Welcome to
Mod The Sims
Online: 3475
News:
Have an account? Sign in:
pass:
If you don't have an account, why not sign up now? It's free!
Other sites: SimsWiki
Reply  Replies: 64 (Who?), Viewed: 30515 times.
Search this Thread
Old 14th Mar 2019, 12:55 PM #51
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


Support Campact please with a signature.

https://aktion.campact.de/bienengif...ontent=random-b

I translate:

Latest news March 2019

Against all warnings!!!

CDU (political german party) Minister of Agriculture Julia Klöckner breaks the law for large chemical companies. It allows 18 new arable poisons - without the approval of the Federal Environmental Agency. Single-handedly brings glyphosate and other bee killers to our fields. Soon it could become even more - if we do not stop Klöckner fast.

"What harm the bee has, must from the market," promised CDU Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner a year ago. Now she breaks her word: A subordinate authority has approved 18 new arable poison. It contains glyphosate and cyantraniliprole - lethal substances for bees. Klöckner simply creates facts. Without the required approval of the Federal Environmental Agency. Clearly a breach of law.

So the Union sabotages the glyphosate exit. Because: The approval of pesticides is initially only valid until the end of the year. But then the consumer protection authority can simply extend it - without ever asking the Federal Environment Agency again. If this brazen trick goes through, Klöckner could heave several other pesticides unchecked on the market.

With an appeal we want Klöckner to remember their promise. When 100,000 and more people sign, we confront the minister with her own words. We print their quote on the protection of bees on billboards and put them around the Ministry of Agriculture - plus the number of signatures against glyphosate and Co. Please sign our appeal!

The Union likes to break the law if beekeeping becomes too annoying - and it jeopardizes the profits of chemical giant. Klöckner makes it like her predecessor Christian Schmidt. The CSU politician voted in 2017 single-handedly for the new approval of glyphosate at EU level. He ignored the veto of the SPD (another political party).

Klöckner blocked the glyphosate exit for some time. When Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD) presented a meaningful plan to restrict the poison, Klöckner did nothing. Instead of limiting the pesticides in our fields, it pushes new registrations against all resistance.

But Klöckner could have miscalculated. The bees have many friends: almost 1.8 million people have just signed the "People's Species Biodiversity - Save the bees" in Bavaria. The fight for beekeeping is one of the biggest environmental movements in Germany. Now we have to use this power - and confront Julia Klöckner. We demand of her: Keep your word and take from the market what harm the bee. Please make the appeal strong with your signature!

Best regards
Lina Gross, campaigner

PS: There are already new applications in Klöckner's Consumer Protection Office: Hundreds of glyphosate-containing agents are waiting for readmission. If we do not act, Klöckner could wave her through soon - without a security check. In order to prevent that, we need your signature!

Support Campact please with a signature.

https://aktion.campact.de/bienengif...ontent=random-b
Last edited by Rafael! : 14th Mar 2019 at 7:11 PM.
Old 14th Mar 2019, 1:01 PM #52
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


Some more news about the EU!

https://sven-giegold.de/warum-ich-d...abgelehnt-habe/

I translate:

Why I rejected this reform of the European Citizens' Initiative
Dear citizens,

Dear Interested,

Thank you for your many e-mails for yesterday's vote on a reform of the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI). I agree with your criticism and yesterday voted against the reform.

Unfortunately, the majority of Parliament voted in favor of the reform. The result of the trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, in which the Hungarian Christian Democrat György Schöpflin (Fidesz party) represented the parliament, was confirmed with 535 yes, 90 no with 41 abstentions.

I rejected the reform because this reform made work difficult rather than relieved for the ECI coordinators. The Council has asserted against Parliament and the EU Commission that individual online collection systems will be banned in the future. Likewise, e-mail addresses via the mandatory central system may not be used soon after the end of EBIs. NGOs had created such individualized systems to gain support for EBIs and, at the same time, contacts to create a growing European public. NGOs like WeMove.eu have successfully built a growing European public with EBIs, e.g. through the stop glyphosate EBI. In the technical basis for this, an individual collection system, several NGOs had invested around 50 000 EUR. Member States had certified the system. According to the agreement, NGOs will instead have to use a central online collection system provided by the Commission from 2023 onwards. Individual systems will be banned and access to centrally collected mail addresses will be blocked soon after the end of the EBI. The ban on further contacts between NGOs and EBI supporters who wish to stay in touch is a missed opportunity for a stronger European public. The Council's strike against individual collection systems of NGOs is intended to spare some national officials the work of certifying such systems. In fact, this blockade by the Council against progress on the part of the ECI is a short-sighted narrow-mindedness, while Democrats across Europe must stand together against anti-European populist attacks. The reform is deterring large NGOs from implementing new EBIs. Experience shows that without large transnational NGOs it is hardly possible to collect the required 1 million signatures. Only four EBIs have ever succeeded since the launch. Over 30 EBIs failed against it. This reform threatens to reduce the number of successful EBIs even further.

As recognized by the main non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for European citizen participation, the reform has indeed remedied shortcomings. The work of the EBI organizers is facilitated by the fact that Member States have to choose from only 2 instead of the previous 13 sets of data requirements. In addition, Member States can give 16- and 17-year-olds the opportunity to support EBIs, even if they do not yet have the right to vote in elections, as is the case in Austria. The new text also stipulates that the European Parliament intervenes if the EU Commission fails to honor its commitments to a successful ECI. The EU institutions must pursue a successful citizens' initiative so that the ECI becomes an effective instrument of participatory democracy. The ECI really needs to enable citizens to influence EU policies. Without a legal obligation to continue pursuing a successful initiative, it is too easy for the Commission to ignore successful initiatives. Then the EBI turns into a farce. Unfortunately, that was too often the case for demands of the four successful EBIs. However, the European Parliament's obligation to urge the Commission to act if promises have not been kept is not only in this reform, but already in the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure, which have already been adopted. The Commission stubbornly and successfully resisted any direct obligations that would limit its own freedom. They accepted that citizens are less involved in EU legislation. Successful EBIs have not received any effective new rights to a faster or more comprehensive Commission response. Less bureaucracy for future EBIs thanks to harmonized data requirements and the limitation of legal risks for the organizers are welcome support, but can not turn the poor overall balance of the agreement into something positive.

The trilogue agreement was only reached because the Christian Democratic rapporteur almost abandoned all the demands that the European Parliament had made in the negotiations. Also the deputies of other factions can not be satisfied with the result. We will resume our commitment to strengthening the European Citizens' Initiative after the European elections. We would be happy if we could do that with your voice and new strength.

With European greetings

Sven Giegold
Old 18th Mar 2019, 11:31 AM #53
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


Bad news!

I translate:

The Attic verdict of the Federal Fiscal Court also has dramatic consequences for us: Campact will most likely lose its status as a charitable organization. That's why we can no longer issue any donation receipts.

The situation is written by Felix Kolb, Campact board member

Hello the Federal Finance Court (BFH) has withdrawn the association Attac the charitable status. A fundamental verdict with "toxic effect" for the entire civil society, as the journalist Heribert Prantl in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" prophesied. Unfortunately, rightly, as we know now. Our tax consultants and lawyers have analyzed the verdict and came to the conclusion: The tax office Berlin will most likely no longer recognize Campact as charitable. That's why we can no longer issue any donation certificates - everything else would be fraud.

With their Attac verdict, the judges at the Federal Finance Court also fulfilled AfD and CDU / CSU long-awaited wish. Politicians in these parties have been calling for years to deprive Campact of charitable status. Campact scares them. Too often, we have proven that a strong, progressive civic movement can be dangerous to large corporations, such as campaigns against fracking, TTIP, genetic engineering or tax evasion. The calculus is obvious: no charity = less donations = no more powerful campaigns. This equation may not work. Show our opponents: Attacks on Campact do not weaken our civic movement, but make us even stronger. Behind Campact stands a solidary community of over two million citizens.

Non-profit associations have to have their tax status reviewed every three years retroactively at the tax office. In the past, the tax office in Berlin has repeatedly valued our work as charitable. Last December we submitted the necessary documents for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 as usual. We were sure that charitable status would be reaffirmed. But that has changed abruptly with the Attac verdict. For in the view of the judges, campaigns and political education are not eligible if they are used "to influence the political decision-making and public opinion in the sense of their own views." Excluded are only 25 recognized purposes - including consumer, animal and environmental protection.

On the other hand, the perception and realization of fundamental rights, the commitment to peace, social justice, climate protection, informational self-determination, human rights and gender equality are not charitable. This gigantic gap could only be overcome in such a way: Non-profit associations could so far rely on the promotion of education, if they wanted to work on these topics.

But with that, the judges of the Federal Finance Court have now closed. Also to the fate of Campact, as we base our charitable status as well as Attac on the promotion of education. Of course we try to convince politicians and the public that they have to act now to avert the climate crisis. Or that the international financial markets have to be regulated so that taxpayers do not end up rescuing the banks. The loss of charity will be a burden for Campact. Additional costs and additional tax payments amounting to hundreds of thousands of euros are coming to us. Nevertheless, together with many partners, we will intensify our "Civil society is charitable" campaign. The not-for-profit legislation needs to be fundamentally changed in order to remove the dangerous effect of the Attac judgment on civil society.

The next few months are associated with a lot of extra work and uncertainty for us. Please support us in this difficult situation and become a Campaign promoter today. Already with 2 Euro per week you advance our common goals.

Best regards
Felix Kolb, Campact Board

PS: Against glyphosate and nuclear power, for social justice and a greener agriculture: Campact has been fighting for 15 years as part of several protest movements for progressive politics. By now we are over 2 million people. We realize: that does not like everyone. So that we can continue to be uncomfortable when necessary, we rely on your support.

https://www.campact.de
Old 19th Mar 2019, 1:37 AM #54
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://bayareacannabis.com/bayer-s...ture-liability/

Bayer Stock Crashes After Monsanto Cancer Verdict Upheld By Judge – Analyst Estimates $800 Billion In Future Liability
Nov 2, 2018

Bayer Stock Crashes After Monsanto Cancer Verdict Upheld By Judge – Analyst Estimates $800 Billion In Future Liability
By Sayer Ji, Founder Greenmedinfo.com Bayer greedily bought and swallowed the ‘poison pill’ of Monsanto without considering its true liability. Fifty-seven billion Euros of market cap down the drain later, now their headache is taking on epic proportions…

Growing uncertainty about whether San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos would rule in favor or against Bayer’s appeal of the Monsanto Cancer Verdict was resolved Tuesday morning as the judge upheld the jury’s decision that the glyphosate-based weedkiller (aka Roundup) sold by Monsanto caused a California man’s terminal cancer and that Monsanto intentionally hid its dangers.

The news quickly spread and caused an immediate crash in Bayer’s stock value, sending a powerful message to the Agrochemical industry that they are legally and financially responsible for the adverse effects caused by their unscrupulously marketed products despite receiving a regulatory pass from government agencies like the EPA, USDA, and FDA that have traditionally acted as industry cheerleaders.

The judge decided to reduce the punitive damage award from the original total of $289 million following a verdict reached earlier this summer, down to $78.5 million. A decision which concerned jurors who decided on the higher award amount in order to send a clear message to Monsanto that they deserve to be punished for covering up the dangers of their herbicide.

The good news is that this ruling affirms the company’s liability for causing illness from their product, and opens the door for more lawsuits and stricter regulation of agrochemicals in the future. Ian Hilliker, an analyst at Jefferies LLC in London, estimated in a note to clients that based on a class action lawsuit involving 8,700 plaintiffs believed to have cancer as a result of glyphosate exposure, Monsanto’s liability could reach $800 billion dollars. To put this in perspective, the original Bayer-Monsanto buyout offer was $57 billion dollars. Clearly, this no longer looks like an “asset” to Bayer and its stockholders.

Biggest destruction of capital in German stock market history? #Bayer has lost €57.7bn in market cap mainly driven by its acquisition of #Monsanto. pic.twitter.com/5hFDujAqg3 — Holger Zschaepitz (@Schuldensuehner) October 23, 2018

In the tweet above, a German analyst points out that Bayer’s Monsanto aquisition may have precipitated the largest destruction of market capitalization in German stock market history, standing at about 57.7 billion Euros in losses thus far.

Bayer + Monsanto = A Match Made in Hell

https://youtu.be/khfdjPbecwM
Last edited by Rafael! : 19th Mar 2019 at 1:53 AM.
Old 29th Mar 2019, 12:56 AM #55
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna988226

March 27, 2019, 7:43 PM ET
By Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — A U.S. jury on Wednesday awarded $80 million in damages to a California man who blamed Roundup weed killer for his cancer, in a case that his attorneys say could help determine the fate of hundreds of similar lawsuits.

The six-person jury in San Francisco returned its verdict in favor of Edwin Hardeman, 70, who said he used Roundup products to treat poison oak, overgrowth and weeds on his San Francisco Bay Area property for years. The same jury previously found that Roundup was a substantial factor in Hardeman's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Agribusiness giant Monsanto says studies have established that the active ingredient in its widely used weed killer, glyphosate, is safe. The company said it will appeal.
"We are disappointed with the jury's decision, but this verdict does not change the weight of over four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic," according to a statement from Bayer, which acquired Monsanto last year.

A different jury in August awarded another man $289 million, but a judge later slashed it to $78 million. Monsanto has appealed.
Hardeman's trial may be more significant than that case. U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria is overseeing hundreds of Roundup lawsuits and has deemed Hardeman's case and two others "bellwether trials."

The outcome of such cases can help attorneys decide whether to keep fighting similar lawsuits or settle them. Legal experts said verdicts in favor of Hardeman and the other test plaintiffs would give their attorneys a strong bargaining position in any settlement talks for the remaining cases before Chhabria.
Many government regulators have rejected a link between cancer and glyphosate. Monsanto has vehemently denied such a connection, saying hundreds of studies have established that the chemical is safe.

Monsanto developed glyphosate in the 1970s, and the weed killer is now sold in more than 160 countries and widely used in the U.S.
The herbicide came under increasing scrutiny after the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified it as a "probable human carcinogen" in 2015.

Lawsuits against Monsanto followed, and thousands are now pending nationwide. Monsanto has attacked the international research agency's opinion as an outlier. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says glyphosate is safe for people when used in accordance with label directions.
Old 31st Mar 2019, 5:44 PM #56
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://www.morningstar.com/news/do...2nd-update.html

News: Dow Jones

Bayer Shares Fall After Jury Finds Exposure to Roundup Helped Trigger Cancer -- 2nd Update
03/20/19 07:50 PM
By Ruth Bender

BERLIN -- Shares of Bayer AG tumbled 9.6% Wednesday -- the biggest single-day percentage decline in seven months -- after the chemicals and pharmaceuticals giant faced another legal setback in its fight against accusations that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. A San Francisco jury found that exposure to Roundup was a "substantial factor" in triggering a man's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The verdict shows how the German company's $63 billion acquisition of U.S. agriculture giant Monsanto Co. -- which was designed to bolster Bayer's fading fortunes -- has now become its biggest potential liability.

The verdict is the latest to come from a batch of related cases going to trial this year. Bayer needs the tide to turn in its favor both to avoid what analysts fear could be billions in potential legal damages and to convince investors that its Monsanto bet was right. Bayer said it was disappointed with the jury's decision but continued "to believe firmly that the science confirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides did not cause cancer."

The company is facing lawsuits from 11,200 farmers, gardeners and landscapers. Bayer has said the extent of the litigation it now faces wasn't foreseeable at the time of the Monsanto deal, which turned the inventor of aspirin into the world's largest maker of seeds and pesticides. After the deal was announced in 2016, many investors and analysts warned of the risks to Bayer's image and to its balance sheet due to the debt Bayer had to take on for the acquisition. Monsanto has for years been the target of environmentalists over its genetically modified crops and its weedkillers based on glyphosate, a chemical.

"The court judgment is another sign that Bayer has probably not reviewed a decisive part of the acquisition thoroughly enough," said Christian Strenger, an individual shareholder in Bayer and a German expert on corporate governance. Bayer had to fight hard to get the deal over the finish line, with regulators forcing the company to shed more assets than initially planned.

Mr. Strenger has filed a motion ahead of Bayer's annual shareholders meeting in April calling on shareholders to withhold their approval of the management board, made up of top executives. His motion cites among other factors "dramatically increased legal risks of glyphosate related lawsuits." Bayer's first major legal defeat came in August, when a jury held Bayer responsible for a groundskeeper's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. That verdict, which came barely two months after Bayer closed the Monsanto acquisition, triggered a downward spiral in Bayer's share price. The stock in Germany has lost nearly a third of its value over the past year. Bayer has appealed the August verdict and pledged a robust defense in future cases.

Tuesday's jury verdict hit hard because Bayer had been pointing to this second trial as offering a better frame for its argument that scientific evidence proved Roundup was safe, in part because the plaintiff presented other health issues that Bayer argued could have triggered the cancer. The case is the first bellwether trial scheduled for 2019. Analysts have hoped Bayer could keep the focus on rational arguments and scientific evidence -- and away from plaintiffs' allegations that Monsanto knew about the product's risks but hid them from the public. Bayer says some 800 studies and regulatory decisions across the globe assert that glyphosate isn't carcinogenic.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria had granted Bayer's request to split the evidence into two phases, with the first phase focusing solely on whether Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe. Jurors at the end of phase one found Roundup was responsible for the cancer of California resident Edwin Hardeman. Now, the trial will move into phase two, with jurors hearing allegations about misconduct before deciding whether to award punitive damages. Bayer said the trial's second phase "will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate."

"This now appears to be a damage-limitation exercise," said Gunther Zechmann, a Bernstein Research analyst who said he fears the worst.

Bayer's recent efforts to lift investor sentiment -- including a broad restructuring plan to cut costs and boost profits across businesses -- have done little to placate investors and analysts still struggling to put a figure on Bayer's potential payouts. Bayer set aside 613 million euros ($696.4 million) for defense costs over the next three years, with a big part expected to go toward Roundup cases. Bayer hasn't provisioned for any potential liabilities.

Legal experts said the latest verdict could attract new plaintiffs. Some analysts said a few more verdicts need to be handed down before the potential financial impact can be realistically assessed. Six more trials are scheduled to start this year. "The shares will likely remain depressed until there is evidence of Bayer prevailing in one or more of the six cases to go to trial in 2019," said Peter Verdult from Citi.

Bayer stock closed at EUR63 on Wednesday, down EUR6.70 on the day.

Some analysts on Wednesday cut their recommendations on the stock, assuming a higher risk that the legal battle will end negatively for Bayer.

Analysts say it is difficult to estimate what kind of impact the legal woes might have on Roundup sales. Bayer doesn't break out sales for the products and closed the Monsanto acquisition near the end of the last growing season. Analysts note many farmers depend on Roundup because there are few comparable alternative products on the market. Markus Mayer, an analyst at Baader bank, said he sees a further risk in the legal uncertainty: If Bayer's share price sinks to new lows, Bayer could become a target for activist investors or even a takeover, he said.
Old 7th Apr 2019, 4:01 AM #57
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://www.organicconsumers.org/ne...arnings-roundup

After Beating Monsanto, Lawyers Call For Cancer Warnings On Roundup

March 27, 2019

US Right to Know
gavel_law_roundup_shelf_1200x630.jpg
Monsantos Roundup bottles on a store shelf behind a wooden judges gavel
Watch this interview with Aimee Wagstaff and Jennifer Moore, the legal team that took down Monsanto and delivered the $80 million verdict to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman in Roundup cancer trial. (Hardeman makes appearance here too). https://www.facebook.com/USRightToK...81557148623440/

Verdict Is In – Monsanto Must Pay Cancer Victim $80 Million

(Transcript of today’s proceedings)

(See exclusive video interview with plaintiff Edwin Hardeman and his attorneys)

The second Roundup cancer trial concluded Wednesday with a unanimous jury verdict that ordered Monsanto to pay roughly $80 million in damages for failing to warn plaintiff Edwin Hardeman of the cancer risks of Roundup herbicide.

The jury verdict included $200,967.10 in past economic loss, and a little more than $5 million in past and future non-economic loss damages. Jurors said Monsanto should pay $75 million in punitive damages for its negligence in failing to warn of the cancer risks of its herbicides despite years of published scientific data highlighting the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate-based herbicides.

Hardeman’s attorneys issued a statement slamming Monsanto for decades of what they said was irresponsible and dangerous conduct. During the month-long trial they presented jurors with not just scientific evidence showing cancer connections to Monsanto’s products, but also evidence of Monsanto strategies aimed at suppressing information about the dangers of its products, including secretly ghost-writing scientific papers that it then used to help convince regulators of product safety.

“As demonstrated throughout trial, since Roundup’s inception over 40 years ago, Monsanto refuses to act responsibly. It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup. It speaks volumes that not one Monsanto employee, past or present, came live to trial to defend Roundup’s safety or Monsanto’s actions. Today, the jury resoundingly held Monsanto accountable for its 40 years of corporate malfeasance and sent a message to Monsanto that it needs to change the way it does business.”

Bayer AG, which purchased Monsanto last summer, said it would appeal the verdict. “We are disappointed with the jury’s decision, but this verdict does not change the weight of over four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic. The verdict in this trial has no impact on future cases and trials, as each one has its own factual and legal circumstances. Bayer will appeal this verdict. The jury in this case deliberated for more than four days before reaching a causation verdict in phase one, an indication that it was very likely divided over the scientific evidence.”

Monsanto Exec Reveals $17 Million Budget For Anti-IARC, Pro-Glyphosate Efforts

How badly did Monsanto want to discredit international cancer scientists who found the company’s glyphosate herbicide to be a probable human carcinogen and promote a counter message of glyphosate safety instead? Badly enough to allocate about $17 million for the mission, in just one year alone, according to evidence obtained by lawyers representing cancer victims suing Monsanto.

That detail and others about the internal workings of Monsanto public relations operations have come to light in a Jan. 22 video-taped deposition of Monsanto executive Sam Murphey. Murphey’s job at Monsanto included directing global media relations and “advocacy efforts in support of major litigation, policy matters, and reputational threats” involving the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide business. And one of the biggest threats came from those cancer scientists. Murphey now works for Bayer after the German company purchased Monsanto last summer.

U.S. District judge Vince Chhabria did not allow Murphey’s disclosure of the anti-IARC budget to be introduced into evidence in the Hardeman V. Monsanto trial, which went to the jury for deliberation on Tuesday. Jurors in that San Francisco case already determined that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup caused Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but now are weighing damages.

But the Murphey evidence is expected to be introduced at the Pilliod V. Monsanto trial that concluded jury selection in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, California on Tuesday. The parties selected a jury of 12 members and five alternates. Opening statements in that case are expected Thursday.

It has been four years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published and peer-reviewed scientific literature regarding glyphosate and found the herbicide to be probably carcinogenic, with a particular association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. IARC is part of the World Health Organization and has classified over 1,000 substances as to their cancer hazard, typically without too much controversy.

But glyphosate was different. Following the March 2015 classification, hundreds, and then thousands, of people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposures to Monsanto’s herbicides filed suit against the agrochemical giant.

Also immediately after the IARC classification of glyphosate – and continuing to this day – the cancer scientists became the subject of sweeping condemnation from an assortment of organizations, individuals and even some U.S. lawmakers. They have been accused of operating not on sound science but on behalf of a political agenda, cherry-picking data, and promoting junk science, among other things. The criticisms have been magnified and repeated around the world in news articles, opinion pieces, blogs, Internet Google advertisements and more.

Internal Monsanto documents that have surfaced through discovery for the more than 11,000 lawsuits filed against the company show that among other tactics, Monsanto has been secretly using third parties for its anti-IARC messaging because company executives and public relations agents thought the information would appear more credible coming from entities separate from Monsanto.

In his deposition, Murphey was asked how much the company spent trying to cast doubt upon the IARC classification.

Here is a bit of the exchange:

Plaintiff attorney Pedram Esfandiary: “So it’s true that Monsanto’s allocated millions of dollars in responding to the IARC classification, correct?”

Murphey: “We — we have — we had to spend a significant amount of resources, over several years now, correcting misinformation, and addressing questions in the public about — about glyphosate.”

Esfandiary: “Has Monsanto allocated millions of dollars to responding to the IARC classification?”

Murphey: “Yes.”

Esfandiary: “Do you know roughly how much Monsanto allocated to it in 2016?”

Murphey: “I can only speak within the context of, you know, public affairs activities, you know, things that I would have been directly involved in. But in 2016, you know, I believe for some of the projects I was involved in, it was around 16 or 17 million.”

Esfandiary: “$16 or 17 million… was allocated to responding to the IARC clarification (stet) ?

Murphey: “No, not specifically and solely focused on IARC. It’s — it would have focused on engagement and media relations and other activities on glyphosate, more generally.”

Esfandiary then asked Murphey how much it would have cost the company to perform a long-term cancer bioassay test of its formulated glyphosate products, something the company has acknowledged it never did. Murphey said he did not know.

The year 2016 was a particularly critical time for Monsanto because in addition to facing litigation, the company’s glyphosate license was up for renewal in Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was also reviewing glyphosate’s registration.

HOW WAS THE MONEY SPENT?

In the deposition, Murphey was asked about a July 2015 internal Monsanto document called “IARC Follow Up” that cited a goal to “invalidate relevance of IARC” and “protect freedom to operate” (FTO). He was asked about a host of actions undertaken to minimize or discredit IARC’s work that were laid out in that and other internal Monsanto communications. Several pages of the deposition are completely redacted, per court order, so it is not possible to see all of what was said by Murphey in his deposition. But here are a few examples of what was discussed:

• Amplifying pro-glyphosate/Roundup messaging through “third-party channels.” One example of using an outside party to parrot Monsanto talking points was an article that appeared on the Forbes contributor platform that appeared to be written by Henry Miller, who at the time was a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Internal Monsanto documents show the piece criticizing IARC was actually drafted by Monsanto and sent to Miller with a request for him to publish the materials.

• Other Op-Ed maneuvers. Just prior to the IARC classification, Monsanto executive Dan Goldstein discussed five “potential draft Op Eds he said he had written for “medical toxicologists to work from” that included “paragraphs on criticism of IARC.” Goldstein was emailing the draft opinion articles out to doctors and scientists with the hope that they would adopt the drafts as their own and have them published, the records show. Monsanto was available to “coordinate Op Ed versions” as needed, Murphey said in his deposition.

• “Let Nothing Go” strategy. According to Murphey, the initiative involved “carefully monitoring media coverage” with a focus on the European Union. “We had a number of markets we were — we were prioritizing,” Murphey said. The project called for monitoring stories and highlighting or flagging those that contained what Monsanto saw as inaccurate information or misinformation about the company or its products, or stories that didn’t include the company’s perspective or point of view. Someone would then be assigned to follow up with those reporters, “proactively calling reporters in those instances, to share a statement, to provide some additional context, and to encourage those reporters to contact us in the future,” said Murphey.

• Convincing a Reuters reporter to write a story undermining the validity of the IARC classification was another example of Murphey’s work. Emails from within Monsanto showed that Murphey sent a slide deck of talking points and a suggested narrative to Reuters reporter Kate Kelland asking her to write a story that accused Aaron Blair, who was the chairman of the IARC working group on glyphosate, of concealing data that would have changed IARC’s conclusion on glyphosate. Murphey told Kelland in an April 2017 email that it was “vitally important information that needs to be reported.” He also told her to treat the information he sent her as “background,” meaning she should not mention she got the story idea and materials from Monsanto. Kelland then wrote the story Monsanto wanted. A deposition of Aaron Blair indicated the accusations laid out in the story were false, but Kelland did not include a copy of the deposition with her story. The story was promoted by Monsanto and chemical industry organizations and Google advertisements and was picked up and repeated by media outlets around the world. Murphey said in his deposition that he put no undue pressure on Kelland, and Monsanto believed the story to be valid and important. “Once I provided the initial information to — to Ms. Kelland, she was free to do with that information what she saw fit,” he said. “And the decision to investigate a story and ultimately — ultimately publish it was her decision, and the decision of her editors at Reuters.”

Murphey said there was nothing nefarious in the efforts that Monsanto undertook after the IARC opinion was published. He said the company’s plan involved “engagement with third parties to provide information, share talking points, and other resources” along with “outreach to the media, to ensure balance and accuracy, and the right context and perspective on the science in — in their coverage of — of our product.”

“As we moved forward, after the IARC classification, again, we were very forthright in engaging with agriculture groups, engaging with reporters, engaging on social media, to share -�* to share the company’s views,” Murphey said in the deposition. “We — you know, we kept our — we kept agriculture groups and others informed. We were pleased that many of them continued to speak out as well about what they saw as an inaccurate classification. But Monsanto was always very, again, I’ll just — very forthright in sharing our views about the classification.”
Old 12th Apr 2019, 8:18 PM #58
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://www.rt.com/business/456321-...ilty-poisoning/

Bayer beware! Monsanto found guilty of poisoning French farmer.

Published time: 12 Apr, 2019 09:33
French cereal farmer Paul Francois © Reuters / Emmanuel Foudrot

A French court has ruled that US agrochemical firm Monsanto, currently owned by German drug company Bayer, was liable for the sickness of a farmer who inhaled fumes from a weed killer made by the company. The 55-year-old cereal farmer Paul Francois said he has suffered neurological damage, including memory loss, fainting and headaches, after accidentally inhaling Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller in 2004 while working on his farm. He accused the company of not giving sufficient safety warnings.

“Mr Francois justifiably concludes that the product, due to its inadequate labeling that did not respect applicable regulations, did not offer the level of safety he could legitimately expect,” the court said in its ruling.

Bayer AG, the German pharmaceutical company that acquired Monsanto last year, confirmed Thursday’s ruling. It said that was considering its legal options, including an appeal.

“We are currently reviewing the decision of the court,” the company’s spokeswoman told the BBC.

The court in Lyon rejected Monsanto’s appeal on Tuesday but did not rule on how much it might have to pay. The compensation will be determined in a separate ruling. Meanwhile, Monsanto was ordered to immediately pay €50,000 for Francois’s legal fees. The farmer is seeking about €1 million ($1.1 million) in damages.

Francois has fought a decade-long legal battle against the firm. He had won rulings against Monsanto in 2012 and 2015 before France’s top court overturned the decisions and ordered the new hearing in Lyon.

“We are all happy to have won but it came at a heavy price,” Francois told reporters in Paris, adding: “It’s a big sigh of relief. It’s been 12 years of fighting, 12 years during which I had to put my whole life on hold.”

His lawyer Francois Lafforgue described the initial ruling as a “historic decision.” He said it was the first time a herbicide maker was “found guilty of such a poisoning.”

Lasso has been banned in France since 2007 and had already been withdrawn in some other countries.
Old 13th Apr 2019, 5:09 PM #59
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


Tell Congress to Ban Monsanto/Bayer’s Cancer-Causing Roundup Weedkiller!

Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto (now Bayer)’s Roundup weedkiller, is the most-used agricultural chemical ever.
Mounting scientific evidence of its human health impacts suggests that it may also be the most devastating.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to Ban Glyphosate!

https://advocacy.organicconsumers.o.../10024/action/1
Old 25th Apr 2019, 2:33 PM #60
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://www.totallandscapecare.com/...across-country/

Glyphosate controversy continues to grow across country
Beth Hyatt | April 2, 2019

Roundup Weed & Grass KillerControversy surrounding the use of the chemical glyphosate, commonly found in Bayer unit Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, has increased as more and more users of the chemical report exposure to it has caused them to have various types of cancer.

Studies show currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that the chemical glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans, but in 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer ruled it was a probable human carcinogen. According to Science Direct, glyphosate is the most widely used broad-spectrum systemic herbicide in the world. “Recent evaluations of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) by various regional, national and international agencies have engendered controversy,” Science Direct says online. “We investigated whether there was an association between high cumulative exposures to GBHs and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in humans.”

Science Direct conducted a meta-analysis that included five case-control studies and the most recent update of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort published in 2018. They concluded that when using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, the overall meta-relative risk of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41 percent. “To contextualize our findings of an increased NHL risk in individuals with high GBH exposure, we reviewed available animal and mechanistic studies, which provided supporting evidence for the carcinogenic potential of GBH,” Science Direct says online. “Overall, in accordance with evidence from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL.”

In recent news According to The Guardian, Edwin Hardeman, a 70-year-old Santa Rosa man, was awarded $75 million in punitive damages, $200,000 for past economic losses and $5.6 million in non-economic losses after the judge ruled that Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer caused his case of NHL. The Guardian reports that Hardeman was the second person to bring a Monsanto’s Roundup cancer case to trial and the first to bring it to the U.S. federal court. Hardeman told The Guardian that he began using Roundup in 1986 when he started applying it on his property to control weeds. This, he says, led to his development of NHL, as he said when he used the chemical, it would sometime leak onto him while he sprayed it for many hours a day.

Hardeman told The Guardian that he stopped using Roundup in 2012, but on Christmas Day of 2015, a swollen lymph node was discovered on his neck. The following year, The Guardian reports that Hardeman was diagnosed with NHL. “When you get Roundup on your skin…it will penetrate the cells of the skin, it will get into the tissues, it will then get into the lymph system and into the blood,” says pathologist Dennis Weisenberger, according to The Guardian. “My opinion is that to the best of medical certainty, I believe that Roundup is a substantial cause of cancer in people who are exposed to it in the workplace or in the environment.”

Hardeman’s trial wrapped up on March 18, and MotherJones.com says in the first phase of the trial, the jury ruled that the plaintiff proved “by a preponderance of the evidence” that his exposure to Roundup was a “substantial factor” in causing his NHL. “The jury in this case deliberated for more than four days before reaching a causation verdict in phase one, an indication that it was very likely divided over the scientific evidence,” Bayer says in a statement released online after the conclusion of the Hardeman trial. “The legal rulings under which the court admitted expert scientific testimony from the plaintiff that it called ‘shaky’ is one of several significant issues that the company may raise on appeal. Monsanto moved to exclude this same evidence before trial.”

In the second phase, MotherJones.com says the same jury was asked to decide whether Hardeman had proven that Roundup was a “defective” product, that it “lacks sufficient warnings of the risk of NHL” and that “Monsanto was negligent by not using reasonable care to warn about Roundup’s [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] risk.” The jury ruled in favor of Hardeman on all three. “We are disappointed with the jury’s decision, but this verdict does not change the weight of over four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic,” Bayer says in a statement released online after the conclusion of the Hardeman trial. “The verdict in this trial has no impact on future cases and trials, as each one has its own factual and legal circumstances. Bayer will appeal this verdict.”

According to MotherJones.com, there are currently 1,600 cancer cases related to glyphosate waiting to be heard by the Northern California District’s federal court. According to ConsumerSafety, an estimated 1.4 billion pounds of Roundup is used in more than 160 countries each year, and there are more than 11,200 glyphosate-related cases waiting to be heard on a national level.

LegalReader.com reports that along with Monsanto, a Florida-based landscaping company is also being sued by a Palm Beach County mother of three currently battling Stage-4 esophageal cancer as a result of being exposed to Roundup at her job without being warned of the potentially harmful effects. According to LegalReader.com, Melanie Lynn LaFond and her attorney Willie Gary are suing Monsanto over allegations of “negligent design and marketing”, along with For Ever Green Landscaping for failing to “warn and equip LaFond with proper gear while using Roundup.”

Between the years 2016 and 2018, LaFond claims she had to wear a backpack tank and spray Roundup, according to LegalReader.com. “So, it wasn’t just a homeowner who is doing this 20 minutes or something like that, she was doing it regularly day in and day out over the course of two years, so her level of exposure is substantial,” attorney Larry Strauss told WPTV.

LegalReader.com says For Ever Green Landscaping hasn’t responded to their resquests for comments at this time. Miami banning The city of Miami, Florida, has already decided to ban the use of glyphosate to try and keep the potential hazard of cancer at bay. According to EcoWatch, the environmental group Miami Waterkeeper posted on Twitter that Miami unanimously passed a resolution at the beginning of March to ban the spraying of glyphosate by city departments or contractors.

City officials, EcoWatch reports, are concerned that runoff containing glyphosate might have contributed to the recent bloom of blue-green algae, as well as the red tide that they say impacted the state last year. This, EcoWatch says, is when Miami Commissioner Ken Russell started looking into the city’s use of the herbicides. EcoWatch says that Alan Dodd, Miami’s director of resiliency and public works, told Russell that the city had been using 4,800 gallons of glyphosate a year for weed killing on the sidewalks and streets of the city.

“Herbicides and fertilizers are often applied in excess to lawns and landscapes and can be lost to the environment in stormwater runoff and can degrade the water quality of streams, rivers, canals, lakes and coastal waters,” says the Miami Waterkeeper, according to EcoWatch. “They can also contribute to the creation of harmful algal blooms and the destruction of critically important habitats like seagrass beds and coral reefs.”

EcoWatch notes that both Stuart and Miami Beach have banned the use of glyphosate.
Old 4th May 2019, 12:50 PM #61
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://www.organicconsumers.org/bl...still-very-real

Because These Threats Are Still Very Real

April 2, 2019

Organic Consumers Association
by Ronnie Cummins

After years of battling Monsanto, of working to expose the lies about glyphosate and Roundup weedkiller, we’re seeing glimmers of hope.
But this fight is far from over. And we desperately need your help to keep it going.

We’ve extended our spring fundraising campaign because we simply must reach our goal. Can you make a donation today? Every donation, small, large and in-between, will help fund our work to get pesticides out of your food. You can donate online, by mail or by phone, details here.

Within the past eight months, juries in two key trials against Monsanto have unanimously agreed that Roundup caused the plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancers.
Both juries punished Monsanto-Bayer with huge fines.

No amount of money makes up for the pain and suffering Roundup weedkiller has caused the victims in these two trials, or the tens of thousands of other people sickened by exposure to glyphosate.

But here’s what both these trials have made clear: The overwhelming evidence points to Roundup as a cause of cancer. And what’s more, it shows that Monsanto has known all along that Roundup causes cancer—and yet the company has gone to great lengths, and spent millions of dollars, to hide that evidence from the public.

In an article published by the Guardian, U.S. Right to Know’s Carey Gillam wrote:
Even the US district judge Vince Chhabria, who oversaw the San Francisco trial that concluded Wednesday with an $80.2m damage award, had harsh words for Monsanto. Chhabria said there were “large swaths of evidence” showing that the company’s herbicides could cause cancer. He also said there was “a great deal of evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of its product . . . and does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”

In 2016, 131,672,984 kilograms (290,289,239 pounds) of glyphosate was sprayed in the U.S., according to data published by the U.S. Geological Survey, obtained and analyzed by Pricenomics.

Where does all that poison end up? In soils, in drinking water, on your food—and in your body.
The widespread presence of glyphosate in everything from bread to cereal to snack bars to fruit juices to baby foods to ice cream to beer and wine has been well documented.

The latest report? Widespread glyphosate contamination in foods sold by popular chain restaurants, including many that market themselves as “healthy,” “natural” and even “organic.”

The anti-Monsanto verdicts, the testing and reporting about glyphosate in our foods, the investigative reports showing Monsanto’s extreme efforts to discredit the scientists who uncover the truth about glyphosate and Roundup have all led to greater consumer awareness.

But even as more cities and school systems announce plans to ban glyphosate, the U.S. EPA fails to act on the evidence. In fact, the EPA recently (and very quietly) moved to disapprove state efforts to impose their own restrictions on pesticide use!

We are in the middle of our own lawsuit against Monsanto, for placing misleading claims on bottles of Roundup sold to consumers.
We continue to test products for glyphosate, to report on those test results, and to go after the companies that claim their glyphosate-contaminated food is “natural.”

We are also a major funder of U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public interest, consumer and public health organization that has been deeply involved in exposing Monsanto’s lies and government ties.

But the simple truth is this: We can’t do this work without your help.
We rarely extend a fundraising deadline. We are doing it now because we must meet this quarter’s fundraising goal.
Old 4th May 2019, 12:51 PM #62
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://www.organicconsumers.org/bl...still-very-real

Because These Threats Are Still Very Real

April 2, 2019

Organic Consumers Association
by Ronnie Cummins

After years of battling Monsanto, of working to expose the lies about glyphosate and Roundup weedkiller, we’re seeing glimmers of hope.
But this fight is far from over. And we desperately need your help to keep it going.

We’ve extended our spring fundraising campaign because we simply must reach our goal. Can you make a donation today? Every donation, small, large and in-between, will help fund our work to get pesticides out of your food. You can donate online, by mail or by phone, details here: https://donate.organicconsumers.org/page/8170/donate/1

Within the past eight months, juries in two key trials against Monsanto have unanimously agreed that Roundup caused the plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancers. Both juries punished Monsanto-Bayer with huge fines.

No amount of money makes up for the pain and suffering Roundup weedkiller has caused the victims in these two trials, or the tens of thousands of other people sickened by exposure to glyphosate.

But here’s what both these trials have made clear: The overwhelming evidence points to Roundup as a cause of cancer. And what’s more, it shows that Monsanto has known all along that Roundup causes cancer—and yet the company has gone to great lengths, and spent millions of dollars, to hide that evidence from the public.

In an article published by the Guardian, U.S. Right to Know’s Carey Gillam wrote:
Even the US district judge Vince Chhabria, who oversaw the San Francisco trial that concluded Wednesday with an $80.2m damage award, had harsh words for Monsanto. Chhabria said there were “large swaths of evidence” showing that the company’s herbicides could cause cancer. He also said there was “a great deal of evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of its product . . . and does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”

In 2016, 131,672,984 kilograms (290,289,239 pounds) of glyphosate was sprayed in the U.S., according to data published by the U.S. Geological Survey, obtained and analyzed by Pricenomics.

Where does all that poison end up? In soils, in drinking water, on your food—and in your body.
The widespread presence of glyphosate in everything from bread to cereal to snack bars to fruit juices to baby foods to ice cream to beer and wine has been well documented.


The latest report? Widespread glyphosate contamination in foods sold by popular chain restaurants, including many that market themselves as “healthy,” “natural” and even “organic.”

The anti-Monsanto verdicts, the testing and reporting about glyphosate in our foods, the investigative reports showing Monsanto’s extreme efforts to discredit the scientists who uncover the truth about glyphosate and Roundup have all led to greater consumer awareness.

But even as more cities and school systems announce plans to ban glyphosate, the U.S. EPA fails to act on the evidence. In fact, the EPA recently (and very quietly) moved to disapprove state efforts to impose their own restrictions on pesticide use!

We are in the middle of our own lawsuit against Monsanto, for placing misleading claims on bottles of Roundup sold to consumers.
We continue to test products for glyphosate, to report on those test results, and to go after the companies that claim their glyphosate-contaminated food is “natural.”

We are also a major funder of U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public interest, consumer and public health organization that has been deeply involved in exposing Monsanto’s lies and government ties.

But the simple truth is this: We can’t do this work without your help.
We rarely extend a fundraising deadline. We are doing it now because we must meet this quarter’s fundraising goal.
Old 18th May 2019, 2:04 PM #63
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tracker-index/

I post the latest case. There are much more!

Monsanto Roundup Trial Tracker

This blog by Carey Gillam is updated regularly with news and tips about the lawsuits involving Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer products. See our Monsanto Papers pages for discovery documents. Please consider donating here to support our investigation.

May 17, 2019
Up Next – Trial In Monsanto’s Hometown Set for August After $2 Billion Roundup Cancer Verdict
After three stunning courtroom losses in California, the legal battle over the safety of Monsanto’s top-selling Roundup herbicide is headed for the company’s hometown, where corporate officials can be forced to appear on the witness stand, and legal precedence shows a history of anti-corporate judgments.

Sharlean Gordon, an cancer-stricken woman in her 50s, is the next plaintiff currently set for trial. Gordon v. Monsanto starts Aug. 19 in St. Louis County Circuit Court, located just a few miles from the St. Louis, Missouri-area campus that was the company’s longtime world headquarters until Bayer bought Monsanto last June. The case was filed in July 2017 on behalf of more than 75 plaintiffs and Gordon is the first of that group to go to trial.

According to the complaint, Gordon purchased and used Roundup for at least 15 continuous years through approximately 2017 and was diagnosed with a form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2006. Gordon has gone through two stem cell transplants and spent a year in a nursing home at one point in her treatment. She is so debilitated that it is difficult for her to be mobile.

Her case, like that of the thousands of others filed around the United States, alleges use of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused her to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“She’s been through hell,” said St. Louis attorney Eric Holland, one of the legal team members representing Gordon. “She’s horribly injured. The human toll here is tremendous. I think Sharlean is really going to put a face on what Monsanto’s done to people.”

Gordon said the hardest part about preparing for trial is determining what evidence to present to the jury within the three-week time span that the judge has set for the trial.

“This evidence against them, their conduct, is the most outrageous I’ve seen in my 30 years of doing this,” Holland said. “The things that have gone on here, I want St. Louis juries to hear this stuff.”

That Gordon trial will be followed by a September 9 trial also in St. Louis County in a case brought by plaintiffs Maurice Cohen and Burrell Lamb.

Monsanto’s deep roots in the community, including a large employment base and generous charitable donations throughout the area, could favor its chances with local jurors. But on the flip side, St. Louis is regarded in legal circles as one the most favorable places for plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against corporations and there is a long history of large verdicts against major companies. St. Louis City Court is generally considered the most favorable but St. Louis County is also desired by plaintiffs’ attorneys.

The approach of the August and September trials comes on the heels of a stunning $2 billion verdict issued against Monsanto May 13. In that case, a jury in Oakland, California awarded married couple Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who both suffer from cancer, $55 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion each in punitive damages. The jury found that Monsanto has spent years covering up evidence that its herbicide causes cancer.

That verdict came only a little more than a month after a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $80 million in damages to Edwin Hardeman, who also developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup. And last summer, a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson who received a terminal cancer diagnosis after using Monsanto herbicides in his job.

Aimee Wagstaff, who was co-lead counsel for Hardeman, is set to try the Gordon case in St. Louis with Holland. Wagstaff said she plans to subpoena several Monsanto scientists to appear on the witness stand to answer questions directly in front of a jury. She and the other attorneys trying the California cases were not able to force Monsanto employees to testify live because of the distance.

MEDIATION MEETING MAY 22

The trial losses have left Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG under siege. Angry investors have pushed share prices to the lowest levels in roughly seven years, erasing more than 40 percent of Bayer’s market value. And some investors are calling for Bayer CEO Werner Baumann to be ousted for championing the Monsanto acquisition, which closed in June of last year just as the first trial was getting underway.

Bayer maintains that there is no valid evidence of cancer causation associated with Monsanto’s herbicides, and says it believes it will win on appeal. But U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria has ordered Bayer to begin mediation talks aimed at potentially settling the sprawling mass of lawsuits that includes roughly 13,400 plaintiffs in the United States alone. All the plaintiffs are cancer victims or their family members and all allege Monsanto engaged in a range of deceptive tactics to hide the risks of its herbicides, including manipulating the scientific record with ghostwritten studies, colluding with regulators, and using outside individuals and organizations to promote the safety of its products while making sure they falsely appeared to be acting independently of the company.

A May 22 hearing is being held in part to define details of the mediation process. Bayer has indicated that it will comply with the order, but may not yet be ready to consider settling the litigation despite the courtroom losses.

Meanwhile, the litigation that originated in the United States has crossed the border into Canada where a Saskatchewan farmer is leading a class action lawsuit against Bayer and Monsanto making allegations that mirror those in the U.S. lawsuits.

“THE QUEEN OF ROUNDUP”

Elaine Stevick of Petaluma, California was supposed to be the next in line to take on Monsanto at trial. But in his order of mediation, Judge Chhabria also vacated her May 20 trial date. A new trial date is to be discussed at the hearing on Wednesday.

Stevick and her husband Christopher Stevick sued Monsanto in April of 2016 and said in an interview that they are eager to get their chance to confront the company over the devastating damage they say Elaine’s use of Roundup has done to her health. She was diagnosed in December 2014 at the age of 63 with multiple brain tumors due to a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma called central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL). Alberta Pilliod, who just won the most recent trial, also had a CNSL brain tumor.

The couple purchased an old Victorian home and overgrown property in 1990 and while Christopher worked on renovating the interior of the house, Elaine’s job was to spray weed killer over the weeds and wild onions that the couple said took over a good portion of the property. She sprayed multiple times a year until she was diagnosed with cancer. She never wore gloves or other protective clothing because believed it to be as safe as advertised, she said.

Stevick is currently in remission but nearly died at one point in her treatment, Christopher Stevick said.

“I called her the ‘queen of Roundup’ because she was always walking around spraying the stuff,” he said.

The couple attended parts of both the Pilliod and Hardeman trials, and said they are grateful the truth about Monsanto’s actions to hide the risks are coming into the public spotlight. And they want to see Bayer and Monsanto start warning users about the cancer risks of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.

“We want the companies to take responsibility for warning people -even if there is a chance that something would be harmful or hazardous for them, people should be warned,” Elaine Stevick said.

(Published first in Environmental Health News)
Old 20th May 2019, 2:24 AM #64
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://livingmaxwell.com/gmo-impos...rger-glyphosate

GMO Impossible Burger Tests Positive for Glyphosate
Max Goldberg May 17, 2019

(The Impossible Burger from Impossible Foods)

As Beyond Meat’s very successful IPO is bringing a lot of attention to the alt-protein category, it is important to take a look at what exactly are in these food products.

One popular name in this space is the Impossible Burger, a product we first wrote about in 2017 when Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents uncovered that the FDA disagreed with the company’s safety assessments of the burger’s main ingredient — soy leghemoglobin. However, the company continued selling it to the public anyhow without informing consumers about the FDA’s very serious concerns.

The issue this time around with the Impossible Burger is the amount of glyphosate that it contains.

According to Moms Across America, who had the product tested at Health Research Institute Laboratories, the levels of glyphosate were 11x that of the Beyond Meat burger and the total result (glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA) came in at 11.3 parts per billion.

Why should consumers care about glyphosate?

Because glyphosate is known to the State of California to cause cancer and the World Health Organization says it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” — which means that it “probably causes cancer to humans.” Glyphosate also happens to be the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and approximately 250 million pounds of this weed killer are sprayed each year in the U.S.

Recent court cases, including the $2 billion judgment to a couple whose non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Roundup, have provided more evidence of how harmful this chemical is.

So, the Impossible Burger not only contains a genetically-modified protein that has never been in the human diet until a few years ago, but it has also tested positive for glyphosate.

Additionally, company founder Pat Brown wrote the other day that the Impossible Burger will now be using GMO soy in its burgers. Genetically-modified soy is sprayed with Roundup and is one of Monsanto’s most important products.

“The Impossible Burger is being marketed as a solution for ‘healthy’ eating, when in fact 11 ppb of glyphosate herbicide consumption can be highly dangerous. Only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has been shown to destroy gut bacteria, which is where the stronghold of the immune system lies. I am gravely concerned that consumers are being misled to believe the Impossible Burger is healthy,” said Zen Honeycutt, Executive Director of Moms Across America.

What should also be noted is that very low levels of glyphosate, 0.1 ppb, have been shown to cause fatty liver disease.

If you’re looking to switch to a vegan diet or consume less meat, there are numerous organic meatless options out there, such as Hilary’s Veggie Burgers or Don Lee Farms, products that are not genetically modified and whose ingredients have not been sprayed with glyphosate.

While the Impossible Burger may be generating a lot of hype and is Instagram-worthy because of how it “bleeds”, it carries elevated levels of glyphosate when compared to its non-organic peers, and its key ingredients are not found in nature but are manufactured in a laboratory.

Is eating the Impossible Burger a risk worth taking?

As the Institute for Responsible Technology has pointed out, GMOs carry many health risks.

But maybe Steven Molino can answer this for us.

On Twitter, he said that 20 minutes after eating his first Impossible Burger at Bareburger, he “went into anaphylactic shock & taken to ER. Never happened to me before…” His Tweet about going into “anaphylactic shock” has since been deleted.
Old Today, 12:30 AM #65
Rafael!
Original Poster

Field Researcher

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 271
2 Achievements


https://people.com/home/costco-remo...on-lawsuit/amp/

Costco Will Reportedly Stop Selling Roundup After $2B Awarded to Couple Who Claim It Caused Cancer.

ERIC TODISCOPosted on May 21, 2019 5:34PM

Costco is reportedly dropping Roundup products from its stores following a lawsuit involving a couple that claim the weed killer caused their cancer.

Earlier this month, a California jury ruled that Monsanto, the makers of Roundup, must pay over $2 billion to Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who claim Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. They were awarded $1 billion each in punitive damages, along with a combined $55 million in compensatory damages. Now, Costco appears to be breaking ties with the controversial product, according to Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America who created a petition for the big box store to stop selling Roundup. She announced the news on her website.

“I called the headquarters, and after two days of messages and calls, I did finally confirm with three people that Costco was not ordering Roundup or any glyphosate-based herbicides for the incoming spring shipments,” she wrote. A representative for Costco told PEOPLE, the company does not “have a statement available about the decision.”

RELATED: Jury Awards $2 Billion to Couple Who Say Roundup Weed Killer Caused Their Cancer. Moms Across America have also created two more petitions on Change.org, calling for Home Depot and Lowe’s to also remove all Roundup products in their stores.

Although Roundup contains glyphosate — an herbicide which is used in the killing of both broadleaf plants and grasses, Bayer, the subsidiary of Monsanto that makes Roundup, insists that the weed killer is safe to use, and said that they will appeal.

The first ruling against Monsanto came in August, when a man with terminal cancer who worked as a golf course greenskeeper won $289 million, which was later reduced to $200 million. The case opened the floodgates against Monsanto, who face an estimated 13,000 lawsuits for their products. In March, a second man was awarded $80 million.

Bayer released a statement in response to the $2 billion verdict, maintaining that they believe Roundup has no link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
“Bayer is disappointed with the jury’s decision and will appeal the verdict in this case,” the statement said. It also argued that the Pilliods had previous health issues that could have caused their cancer. “There is not reliable scientific evidence to conclude that glyphosate-based herbicides were the ‘but for’ cause of their illnesses as the jury was required to find in this case.”
Reply


Section jump:


Powered by MariaDB Some icons by http://dryicons.com.