[ad_1]
Dusseldorf At the first glyphosate trial in San Francisco, the court issued a ground-breaking decision – at the expense of Bayer's Monsanto subsidiary. It allows several hundred complaints from cancer patients who badociate their disease with the use of the herbicide. The way for a wave of testing against Monsanto is free.
Monsanto is sued in the first case by a former janitor of a Californian school. Between 2012 and 2014, he regularly used glyphosate to treat green spaces before falling ill with lymphatic cancer. He blames glyphosate and accuses Monsanto of hiding the cancer risk allegedly caused by the drug.
In the first court decision, the first question was whether a trial was worthwhile. There must be enough evidence to support the claim. The competent judge sees this as given. On the key issue, if glyphosate presents a cancer risk, a jury will have to decide.
Plaintiffs Advocate for Two Directions
Monsanto is the world's largest manufacturer of glyphosate and markets the product under the name Roundup. The agrochemical manufacturer, which has been part of Bayer AG since June, has set itself the goal of being able to prevent any possible procedures from the start.
The American society relies on numerous studies and surveys conducted by global regulatory authorities. All conclude that when glyphosate is used properly, there is no risk of cancer. The San Francisco judge, however, considers that a trial on this issue is appropriate after hearing the arguments of the plaintiffs.
Complainants' advocates have two main focuses: First, the World Health Organization has clbadified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic". Second, they question the independence of the studies that are fundamental to glyphosate approval. They can now present documents in the process and call witnesses to prove that Monsanto has been pressuring government officials – such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Monsanto stated that they would file lawsuits noting that glyphosate is not responsible for cancer. Nevertheless, the court's decision is a fragile first defeat.
Because there are now tedious processes with hard conflicts to come. On the issue of cancer risk by glyphosate, the parties face each other head on. As scientific evidence of danger is lacking, Monsanto still has no legal position from the experts' point of view.
Bayer inherits all legal risks with the purchase of Monsanto
However, the judge's rationale shows that the allegations are not so simple. The world can be accomplished. The uncertainty that justifies its decision also prevails in the public. The evidence, though taken as a whole, is probably too ambiguous to allow the clear conclusion that glyphosate causes cancer of the lymph nodes, it is said. However, the opinion of the experts has been advanced enough to support the plaintiffs' argument that prosecution is appropriate
Bayer does not want to comment on the trial in California as the new owner of Monsanto. The two companies are still separated, only in the end of July, legal and organizational integration begins.
The largest chemical companies in the world
The Leverkusen inherit the acquisition, but all the legal risks of Monsanto. And they probably increased from the point of view of the lawyers after the recent decision. By the end of March, Monsanto had already filed 4,000 lawsuits against Roundup. It is foreseeable that more farmers and individuals will join the lawsuits against Monsanto.
Law approval increases pressure on Monsanto to settle the case with settlements without recognizing debt. This is a way often chosen in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries to avoid years of litigation in the courts.
It is not known if this will happen. The financial consequences will then have to support Bayer as heir to the proceedings. Up to a certain amount, Monsanto is insured against litigation.
Source link
