions. And in this case, the science seems to be in opposition to the court's decision.
Surely this was addressed by Monsanto during the trial....but I'm wondering how his "dousings" (not just once but twice) weren't considered misuse of the product and/or ignoring label safety instructions, especially if he was using a concentrate and diluting it himself but didn't use proper technique, or wear "protective gear"?
If you read the label warnings, it's clear that any contact with skin or eyes is a *poison health hazard*, and using it in conjunction with "other" chemicals is extremely dangerous, possibly life-threatening. (That's probably why they came out with the 'safer' more user-friendly pre-mixed jugs with wand extensions. Their disposal instructions are problematic, too.)
An additional concern: how/why was this being used on school grounds, and were children exposed to any risks? Even residential lawn services that spray chemicals are required to post signs saying "no foot traffic" for X number of days....
This case has relevance to thousands of cases against Monsanto in the US alone. What will be especially interesting is if a jury ever finds an employer liable for an employee's illness due to using Roundup without providing "adequate" information (by this legal standard) about health risks. Given how ubiquitous Roundup is in many supply chains, even a small perceived change in risk of liability might have widespread effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by BalticSailor
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by BalticSailor
Oh, I have no doubt that there will be a material business effect, either through litigation costs or through marginal changes in demand. But let's be honest here, juries are shit at evaluating scientific evidence. The standard of proof for this kind of case is actually pretty high, and if a scientist evaluated the data there's no way they would have gotten a verdict against Monsanto. There's also no guarantee that other cases will go the same way (or that this will, on appeal). There have been all sorts of major cases in recent years that have had eye-wateringly high awards based on incredibly thin evidence - e.g. some of the JNJ litigation on talc - and this is more an outgrowth of the way these trials are litigated rather than any meaningful verdict on the safety or lack thereof of a given product.
There are plenty of real product safety problems that get addressed through this kind of litigation (e.g. vaginal meshes, metal-on-metal hips, etc.) but clearly there's a lot of garbage as well. Figuring out how to make a fair and comprehensive system is clearly a work in progress.
Agreed, juries are good at lots of things but not sure this is one of them.
That was not the task of this jury.