[ad_1]
Dean Brooks grabbed the basket, suddenly unable to stand or breathe.
Later, in a California emergency room, a teary-eyed nurse announced the news to his wife, Deborah, for whom she hopes a miracle. In December 2015, they learned that a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) was rapidly attacking the body and the immune system of humans.
In July 2016, Dean was dead. Deborah is moved by telling the last macabre chapter of the love of her life. But in recent months, she was right again to be optimistic.
In a landmark verdict in August, a jury ruled that Monsanto had caused the terminal cancer and ordered the agrochemical company to pay $ 289 million in damages. The extraordinary decision, exposing the potential dangers of the world's most widely used herbicide, has opened the door for thousands of other cancer patients and their families to seek justice and redress in court.
"It's like a serial killer, but it's a product," said Brooks, 57, who has a pending record against Monsanto, alleging that her husband's use of the company's famous herbicide was home had caused his life-threatening illness. "It's unreasonable … I do not see how they can win. The world is against them. "
Brooks stated that she had cried on hearing that a jury had pronounced in favor of Dewayne "Lee" Johnson, the former late-stage backyard guardian, who became the first person to bring Monsanto to justice at the Roundup trial. The verdict indicated that Monsanto "acted maliciously", knew or should have known that its chemical was dangerous and had not warned consumers of the risks.
Monsanto has appealed and a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in San Francisco. The stakes are high for Monsanto and Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant that acquired the company earlier this year. Under the impetus of Johnson's victory, a series of snowballing challenges now threatens the legacy and finances of corporations – as well as the future of an ubiquitous chemical in the world.
The fight against 8,000 plaintiffs
Monsanto argued that the "junk food science" had led the jury to rule on glyphosate, a chemical product marketed by the company in 1974. Sold under many brands, including Roundup and Ranger Pro, the herbicide has now worth billions of dollars and is registered in 130 countries, with approvals for more than 100 crops.
The Johnson v Monsanto trial was revolutionary even before it was started, as a judge allowed plaintiff's lawyers to present research and expert testimony on glyphosate and health risks – scientific evidence that the jury has finally considered credible and convincing.
Johnson, who should not survive more than two years, explained that he had been exposed to prolonged glyphosate when applying herbicide on school grounds, which caused him at least twice accidentally large amounts of chemical on his skin. Because Monsanto insisted the product was safe and that its label did not contain any cancer warning, Johnson said he did not know the risks before it was too late.
His award of $ 289 million, which includes $ 250 million in punitive damages, changes the game for the 46-year-old, who will leave behind a woman and her three children. But Monsanto is fighting to hide it from him.
"It's a big red flag for society," said Jean M Eggen, professor emeritus at Widener University Delaware Law School, adding that the verdict was, "It's bringing more people who could not otherwise continue in justice."
About 8,700 plaintiffs filed similar lawsuits in state courts across the country, alleging that exposure to glyphosate herbicides had caused various types of cancer. The impact could be enormous if Monsanto continued to fight and lose in jury trials, and an accumulation of victories could force the company to consider resolving its disputes with the plaintiffs.
"It could be very expensive," said Eggen, comparing the fight against the tobacco industry, which aggressively attacked the courts but ultimately decided that regulations were the best option. "It's really a business decision."
In the end, Monsanto could consider changing the labels to warn consumers of cancer risks and solve cancer problems, said Lars Noah, a law professor at the University of Florida: "It's a kind of bet warning that their strategy was unrealistic. "
Of the thousands of cases, more than 10 trials are on track to begin in 2019 and 2020, with court cases escalating in California, Montana, Delaware, Kansas City and St Louis (Monsanto headquarters). Farmers, gardeners, government employees, landscapers and many others have claimed that Monsanto's products have made them sick or have killed their loved ones.
"This is a significant number of trials for one year and will allow plaintiffs to obtain essential evidence before the juries – unpublished evidence," said lawyer Aimee Wagstaff.
The first plaintiffs to have the opportunity to face Monsanto in a courtroom are Alberta and Alva Pilliod, a California couple. Alberta, 74, has brain cancer, while her husband, 76, suffers from bone cancer that he says has invaded the pelvis and spine – both forms of NHL.
Given their age and cancer diagnoses, their lawyers said they were entitled to a speedy trial. However, Monsanto has opposed the request and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.
The couple, who has two children and four grandchildren, used the Roundup from the 1970s until a few years ago – in their yard and on several properties that they bought and renovated. The couple said they chose the herbicide because they felt it would not be harmful to deer, ducks and other animals that roamed their property. They were also sure that it was safe for themselves.
"We are very angry. We hope for justice, "Alberta told the Guardian, noting that they did not use protective equipment when they sprayed and that they would not have used Roundup as they had done. They knew the risks. "If we had received accurate information, if we had been warned, it would not have happened."
Alva said the cancer had destroyed their lives: "It has been a miserable few years."
Their lawyers hope to be judged before it's too late. Alberta doctors said his risk of re-offending was "substantially high", that he had "profound brain damage" and would probably die in case of relapse.
"We will not shut up"
The companies Pilliods and other plaintiffs who blame the company have long argued that Monsanto has conducted "a long campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general public that Roundup was safe."
The lawyers cited Monsanto's internal records, which they say show how the company manipulated and altered the scientific record with respect to the safety of the herbicide. The in-depth review has intensified in recent weeks.
On September 26, the well-known scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology issued a "manifestation of concern," claiming that its published research on the safety of glyphosate had not fully declared Monsanto's involvement.
The highly publicized correction comes after a dispute revealed that the company was involved in organizing and reviewing drafts of articles. Monsanto was associated with a scientific study that thwarted a critical 2015 glyphosate classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a probable carcinogen to humans.
In future trials, further evidence may reveal questionable implications for Monsanto in scientific articles, the plaintiffs' lawyers said.
Bayer spokesman Utz Klages said in an email that the number of cases filed "did not indicate the merits of the dispute". He termed glyphosate a "breakthrough for modern agriculture" and a "cost effective tool that can be used safely to control a wide range of weeds."
Regulatory reviews and scientific studies have shown that glyphosate is safe and is not a cause of NHL, he said, adding, "Johnson's verdict is not definitive and concerns only one specific case. "
John Barton, a Californian farmer who used Roundup for decades and was diagnosed with NHL in 2015, said he was eager to stand trial, especially since Monsanto and Bayer were always saying that glyphosate was safe.
"Monsanto must realize that we will no longer be silent," said Barton, a third-generation farmer, who is participating in a California lawsuit filed by Baum Hedlund, which represented Johnson. "We are not going to roll and play to death … People should be warned that this stuff is everywhere and we must pay attention to this product."
Barton, 69, has also expressed concern that his three sons will get sick from their exposure to Roundup.
"My father has exposed me to that. He would never have done that if he knew it was dangerous, "he added. "I have this guilt that I was able to put my own sons in danger."
Deborah Brooks described the NHL as a "torture", saying her husband was lying on a towel on the floor, trying to stop the endless nose bleeds and constant illnesses that plagued him while his immune system was suffering.
"Nobody should have to go through there. It takes life so badly, "said Brooks, whose husband was 72 when he died. "I fight for the honor of my husband and all the others who came before and who will follow … My heart goes to the victims who do not know themselves victims."
Bayer declined to comment on the Brooks or Barton cases. A spokeswoman, Charla Lord, said in an email that since the pills were in remission and that there was "no indication of imminent cancer recurrence," the company says an early trial date was not justified.
Legal experts have stated that it was possible that the Johnson appeal could lead to a reduction in the amount of money. Courts could also conclude that there was insufficient evidence to prove that glyphosate was carcinogenic or that lawyers had not demonstrated that the herbicide caused Johnson's cancer.
These results could be devastating for Johnson and a setback for those fighting glyphosate. But cancer patients and their families across the country will be able to move forward regardless of what will happen in San Francisco, said David Levine, a law professor at the University of California at Hastings .
"Even if Monsanto wins a complete victory here, he will not stop the other plaintiffs."
Carey Gillam is a journalist and author, and researcher in the public interest of the US research group Right to Know, a nonprofit research group on the food industry.
Source link
