Monsanto Sued

[Juma]

And often both parties in the trial will present their own "expert" witnesses and these "experts" contradict each other.

Almost like exactly what would happen if we let "experts" decide instead of juries.

Not if they arent expecting huge bonuses if it goes ”their” way...

 

[DBT]

I think glyphosate is currently classified as probably carcinogenic;

Agency for Research on Cancer
Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans

* Glyphosate

Bad link...
is it the classification by WHO that you refer to?

I'll try this link;

Quote;

''IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate). IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.''

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am merely pointing out the ridiculous fallacy being used to suggest, preposterously, the abandonment of the jury system.

I'm not saying to abandon the jury system. I'm saying that a case like this should be barred because there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup. I'm saying that in a case of zero meaningful evidence in either direction the verdict automatically should go to the defense.

Instead, we get these cases where nothing can be proven at all, the jury tends to award money to the hurt person despite zero indication the deep pockets actually did them harm.

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

I'm saying you need some reasonable evidence of wrongdoing by the party you claim to be at fault. Preponderance of the evidence means nothing when there's no real evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am merely pointing out the ridiculous fallacy being used to suggest, preposterously, the abandonment of the jury system.

I'm not saying to abandon the jury system. I'm saying that a case like this should be barred because there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup. I'm saying that in a case of zero meaningful evidence in either direction the verdict automatically should go to the defense.

Instead, we get these cases where nothing can be proven at all, the jury tends to award money to the hurt person despite zero indication the deep pockets actually did them harm.

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

With our current system, we do have an "expert" that makes that decision, the judge. The judge is supposed to be the expert on law. Judges can and do dismiss cases if they deem them to be frivolous (no evidence of wrong doing) law suits.

However, it appears that the bar for deciding that a suit is frivolous is awfully high.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

With our current system, we do have an "expert" that makes that decision, the judge. The judge is supposed to be the expert on law. Judges can and do dismiss cases if they deem them to be frivolous (no evidence of wrong doing) law suits.

However, it appears that the bar for deciding that a suit is frivolous is awfully high.

There was a time when we did not know that tobacco use has serious health complications. At that time a suit alleging same would have been having the same discussion about it possibly being frivolous. Same goes for hand-washing and germs.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

Just that a specific persons cancer can very seldom be said to be caused by a specific cause.
This guy has blood cancer. He could have get that in many ways.

Actually, the plaintiff did not have to prove that he contracted cancer from exposure to the chemical, only that it was a likely contributor. Same is true with asbestos. You cannot prove beyond all doubt that exposure to asbestos caused a specific case of mesothelioma, but you can convince a jury that there was a reasonable risk of exposure, that the company producing it knew of the risk, and that it should have warned people of that risk.

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

With our current system, we do have an "expert" that makes that decision, the judge. The judge is supposed to be the expert on law. Judges can and do dismiss cases if they deem them to be frivolous (no evidence of wrong doing) law suits.

The judge is no "expert" on the alleged dangers of glyphosate, and this complaint was hardly frivolous, given the controversy surrounding conflicting claims over the harmfulness of the chemical.

However, it appears that the bar for deciding that a suit is frivolous is awfully high.

Not in this case.

 

[bilby]

Actually, the plaintiff did not have to prove that he contracted cancer from exposure to the chemical, only that it was a likely contributor. Same is true with asbestos. You cannot prove beyond all doubt that exposure to asbestos caused a specific case of mesothelioma, but you can convince a jury that there was a reasonable risk of exposure, that the company producing it knew of the risk, and that it should have warned people of that risk.

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

With our current system, we do have an "expert" that makes that decision, the judge. The judge is supposed to be the expert on law. Judges can and do dismiss cases if they deem them to be frivolous (no evidence of wrong doing) law suits.

The judge is no "expert" on the alleged dangers of glyphosate, and this complaint was hardly frivolous, given the controversy surrounding conflicting claims over the harmfulness of the chemical.

However, it appears that the bar for deciding that a suit is frivolous is awfully high.

Not in this case.

The controversy is entirely artificial and frivolous.

Chemophobia is not a sound basis for legal decisions.

There are a great many controversial positions where the correct position is known and well evidenced. There is controversy over the shape of the Earth - should I be allowed to sue Rand McNally for their failure to warn me of the location of the edge of the world? If I show up in court with injuries consistent with a fall from a precipice, is the jury justified in awarding me millions in damages against the makers of maps that depict the world as edgeless?

 

[Copernicus]

Chemophobia is not a sound basis for legal decisions.

True. Was it in this case? That is certainly your opinion.

There are a great many controversial positions where the correct position is known and well evidenced. There is controversy over the shape of the Earth - should I be allowed to sue Rand McNally for their failure to warn me of the location of the edge of the world? If I show up in court with injuries consistent with a fall from a precipice, is the jury justified in awarding me millions in damages against the makers of maps that depict the world as edgeless?

Again, these are true statements, but the question is still whether such ludicrous comparisons are reasonable for this particular lawsuit. You probably would never have questioned the validity of the legal process, if it had yielded the decision that conformed to your opinion. Because it did not, you keep trying to make it out as equivalent to an endorsement of witchcraft. Monsanto is not poor. Let's wait and see how the appeal goes. Meanwhile, we'll continue to try to imagine what you have in mind as a better way to decide such cases. Apparently, you have some idea that you have not yet bothered to elaborate on, other than vague hand waving at some kind of unspecified panel of scientific experts. Anything but a jury of ordinary citizens.

 

[whollygoats]

Chemophobia is not a sound basis for legal decisions.

True. Was it in this case? That is certainly your opinion.

There are a great many controversial positions where the correct position is known and well evidenced. There is controversy over the shape of the Earth - should I be allowed to sue Rand McNally for their failure to warn me of the location of the edge of the world? If I show up in court with injuries consistent with a fall from a precipice, is the jury justified in awarding me millions in damages against the makers of maps that depict the world as edgeless?

Again, these are true statements, but the question is still whether such ludicrous comparisons are reasonable for this particular lawsuit. You probably would never have questioned the validity of the legal process, if it had yielded the decision that conformed to your opinion. Because it did not, you keep trying to make it out as equivalent to an endorsement of witchcraft. Monsanto is not poor. Let's wait and see how the appeal goes. Meanwhile, we'll continue to try to imagine what you have in mind as a better way to decide such cases. Apparently, you have some idea that you have not yet bothered to elaborate on, other than vague hand waving at some kind of unspecified panel of scientific experts. Anything but a jury of ordinary citizens.

That, and some unspoken assumption that 'scientific experts' somehow cannot be bought.

Whereas, the international pharmaceutical industry has been repeatedly demonstrating exactly how corrupt large portions of the scientific community really is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When I purchase food I wish it told me what chemicals were applied in its production, organic and not. That would be good for everyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When I purchase food I wish it told me what chemicals were applied in its production, organic and not. That would be good for everyone.

That would be a huge data nightmare. Not to mention the logical nightmare because you couldn't mix batches of raw ingredients.

 

[JohnG]

Interesting debate. Good points on both sides - my opinion after reading these posts (and haveing read overviews on the research) is that the best science available tells us the cancer is unlikely caused by Roundup, even before anyone stepped into a courtroom. Unless new science was going to be done during the trial, it should have never got that far.

I think it's fair to compare this with other scenarios - for example, "My child has autism, therefore I will sue the vaccine maker"

Isn't there some contingent for this?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When I purchase food I wish it told me what chemicals were applied in its production, organic and not. That would be good for everyone.

That would be a huge data nightmare. Not to mention the logical nightmare because you couldn't mix batches of raw ingredients.

Not at all. It's no different than you listing what meds you take when you see your doc.

I garden and keep a small orchard. I use certain products which have brand names. It wouldn't be difficult to list these on a label or shelf.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting debate. Good points on both sides - my opinion after reading these posts (and haveing read overviews on the research) is that the best science available tells us the cancer is unlikely caused by Roundup, even before anyone stepped into a courtroom. Unless new science was going to be done during the trial, it should have never got that far.

I think it's fair to compare this with other scenarios - for example, "My child has autism, therefore I will sue the vaccine maker"

Isn't there some contingent for this?

Isn't that what judges do?

 

[JohnG]

Isn't there some contingent for this?

Isn't that what judges do?

I honestly have no idea. If so, I would say the judge dropped the ball here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not at all. It's no different than you listing what meds you take when you see your doc.

I garden and keep a small orchard. I use certain products which have brand names. It wouldn't be difficult to list these on a label or shelf.

Yeah, it would be no problem for home use. It would be a big problem on a national scale.

Farmer 1 grows peas, uses fertilizer A and bug spray B.
Farmer 2 grows peas, uses fertilizer C and bug spray D.

A canned food plant buys peas and puts them in cans.

All the peas from farmer 1 have to go into separate cans from the peas from farmer 2 because the cans need different labels. (And that also means you have to print different labels, as one must list A & B, the other must list C & D.)

Furthermore, you need to carefully clean the canning apparatus before processing farmer 2's peas to ensure there's no pea from farmer 1 still in the system. Your plant is now running in batch mode rather than continuous flow.

And note that this is a trivially simple case compared to many of the scenarios that would result. Real world supply chains are usually far more complex than this.

 

[bilby]

When I purchase food I wish it told me what chemicals were applied in its production, organic and not. That would be good for everyone.

It would be good for the maybe 2% of people who know what the information means, or are prepared to put in the effort to look it up (and who have the skills and education to sort the facts from the bullshit).

It would scare the shit out of about half of the remainder, and cause them to make stupid and harmful choices (widespread demand for organic farming is a good way to ensure that there's insufficient food for the population).

And the rest wouldn't care, but would perhaps wonder why labels are so confusing and why everything is so expensive all of a sudden.

It's one of those 'great ideas' that looks less and less 'great', and more and more 'awful' the more you find out about the actual results of trying to implement it.