[ad_1]
This is not a good year for Roundup herbicide manufacturers. Last March, a man had a $ 80 million verdict after a jury decided that Monsanto's herbicide had contributed to his positive diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It was the latest in a series of favorable decisions for people who believe that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer, gave them cancer, but that's no reason for the huge verdict that comes from to be returned to California.
The trial, which took place in Oakland, was organized by a couple who thought that prolonged exposure to Roundup had led to the diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The verdict in favor of the couple bore the astronomical sum of $ 2,055 billion.
Alva and Alberta Pilliod were big fans of Roundup and would have used it on their property for several decades. Both men were diagnosed with cancer a few months apart and the couple's lawyers claimed that their use of Roundup was the cause.
Bayer, Monsanto's parent company, disagrees with this and has provided the following statement:
Bayer is disappointed with the jury's decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which directly contradicts the US Environmental Protection Agency's draft decision on the revision of the registration, the consensus among key regulators of health worldwide that glyphosate products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the 40 years of extensive scientific research on which their favorable findings are based.
Determining if glyphosate has negative health effects is actually much more difficult than you think. Bayer is correct in stating that it has research to support its claims that the chemical poses no threat to humans when used in accordance with the instructions. However, other studies have established a link between glyphosate exposure and cancer cases,
A study by scientists at the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate is probably a human carcinogen or carcinogen. A separate study from the WHO has determined the opposite, claiming that the chemical is not likely to cause cancer in humans. This statement was clarified afterwards, noting that it was unlikely that she was causing cancer "due to exposure through the diet," suggesting that it was might be the same if a person is exposed through the skin.
With so much conflicting information, you can see why these cases have started to be judged and why the decisions seem to be rapidly degrading in favor of the plaintiffs.
In simple terms, we still do not know for sure whether spraying a herbicide like Roundup poses health risks, and the answer may not be black or white. It is quite possible that some individuals are vulnerable to the chemical while others are not vulnerable because of their age, their genetic makeup or countless other factors. While we wait to find out, the juries seem strongly convinced that it is dangerous, and similar decisions are likely to happen.
Image Source: Haven Daley / AP / Shutterstock
[ad_2]
Source link