Monsanto Sued

[bilby]

Well, if we accept for the sake of argument that Glyphosate causes cancers at a very low rate, then its use would still save lives.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

So there's that too.

But as it doesn't, it's saving a tiny fraction more lives.

Either way, fines and bans are fucking stupid.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, if we accept for the sake of argument that Glyphosate causes cancers at a very low rate, then its use would still save lives.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

So there's that too.

But as it doesn't, it's saving a tiny fraction more lives.

Again, this was not a case where studies of dietary intake should be considered highly relevant, since farmworkers are subject to much higher rates of exposure before the chemical breaks down in the environment. You have to look at the facts of this particular workers' exposure and how the packaging instructed people to handle the materials. If those workers needed to be wary of prolonged exposure, then their employers would be responsible for safety guidelines such as use of goggles and protective clothing. If Monsanto did not provide such warnings but had suppressed internal studies or ignored published ones that might have suggested a need for them, then the plaintiff had a case for damages. I don't know that that is how things came off, because neither of us has actually looked at how the cases were presented in court.

Whether you like it or not, courts have a responsibility for determining liability in such lawsuits, and both sides had a chance to make their case. Juries don't always side with plaintiffs in such cases, but there is no reason to get so outraged over the outcome of this trial. Your judgment is based on what you've read about glyphosate, not the evidence presented in the trial.

Either way, fines and bans are fucking stupid.

This isn't really about banning the product, but there can be lots of good reasons to ban some chemicals and products. It depends on a cost-benefit analysis. However, this case is more of a worker safety issue. The legal question of liability was what was at issue, and, since there seem to have been punitive damages, it looks like the jury felt that the defense may have engaged in some deceptive practices. Again, it is hard to tell from the few superficial accounts of the trial.

 

[bilby]

Well, if we accept for the sake of argument that Glyphosate causes cancers at a very low rate, then its use would still save lives.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

So there's that too.

But as it doesn't, it's saving a tiny fraction more lives.

Again, this was not a case where studies of dietary intake should be considered highly relevant, since farmworkers are subject to much higher rates of exposure before the chemical breaks down in the environment. You have to look at the facts of this particular workers' exposure and how the packaging instructed people to handle the materials. If those workers needed to be wary of prolonged exposure, then their employers would be responsible for safety guidelines such as use of goggles and protective clothing. If Monsanto did not provide such warnings but had suppressed internal studies or ignored published ones that might have suggested a need for them, then the plaintiff had a case for damages. I don't know that that is how things came off, because neither of us has actually looked at how the cases were presented in court.

Whether you like it or not, courts have a responsibility for determining liability in such lawsuits, and both sides had a chance to make their case. Juries don't always side with plaintiffs in such cases, but there is no reason to get so outraged over the outcome of this trial. Your judgment is based on what you've read about glyphosate, not the evidence presented in the trial.

Either way, fines and bans are fucking stupid.

This isn't really about banning the product, but there can be lots of good reasons to ban some chemicals and products. It depends on a cost-benefit analysis. However, this case is more of a worker safety issue. The legal question of liability was what was at issue, and, since there seem to have been punitive damages, it looks like the jury felt that the defense may have engaged in some deceptive practices. Again, it is hard to tell from the few superficial accounts of the trial.

FUCK the trial.

The trial is pointless and fucking stupid.

I am not arguing that the trial should have concluded differently. I am arguing that there shouldn't be a trial. That a trial is completely the wrong way to even consider this stuff.

Fuck off with your trials and your juries and your reasonable doubt. This is about facts. And the fact is that Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

 

[Copernicus]

Fine, bilby. Your position is "FUCK the trial." I'll stick with my position that the government has a right to pass laws that protect workers and consumers and that courts have a right to judge liability in those matters. The jury system may be imperfect, but, in the end, it is always going to be ordinary citizens that have the ultimate say in such matters. The lawyers for both sides have the responsibility to present the best case for their clients as they can, and I have no reason to believe that this trial was conducted unfairly. You have not proposed a better alternative to resolving these kinds of disputes, but I accept your genuine feeling that there ought to be a better way to resolve these matters.

 

[Juma]

I have no reason to believe that this trial was conducted unfairly.

Of course, The fact that lawers against monsanto have a ridiculously high bonus if they win ensures that...

How fucking naive can you possibly be?

 

[Copernicus]

I have no reason to believe that this trial was conducted unfairly.

Of course, The fact that lawers against monsanto have a ridiculously high bonus if they win ensures that...

How fucking naive can you possibly be?

No more naive than those who assume that the lawyers laboring for Monsanto were not also ridiculously well compensated for their services. If that is your argument--that all of this is about greedy lawyers--then I can only applaud your altruistic spirit in donating your own services to any potential employer at a minimum rate of compensation. Bravo, sir!

 

[Juma]

I have no reason to believe that this trial was conducted unfairly.

Of course, The fact that lawers against monsanto have a ridiculously high bonus if they win ensures that...

How fucking naive can you possibly be?

No more naive than those who assume that the lawyers laboring for Monsanto were not also ridiculously well compensated for their services. If that is your argument--that all of this is about greedy lawyers:

Of course it is. These lawers do anything they can. Fairness is the last thing they are thinking of.
There is no way you can say that this man got his cancer from glyphosate. Not even if it actually where clearly cancerogenic.

Decisions like this must be made by people that know this stuff and can take personal responsibility for it.
The jury dont have a chance.

 

[Copernicus]

No more naive than those who assume that the lawyers laboring for Monsanto were not also ridiculously well compensated for their services. If that is your argument--that all of this is about greedy lawyers:

Of course it is. These lawers do anything they can. Fairness is the last thing they are thinking of.
There is no way you can say that this man got his cancer from glyphosate. Not even if it actually where clearly cancerogenic.

Decisions like this must be made by people that know this stuff and can take personal responsibility for it.
The jury dont have a chance.

You are certainly not alone in your cynicism regarding lawyers. I suspect that you have feelings about people in a lot of other professions, too. As far as I'm concerned, that's an unsupported ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the specifics of this case. Earlier, Bilby pointed out that I had no idea of his expertise or background. He was correct on that point. For all I know, he is a world-famous epidemiologist. I readily admit that I am no expert in the dangers of glyphosate and that it might well be as harmless to humans as Monsanto claims it is.

So you feel that "decisions like this must be made by people that know this stuff and can take personal responsibility for it." Have I got your argument right? It sounds like a reasonable thing to say. So, who should be the decision-makers in this case? Monsanto? Government bureaucrats? President Trump? A world conclave of epidemiologists? Someone the scientific conclave appoints to examine the case? The only thing you've told us is that you think a jury of ordinary citizens should have no right to weigh expert testimony and come to a decision as to who appears to be right. Who do YOU think should get to decide the merits of this case?

There is a man dying of cancer who claims that his cancer was caused by a chemical that Monsanto claims does not cause cancer. He sued and managed to convince a court that Monsanto was not being truthful. I don't know how his tricky lawyers managed to bamboozle the jury, nor do I know why the incompetent Monsanto lawyers could not succeed in convincing them of the truth, which even internet junkies like yourself know without ever even seeing the evidence that the jury saw or hearing the arguments that the defense made in court. All I can say is that those slimy lawyers for the plaintiff managed to put one over on an ordinary jury that was far less knowledgeable than the folks who have such strong opinions on the subject matter here.

 

[bilby]

No more naive than those who assume that the lawyers laboring for Monsanto were not also ridiculously well compensated for their services. If that is your argument--that all of this is about greedy lawyers:

Of course it is. These lawers do anything they can. Fairness is the last thing they are thinking of.
There is no way you can say that this man got his cancer from glyphosate. Not even if it actually where clearly cancerogenic.

Decisions like this must be made by people that know this stuff and can take personal responsibility for it.
The jury dont have a chance.

You are certainly not alone in your cynicism regarding lawyers. I suspect that you have feelings about people in a lot of other professions, too. As far as I'm concerned, that's an unsupported ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the specifics of this case. Earlier, Bilby pointed out that I had no idea of his expertise or background. He was correct on that point. For all I know, he is a world-famous epidemiologist. I readily admit that I am no expert in the dangers of glyphosate and that it might well be as harmless to humans as Monsanto claims it is.

So you feel that "decisions like this must be made by people that know this stuff and can take personal responsibility for it." Have I got your argument right? It sounds like a reasonable thing to say. So, who should be the decision-makers in this case? Monsanto? Government bureaucrats? President Trump? A world conclave of epidemiologists? Someone the scientific conclave appoints to examine the case? The only thing you've told us is that you think a jury of ordinary citizens should have no right to weigh expert testimony and come to a decision as to who appears to be right. Who do YOU think should get to decide the merits of this case?

There is a man dying of cancer who claims that his cancer was caused by a chemical that Monsanto claims does not cause cancer. He sued and managed to convince a court that Monsanto was not being truthful. I don't know how his tricky lawyers managed to bamboozle the jury, nor do I know why the incompetent Monsanto lawyers could not succeed in convincing them of the truth, which even internet junkies like yourself know without ever even seeing the evidence that the jury saw or hearing the arguments that the defense made in court. All I can say is that those slimy lawyers for the plaintiff managed to put one over on an ordinary jury that was far less knowledgeable than the folks who have such strong opinions on the subject matter here.

If he had sued the church because he claimed his cancer was caused by a demon that they failed to exorcise, or sued Rand McNally for putting his life at risk by failing to mark the edge of the world on their maps, would those also be questions best decided by a jury?

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion. If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

 

[Tammuz]

Here is a scientific take on the case:

The Science Behind the Roundup Lawsuit

A jury has awarded a man $289 million for allegedly contracting cancer from exposure to Roundup, but the science is not on their side.

On August 10th a California jury awarded Dewayne Johnson $289 million dollars in damages against the company Monsanto (now owned by Bayer). The decision was based on the claim that Johnson (a greenskeeper) developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma because of his exposure to Roundup, an herbicide that contains the active ingredient glyphosate that was developed by Monsanto.

The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and is being widely criticized because it is not in line with the science. There is a long history of juries awarded damages based on flimsy science. Dow Corning famously filed for bankruptcy following class action law suits for alleged damages due to silicone breast implants, while the science was still preliminary. The claim was that the breast implants were causing auto-immune disease, which the manufacturer denied. Juries found the women sympathetic, however, and companies rarely appear sympathetic in such trials.

Please read the entire article.

 

[Copernicus]

...If he had sued the church because he claimed his cancer was caused by a demon that they failed to exorcise, or sued Rand McNally for putting his life at risk by failing to mark the edge of the world on their maps, would those also be questions best decided by a jury?

I guess I'll try to ask the question again that people like you are refusing to answer. Who should decide such lawsuits? You don't like the fact that a jury awarded a claim to the side that you disagree with, although we don't know whether you would have actually disagreed with other jury members, had you actually been in the courtroom. That isn't the point, however. The point is that you keep hinting at a better way to decide such lawsuits, but you have given no hint as to what you think would be a better method of dealing with such issues. Please answer the question.

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion. If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

I certainly agree, but that would be the court's final opinion in a jury trial. Unless, of course, the judge found a way to annul or overturn the verdict. I imagine that the losing team of lawyers would have had to be incredibly embarrassed, and the winning team of lawyers incredibly proud. I am reminded of the OJ Simpson trial. That was a really poor decision by a jury. There have been many others.

Luckily, it is possible for Monsanto to appeal the decision. Higher courts have managed to reduce or reverse the effects of such lawsuits.

So here is your chance. Tell us what you would like to see replace the jury system for adjudicating such claims.

 

[Juma]

No more naive than those who assume that the lawyers laboring for Monsanto were not also ridiculously well compensated for their services. If that is your argument--that all of this is about greedy lawyers:

Of course it is. These lawers do anything they can. Fairness is the last thing they are thinking of.
There is no way you can say that this man got his cancer from glyphosate. Not even if it actually where clearly cancerogenic.

Decisions like this must be made by people that know this stuff and can take personal responsibility for it.
The jury dont have a chance.

You are certainly not alone in your cynicism regarding lawyers. I suspect that you have feelings about people in a lot of other professions, too. As far as I'm concerned, that's an unsupported ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the specifics of this case. Earlier, Bilby pointed out that I had no idea of his expertise or background. He was correct on that point. For all I know, he is a world-famous epidemiologist. I readily admit that I am no expert in the dangers of glyphosate and that it might well be as harmless to humans as Monsanto claims it is.

So you feel that "decisions like this must be made by people that know this stuff and can take personal responsibility for it." Have I got your argument right? It sounds like a reasonable thing to say. So, who should be the decision-makers in this case? Monsanto? Government bureaucrats? President Trump? A world conclave of epidemiologists? Someone the scientific conclave appoints to examine the case? The only thing you've told us is that you think a jury of ordinary citizens should have no right to weigh expert testimony and come to a decision as to who appears to be right. Who do YOU think should get to decide the merits of this case?

There is a man dying of cancer who claims that his cancer was caused by a chemical that Monsanto claims does not cause cancer. He sued and managed to convince a court that Monsanto was not being truthful. I don't know how his tricky lawyers managed to bamboozle the jury, nor do I know why the incompetent Monsanto lawyers could not succeed in convincing them of the truth, which even internet junkies like yourself know without ever even seeing the evidence that the jury saw or hearing the arguments that the defense made in court. All I can say is that those slimy lawyers for the plaintiff managed to put one over on an ordinary jury that was far less knowledgeable than the folks who have such strong opinions on the subject matter here.

My opinion is clear:
wether a substance is cancerogenic or not should be decided upon by a expert panel.

 

[bilby]

...If he had sued the church because he claimed his cancer was caused by a demon that they failed to exorcise, or sued Rand McNally for putting his life at risk by failing to mark the edge of the world on their maps, would those also be questions best decided by a jury?

I guess I'll try to ask the question again that people like you are refusing to answer. Who should decide such lawsuits? You don't like the fact that a jury awarded a claim to the side that you disagree with, although we don't know whether you would have actually disagreed with other jury members, had you actually been in the courtroom. That isn't the point, however. The point is that you keep hinting at a better way to decide such lawsuits, but you have given no hint as to what you think would be a better method of dealing with such issues. Please answer the question.

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion. If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

I certainly agree, but that would be the court's final opinion in a jury trial. Unless, of course, the judge found a way to annul or overturn the verdict. I imagine that the losing team of lawyers would have had to be incredibly embarrassed, and the winning team of lawyers incredibly proud. I am reminded of the OJ Simpson trial. That was a really poor decision by a jury. There have been many others.

Luckily, it is possible for Monsanto to appeal the decision. Higher courts have managed to reduce or reverse the effects of such lawsuits.

So here is your chance. Tell us what you would like to see replace the jury system for adjudicating such claims.

Such claims should be dismissed without ever going to trial.

The civilised world doesn't have these kinds of trials - they are a uniquely American phenomenon.

The question is NOT 'who should decide such lawsuits?'. The question is 'should such lawsuits be allowed in the first place?'. And in the civilised world, the answer is 'No'.

 

[Copernicus]

My opinion is clear:
wether a substance is cancerogenic or not should be decided upon by a expert panel.

Well, thanks for that. This is the first time that you've made your opinion clear on the process you would like to see.

Well, hold on. You've left out a bit of crucial detail here. Who chooses the "expert panel" in the Monsanto case? Is it to be made up of "experts" that the government chooses, or do the defense lawyers get to choose who ends up on the panel? What if the experts disagree? Who resolves a split decision? Your clarity strikes me as still a bit short on detail.

Let's not forget that there were some arguments about the applicability of existing literature on glyphosate. These arguments came from both sides of the legal dispute. For example, the defense did point out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did disagree with the prevailing consensus among our scientific experts at Talk Freethought:

The agency based its decision on “limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans” and “sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in experimental animals.” IARC also took into account “strong evidence” that “glyphosate or glyphosate-based formulations” can be “genotoxic,” which means it can damage genes. This damage may then lead to cancer.

Now that IARC decision has been roundly criticized here, and there is no reason to rehash it. I'm just pointing out that there are other issues at stake in this case, e.g. that studies on dietary intake may not have been relevant to the case at hand. And Monsanto's defense may actually have come off as disingenuous or in technical violation of government regulations. So an "expert panel" could also come to a wrong decision in the terms of the merits of this case, given that scientists are human beings with biases. They don't always agree with each other on the merits of a scientific conclusion. It may be that the research on glyphosate exposure in farm workers is a bit less convincing than it has been for dietary exposure.

 

[Juma]

My opinion is clear:
wether a substance is cancerogenic or not should be decided upon by a expert panel.

Well, thanks for that. This is the first time that you've made your opinion clear on the process you would like to see.

Well, hold on. You've left out a bit of crucial detail here. Who chooses the "expert panel" in the Monsanto case? Is it to be made up of "experts" that the government chooses, or do the defense lawyers get to choose who ends up on the panel? What if the experts disagree? Who resolves a split decision? Your clarity strikes me as still a bit short on detail.

Let's not forget that there were some arguments about the applicability of existing literature on glyphosate. These arguments came from both sides of the legal dispute. For example, the defense did point out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did disagree with the prevailing consensus among our scientific experts at Talk Freethought:

The agency based its decision on “limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans” and “sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in experimental animals.” IARC also took into account “strong evidence” that “glyphosate or glyphosate-based formulations” can be “genotoxic,” which means it can damage genes. This damage may then lead to cancer.

Now that IARC decision has been roundly criticized here, and there is no reason to rehash it. I'm just pointing out that there are other issues at stake in this case, e.g. that studies on dietary intake may not have been relevant to the case at hand. And Monsanto's defense may actually have come off as disingenuous or in technical violation of government regulations. So an "expert panel" could also come to a wrong decision in the terms of the merits of this case, given that scientists are human beings with biases. They don't always agree with each other on the merits of a scientific conclusion. It may be that the research on glyphosate exposure in farm workers is a bit less convincing than it has been for dietary exposure.

you talk a lot of rubbish. there is no big question of how such a panel should be set up to minimize risk of bias.
i’m done here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess I'll try to ask the question again that people like you are refusing to answer. Who should decide such lawsuits? You don't like the fact that a jury awarded a claim to the side that you disagree with, although we don't know whether you would have actually disagreed with other jury members, had you actually been in the courtroom. That isn't the point, however. The point is that you keep hinting at a better way to decide such lawsuits, but you have given no hint as to what you think would be a better method of dealing with such issues. Please answer the question.

They shouldn't be permitted in the first place until the harm is established.

Consider the Dow Corning/breast implant case. Vast sums at stake, the company was destroyed--and when the science was in (the research was running parallel to the trial) the conclusion was if there was any effect at all it was protective, not harmful. The very symptoms the women were blaming on the implants were less likely in women with implants than those without.

(Now, complete ruptures were another matter--those did cause harm, but they were rare.)

 

[Rhea]

If he had sued the church because he claimed his cancer was caused by a demon that they failed to exorcise, or sued Rand McNally for putting his life at risk by failing to mark the edge of the world on their maps, would those also be questions best decided by a jury?

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion. If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

Well, in the American justice system, you are not correct. The courts _are_ the place to settle these things when harm is alleged. You can sue for anything - you have that right.

 

[skepticalbip]

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion.

Reality isn't up for debate but what people think reality is (what they believe are facts) certainly is. What is popularly accepted as fact, even among the experts, can certainly change with time. For example, Einstein's view of reality changed several assumptions of "fact" held by science.

If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

But then, in the 15th century, it was an accepted "fact" that this was the case. Giordano Bruno was convicted and executed for denying the "fact" that the Earth was the center of the universe.

I would be damned surprised if some of the "facts" we now hold as reality are not overturned in the future.

 

[whollygoats]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

 

[Juma]

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion.

Reality isn't up for debate but what people think reality is (what they believe are facts) certainly is. What is popularly accepted as fact, even among the experts, can certainly change with time. For example, Einstein's view of reality changed several assumptions of "fact" held by science.

If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

But then, in the 15th century, it was an accepted "fact" that this was the case. Giordano Bruno was convicted and executed for denying the "fact" that the Earth was the center of the universe.

I would be damned surprised if some of the "facts" we now hold as reality are not overturned in the future.

Since the 1500:s we have developed a lot of processes for securing what should count as knowledge. Its called Science.

And naturally knowledge advances. There is nothing wrong with that?
You cannot magically get a better answer by using a jury...