It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Monsanto Ordered to Pay $289 Million in California Roundup Cancer Trial

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss




He said on the label it didnt say it would make you sick or whatever.

It sounds like he didn't actually read it.
45ijagbx6du4albwj3e23cj1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com...



Anyone seen those "internal documents" they're talking about?


I'm still reading through this page, but I think they may be in here:


State litigation: Thousands of other plaintiffs have made similar claims against Monsanto in state courts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys estimate the total number of plaintiffs at approximately 4,000. The first trial in the Roundup litigation started June 18, 2018 in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. Documents pertaining to that case as well as others are also included below in the middle column. The jury began deliberations on August 8.

The Johnson case is Case Number: CGC16550128
Title: DEWAYNE JOHNSON VS. MONSANTO COMPANY ET AL
Cause of Action: PRODUCTS LIABILITY


US Right to Know




posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Not only that but going back a few years it appears that Bayer and Aspirin were responsible for the deaths explained away by a "Spanish Flu"

www.nytimes.com...




But of the many factors that might have influenced the outcome in any particular case, Dr. Starko wrote, aspirin overdose stands out for several reasons, including a confluence of historical events.

In February 1917, Bayer lost its American patent on aspirin, opening a lucrative drug market to many manufacturers. Bayer fought back with copious advertising, celebrating the brand’s purity just as the epidemic was reaching its peak.

Aspirin packages were produced containing no warnings about toxicity and few instructions about use. In the fall of 1918, facing a widespread deadly disease with no known cure, the surgeon general and the United States Navy recommended aspirin as a symptomatic treatment, and the military bought large quantities of the drug.

The Journal of the American Medical Association suggested a dose of 1,000 milligrams every three hours, the equivalent of almost 25 standard 325-milligram aspirin tablets in 24 hours. This is about twice the daily dosage generally considered safe today.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Kinda like the FDA knowing — from their cohorts over at the CDC, who recognized the potential liability, giving them the heads up — that a sh$t ton of people will end up as worm food, as the result of legal Opioids being handed out like candy....it never fails: follow the money.

C.R.E.A.M., get da money, Dollar, dolla bills y’all
edit on 10-8-2018 by BeefNoMeat because: (no reason given)



edit on 10-8-2018 by BeefNoMeat because: Raekwon says so



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Yes yes!
Burn Monsanto burn.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

People worry about Roundup, and they don't even know even one fifth of Monsanto's evil!

It's sad, and it's a monster beyond imagination!

ETA - Most people don't even know about how products like 2-4-D were developed and why. They don't understand GMO products.

If they only knew about big agra-business. It's sad really, when you see it for what it is.

ETA - 2-4-D is Roundup on steroids, and what the real market uses. Roundup is just consumer grade stuff.

ETA3 - We have some 2-4-D that is 500x stronger than any roundup you can buy at home depot (like one cup to 150 gallons) and at that strength it will kill every broad leafed plant for a mile around. Put it away years ago, never used it since and am skeered to even get rid of it. Takes a full hazmat suit to even mix it and load it on the plane. BUT...it won't kill certain (unnamed) grain products. I'll let you guess.
edit on 8/10/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss




He said on the label it didnt say it would make you sick or whatever.

It sounds like he didn't actually read it.
45ijagbx6du4albwj3e23cj1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com...



Anyone seen those "internal documents" they're talking about?
I don't think he read the warning label either.

I've seen the e-mail and while I understand there are dangers in applying roundup as the warnings indicate, and don't really want to side with Monsanto, I have to agree with the monsanto lawyer that the statement in the internal e-mail which says "you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement." doesn't imply that it's a carcinogen, but this is why lawyers like to populate the jury with stupid jurors who can be convinced that's what it says. The testing has been done on the active ingredient, glyphosate, but there are other ingredients in roundup which were not included in the tests apparently.

baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/27-Internal-Monsanto-Email-You-Cannot-Say-That-Roundup-is-not-a-Carcinogen.pdf

If there's something more damning I haven't seen it, but I suspect that's the e-mail in question which is being misinterpreted, probably intentionally, by Brent Wisner, who only stands to gain what? 30% of the of the award or settlement as his attorney fee?

Despite Wisner's misrepresentation of what the e-mail actually says, Monsanto probably should have tested the actual formulations they sold, and not just the active ingredient glyphosate. Why do they need to add these other ingredients if they aren't active, and why haven't they also been tested?

edit on 2018811 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Didn't Obama sign an executive order about Monsanto not being liable for any health issues ? I seem To Remember that discusses on ATS ... Anyone remember that ?... Im wondering how That will play into This ?
edit on 11-8-2018 by Meldionne1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingclaydiskI hate guessing why dont u tell us




posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Now Bayer have released a statement claiming that there weed killers do not contain carcinogenic chemical's.

So let them prove it, let's see those Bayer board of directors and shareholders take a bath in the stuff and drink some of it to prove it is harmless?.
www.bbc.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: misterassist

I pretty much did. There's not a secret, well not to the people familiar with the subject. I was only commenting about people using the Roundup term and not realizing the agricultural side of it, that's all.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There was a big study that showed one of the main ingredients (forgot the name) to be likely to cause cancer. It soaks into plants and can't be completely washed off. Even organics were somehow found to have it.

I can't really afford to buy organics, but how else do you combat these corporations that can buy out politicians?

The only real vote is my dollar. And I'm not giving money to GMOs or pesticide food. Or, at least I'll try.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meldionne1
Didn't Obama sign an executive order about Monsanto not being liable for any health issues ?


No, he didn't.
You may be thinking of a law passed in 2013 (which expired 6 months later). It had nothing to do with liability or human health issues.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8/11/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




Why do they need to add these other ingredients if they aren't active, and why haven't they also been tested?

The other ingredients are surfactants, primarily, which help the active ingredient cling to the foliage of the plants. All "inert" ingredients require EPA approval, which implies that there is testing required.

There is ongoing research of genotoxity for both glyphosate and glyphosate formulations. Manufacturers of glyphosate products (there are many such manufacturers, Monsanto's patent expired years ago) probably are keeping a close eye on it.
ntp.niehs.nih.gov...

edit on 8/11/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur




Why do they need to add these other ingredients if they aren't active, and why haven't they also been tested?

The other ingredients are surfactants, primarily, which help the active ingredient cling to the foliage of the plants. All "inert" ingredients require EPA approval, which implies that there is testing required.
Whether accurate or not I don't know, but the implication of the internal memo is that glyphosate has been tested extensively and based on that Monsanto can say it doesn't cause cancer. Maybe there is testing required for the other ingredients, but the internal memo says that testing is far less than the amount of testing done on glyphosate and is apparently not enough for them to justify saying that roundup doesn't cause cancer. To me that doesn't mean it does, it just means they don't know because they haven't done enough testing on the other ingredients. That's my take on the memo, but of course the statements in the memo might not be correct, maybe glyphosate isn't as safe as that memo says it is.

baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/27-Internal-Monsanto-Email-You-Cannot-Say-That-Roundup-is-not-a-Carcinogen.pdf

The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


That's my take on the memo, but of course the statements in the memo might not be correct, maybe glyphosate isn't as safe as that memo says it is.
Glyphosate has been extensively tested but I agree with your interpretation of the memo. I too think it's highly likely that a sympathetic jury was presented with a distorted interpretation of that memo, similar to the way "climategate" offered distorted claims about internal emails about statistical methods used in climatology.

edit on 8/11/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

2-4-D doesn't kill most grasses. But it does kill just about everything else and I don't think there are any 2-4-D resistant GM crops approved as yet. That's why it's a favorite for "lawn care", glyphosate not so much.
Of course, as with any herbicide, plants naturally evolve resistance over time.

But it is considerably more toxic to animals than glyphosate. That's why it's use is far more restricted.


edit on 8/11/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Dont know why anyone still uses these branded products, I think I must have

used every brand on the market and they are all useless.

I use multiples of 1/3 of a cup of salt added to 3 litre or pint of white

vinegar and a squirt of washing up liquid in a spray ....... better than any one

of the branded products, and a lot cheaper too, keep away from lawns though.




I'll wait for my stars till after you have tried it





edit on 11-8-2018 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Agree - let them sip of the poisoned chalice





posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

heres a prediction :

the case will go to appeal - and t federal // SCOTUS level

it will be overturned

ases like this s why i have a very low opnion of the US trial law system



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 02:12 AM
link   
No love lost here for Montsanto... they've done enough devilry in their time that this award, while large considering the individual case, is nothing compared to the damage they have caused through rushed (and sometimes nonexistent) testing.

That said, I know farmers around here swear by Roundup.... but at the same time, I also know they're smart enough to not get drenched with any chemical. Roundup has been used for quite a while now, and I tend to believe it is generally safe, when used as directed. I just wouldn't recommend drinking it or bathing in it, duh.

It's too bad this lawsuit targeted Roundup and not one of their truly super-toxic compounds... it's not going to be a good thing if Roundup comes off the shelves without a good replacement.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join