{"id":206,"date":"2018-11-14T08:23:36","date_gmt":"2018-11-14T08:23:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/walihaider.dx.am\/?p=206"},"modified":"2018-11-14T08:23:36","modified_gmt":"2018-11-14T08:23:36","slug":"the-world-is-against-them-new-era-of-cancer-lawsuits-threaten-monsanto","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/?p=206","title":{"rendered":"\u2018THE WORLD IS AGAINST THEM\u2019: NEW ERA OF CANCER LAWSUITS THREATEN\u00a0MONSANTO"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Posted on\u00a0<\/span>
\n

October 8, 2018 \/\u00a0Published at The Guardian<\/p>\n

by Carey Gillam and Sam Levin<\/p>\n

Dean Brooks grasped on to the shopping cart, suddenly unable to stand or breathe. Later, at a\u00a0California\u00a0emergency room, a nurse with teary eyes delivered the news, telling his wife, Deborah, to hold out hope for a miracle. It was December 2015 when they learned that a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was rapidly attacking the man\u2019s body and immune system.<\/p>\n

By July 2016, Dean was dead. Deborah gets emotional recounting the gruesome final chapter of the love of her life. But in recent months, she has had reason to be hopeful again.<\/p>\n

In an historic verdict in August, a jury ruled that Monsanto had\u00a0caused a man\u2019s terminal cancer\u00a0and ordered the agrochemical corporation to pay $289m in damages. The extraordinary decision, exposing the potential hazards of the\u00a0world\u2019s most widely used herbicide, has paved the way for thousands of other cancer patients and families to seek justice and compensation in court.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s like a serial killer, but it\u2019s a product,\u201d said Brooks, 57, who has a pending\u00a0case\u00a0against Monsanto, alleging that her husband\u2019s use of the company\u2019s popular weedkiller at their home led to his fatal disease. \u201cIt\u2019s unconscionable \u2026 I don\u2019t see how they can win. The world is against them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Brooks said she cried when she learned that a jury had ruled in favor of Dewayne \u201cLee\u201d Johnson, the\u00a0terminally ill\u00a0former school groundskeeper who became the\u00a0first person to take Monsanto to trial over Roundup. The verdict stated that Monsanto \u201cacted with malice\u201d, knew or should have known its chemical was dangerous, and failed to warn consumers about the risks.<\/p>\n

Monsanto has filed an\u00a0appeal, and a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in San Francisco. The stakes are high for Monsanto and Bayer, the German\u00a0pharmaceutical giant that acquired the company\u00a0earlier this year. Energized by the Johnson win, a snowballing series of courtroom challenges are now threatening the legacy and finances of the corporations \u2013 and the future of a chemical that is ubiquitous around the globe.<\/p>\n

The fight against 8,000 plaintiffs<\/strong><\/p>\n

Monsanto has\u00a0argued\u00a0that \u201cjunk science\u201d led to the jury\u2019s ruling on the chemical called glyphosate, which the company brought to market in 1974. Sold under numerous brands, including Roundup and Ranger Pro, the herbicide is now worth billions of dollars in revenues and is registered in 130 countries, with approvals for use on more than 100 crops.<\/p>\n

The Johnson v Monsanto trial was groundbreaking before it even began, because a judge allowed the plaintiff\u2019s attorneys to\u00a0present research and expert testimony\u00a0on glyphosate and\u00a0health risks\u00a0\u2013 scientific evidence that the jury ultimately found credible and compelling.<\/p>\n

Johnson, who is not expected to survive for more than two years, said he had prolonged exposures to glyphosate while applying the herbicide to school properties, at least twice accidentally getting large amounts of the chemical on his skin. Because\u00a0Monsanto\u00a0has insisted that the product is safe and has no cancer warnings on its labels, Johnson said he did not know about the risks until it was too late.<\/p>\n

His award of $289m, which included $250m in punitive damages, is a game-changer for the 46-year-old, who will leave behind a wife and three children. But Monsanto is fighting to keep it from him.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a big red flag for the company,\u201d said Jean M Eggen, professor emerita at Widener University Delaware Law School, adding of the verdict: \u201cIt brings more people out who might not otherwise sue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Roughly\u00a08,700 plaintiffs\u00a0have made similar cases in state courts across the country, alleging that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides led to various types of cancer. The impact could be huge if Monsanto continues to fight and lose in jury trials, and an accumulation of wins could force the company to consider settling with plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt could become very costly,\u201d said Eggen, comparing the fight to that of the tobacco industry, which aggressively fought cases in court but eventually decided settlements were the best option. \u201cIt\u2019s really a business decision.\u201d<\/p>\n

Monsanto may ultimately consider changing the labels to warn consumers about cancer risks and work to settle with consumers who have had high exposures, said Lars Noah, University of Florida law professor: \u201cIt\u2019s sort of a wake-up call that their strategy was unrealistic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of the thousands of cases, there are more than 10\u00a0trials\u00a0on\u00a0track\u00a0to start in 2019 and 2020, with court battles ramping up in California, Montana, Delaware, Kansas City and St Louis (where Monsanto is headquartered). Farmers, gardeners, government employees, landscapers and a wide range of others have alleged that Monsanto\u2019s products sickened them or killed their loved ones.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a tremendous number of trials for one year and will allow plaintiffs to get critical evidence in front of juries \u2013 evidence not seen before,\u201d said the attorney Aimee Wagstaff.<\/p>\n

The first plaintiffs who may have an opportunity to face Monsanto in a courtroom are Alberta and Alva Pilliod, a California couple. Alberta, 74, has brain cancer while her husband, 76, suffers from a bone cancer that he said has invaded his pelvis and spine \u2013 both forms of NHL.<\/p>\n

Given their age and cancer diagnoses, their lawyers have argued they have a right\u00a0to a speedy trial. Monsanto, however, has\u00a0opposed\u00a0the request, and a hearing on the matter is set for Tuesday.<\/p>\n

The couple, who have two children and four grandchildren, used Roundup from the 1970s until a few years ago \u2013 around their yard and on multiple properties they purchased and renovated. The couple said they chose the herbicide because they believed it wouldn\u2019t be harmful to the deer, ducks and other animals that roamed their property. They were also sure it was safe for themselves.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are very angry. We hope to get justice,\u201d Alberta told the Guardian, noting that they didn\u2019t use protective gear when they sprayed and would not have used Roundup the way they did if they knew the risks. \u201cIf we had been given accurate information, if we had been warned, this wouldn\u2019t have happened.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alva said the cancer had destroyed their lives: \u201cIt has been a miserable few years.\u201d<\/p>\n

Their lawyers hope to go to trial before it\u2019s too late. Alberta\u2019s doctors have said she has \u201csubstantially high risk\u201d for recurrence, has \u201cdeep brain lesions\u201d from the cancer \u2013 and is likely to die if she does relapse.<\/p>\n

\u2018We are not going to be silent\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Pilliods and other plaintiffs taking on the company have long argued that Monsanto led a \u201cprolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general public that Roundup was safe\u201d.<\/p>\n

Attorneys have cited internal Monsanto records that they say demonstrate how the company has manipulated and corrupted the scientific record with respect to the herbicide\u2019s safety. The scrutiny has escalated in recent weeks.<\/p>\n

On 26 September, the prominent scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology issued an \u201cexpression of concern\u201d, saying that its published research finding glyphosate to be safe had not fully declared Monsanto\u2019s involvement.<\/p>\n

The high-profile correction came after litigation revealed that the company was involved in\u00a0organizing and editing article drafts. Monsanto was linked to a scientific review that countered a crucial 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of glyphosate as a\u00a0probable human carcinogen.<\/p>\n

More evidence could emerge at forthcoming trials about Monsanto\u2019s questionable involvements in scientific papers, plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys said.<\/p>\n

A Bayer spokesman, Utz Klages, said in an email that the number of cases filed was \u201cnot indicative of the merits of the litigation\u201d. He called glyphosate a \u201cbreakthrough for modern agriculture\u201d and \u201ccost-effective tool that can be used safely to control a wide range of weeds\u201d.<\/p>\n

Regulatory reviews and scientific studies have demonstrated that glyphosate is safe and not a cause of NHL, he said, adding: \u201cThe Johnson verdict is not final and concerns a single, specific case.\u201d<\/p>\n

John Barton, a California farmer who used Roundup for decades and was diagnosed with NHL in 2015, said he was eager to go to trial, especially since Monsanto and Bayer were still telling the public that glyphosate was safe.<\/p>\n

\u201cMonsanto needs to realize that we are not going to be silent any more,\u201d said Barton, a third-generation farmer, who is part of a California lawsuit filed by the Baum Hedlund firm, which represented Johnson. \u201cWe are not going to roll over and play dead \u2026 People should be warned that this stuff is everywhere and we should be careful of this product.\u201d<\/p>\n

Barton, 69, said he also feared that his three sons could get sick due to their Roundup exposure.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy dad exposed me to this. He never would\u2019ve done that if he knew it was dangerous,\u201d he added. \u201cI have this guilt that I may have endangered my own sons.\u201d<\/p>\n

Deborah Brooks described NHL as \u201ctorture\u201d, recounting her husband lying on towels on the floor trying to stop endless nosebleeds and the constant illnesses that plagued him while his immune system suffered.<\/p>\n

\u201cNobody should have to go through that. It takes life in such a terrible way,\u201d said Brooks, whose husband was 72 years old when he died. \u201cI\u2019m fighting for the honor of my husband and all the others that have come before and will come after \u2026 My heart goes out to those victims who don\u2019t know they\u2019re victims.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bayer declined to comment about the Brooks or Barton cases. A spokeswoman, Charla Lord, said in an email that because the Pilliods are both in remission and there was \u201cno indication of any imminent cancer recurrence\u201d, the company is arguing that an early trial date was not warranted.<\/p>\n

Legal experts said it was possible the Johnson appeal could lead to a reduced monetary award. The courts could also find that there was insufficient evidence to prove that glyphosate causes cancer or that attorneys failed to demonstrate that the herbicide caused Johnson\u2019s cancer.<\/p>\n

Those outcomes could be devastating for Johnson and a setback for those fighting glyphosate. But cancer patients and families across the country will be able to push forward regardless of what happens in San Francisco, said David Levine, a University of California Hastings law professor.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven if Monsanto gets a complete victory here, it\u2019s not going to stop other plaintiffs.\u201d<\/p>\n

http:\/\/careygillam.com\/articles\/article\/the-world-is-against-them-new-era-of-cancer-lawsuits-threaten-monsanto<\/a><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2018\/oct\/07\/monsanto-trial-cancer-appeal-glyphosate-chemical<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Posted on\u00a0October 11, 2018 October 8, 2018 \/\u00a0Published at The Guardian by Carey Gillam and Sam Levin Dean Brooks grasped…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rootsforequity.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}