قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / The jury pronounces a $ 2 billion judgment against Monsanto on a cancer-stricken couple

The jury pronounces a $ 2 billion judgment against Monsanto on a cancer-stricken couple



Oakland's verdict includes more than $ 55 million in compensation for the couple and $ 2 billion in punitive damages, a statement said, "What they're doing," said Brent Wisner, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, on Monday to reporters. Thousands of similar cases are pending at federal or state level.

Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, insists that glyphosate – the main ingredient in Roundup – is safe.

"Bayer is disappointed with the jury's decision and will appeal the verdict in this case." it said in a statement after the judgment on Monday.

Septuagenarian plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, have used the weed killer on their property for more than three decades and have been diagnosed with the same type of cancer, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. According to their lawyers, every four years.

Bayer said the jury had been presented with "cherry-picked results" that did not match the US Environmental Protection Agency's statement last month that glyphosate was not a carcinogen and there was no public opinion about health risks when used as intended.
  According to EPA, glyphosate, the main constituent of Roundup, does not cause cancer. Others are not so sure.

"The contrast between today's ruling and EPA's conclusion that the currently registered uses of glyphosate" pose no public health risks "could not be more blatant," said Bayer.

However, not all groups have reflected the EPO's announcement. Cases such as the rise in Pilliods, according to a World Health Organization report in 2015, indicated that glyphosate could cause cancer.

The report of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer states that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans". Bayer's statement on Monday stated that the plaintiffs "strongly relied on the 2015 agency's assessment," but described it as "outliers among international health regulators and scientific bodies". 19659004] There were also concerns as to whether Monsanto exercised an inappropriate influence on the regulators. Internal corporate documents played a key role in the Monday verdict, according to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

In the statement, Michael Miller, another Pilliods attorney, said that her case is different from two previous Monsanto lawsuits, "in which the judges severely limited the plaintiffs' evidence". He said the jury was shown a "mountain of evidence showing Monsanto's manipulation of science, media and regulators to pass on their own agenda."

Wisner said Monday that this evidence contained emails and text messages between officials from Monsanto and EPA.

A Monsanto spokeswoman had previously denied ever paying anything to someone from the EPA, or having done anything else to favor, taking responsibility for his product, "said Wisner.

" This is not that End of this litigation, "he said." This is the beginning. "

Holly Yan, Sarah Moon, and Cheri Mossburg of CNN contributed to this report.


Source link