Skip to comments.Roundup Settlement Met by [Obama] Judge's Doubts
Posted on 07/08/2020 2:33:11 PM PDT by JeepersFreepers
A federal judge cast doubt on Bayer AG s proposal to neatly resolve all future lawsuits over the safety of its Roundup weedkiller, potentially snagging the German companys attempts to move past the massive liability.
Bayer said recently it would pay up to $10.9 billion to settle tens of thousands of current Roundup cases and create a system for handling future cases. The deal came after three juries in recent years awarded large verdicts to plaintiffs alleging Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma, spooking investors.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco, who must approve the class action, said Monday he was skeptical of the plan and likely to reject the idea. In a four-page order refusing to delay a July court hearing in the case, he questioned whether it would be constitutional (or otherwise lawful) to hand the issue to a panel of scientists instead of judges and juries.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
All this litigation is based on junk science. In fact, glyphosate has been used safely since 1974. It is now licensed in 130 countries for more than 100 food crops. Over the past four decades, respected agencies and organizations worldwide have conducted over 3,300 studies, and every one of them concluded that glyphosate is safe and non-carcinogenic. Reviewers include the European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Germanys Institute for Risk Assessment, Australias Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Japanese and New Zealand agencies, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. No pesticide regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed, Health Canada noted. Meanwhile, the National Cancer Institutes ongoing Agricultural Health Study has evaluated 54,000 farmers and commercial pesticide applicators for over two decades and likewise found no glyphosate-cancer link.(Source)
Bayer was one of the companies that built one of Hitlers death camps.
Bauer executives should have had their heads examined for buying Monsanto. The controversy over the weed killer was already in the news before the first big lawsuits.
How would it be unconstitutional to let experts weigh in? I understand all of this is based on one dubious study.
All this because some sleazy lawyer convinced a gullible jury that a guy that probably ignored all the safety warnings and happened to get cancer deserved a multi-million dollar payout. Roundup has been around probably 50 years and no probable cause of cancer if used right.
IGFarben-Bayer needs to be taken
to the cleaners
IGFarben-Bayer needs to be taken
to the cleaners
If you watch the lawyer commercials on tv, you will notice that even the lawyers sponsoring the ads are very careful to say that a jury or juries have concluded that RoundUp is a carcinogen. They know that they cannot say that science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that RoundUp poses a threat to anyone.
Bayer has not been tried in any court of its peers to date. A jury of scientist would reach a different conclusion. The judge knows this and he is determined to not let science be a part of the discussion. Why? Because he was a lawyer before he became a judge and his allegiance lies with the lawyers.
Scientists with Black Lives Matter will be weighing in soon.
Depends on whose experts they will be using. Sadly, it seems ALL EXPERTS are now for sale to the highest bidder.
Glucophage is very important and I fear they are going to put it out of use.
“Roundup has been around probably 50 years and no probable cause of cancer if used right.”
totally ... Bayer should have fought these lawsuits until doomsday ...
Yes, there is that, too.
Did you know that 8 out of 10 people that die in car accidents ate Carrots within 8 hours of their death. When are we going to ban carrots??”
Bayer should have demanded a jury of its “peers” - scientists schooled in the best areas of science on the matter - in all its civil cases. Civilians know next to nothing on the matter and the majority are favorable to emotional sway of “victims” above proof of negligence.
J&J was stupid settling the Baby Powder cases - there was no proof that asbestos of a cancer causing level was in any particular whole batch of J&J Baby powder, and no empirical proof the any woman got cancer from using it.
Some women got cancer. Cancer is expensive to treat. Of course women treated for cancer wanted monetary relief from the treatments. Ahhh, minute traces of asbestos have been known on occasion to be found in talcum powder (they ARE chemical cousins). Ahh, some women who have gotten some cancers have used Baby Powder. Ahhh, the lawyers got a new business venture - claim Baby Powder causes cancer even though all any one has about the matter is correlation and not causation.
J&J should have stuck to its guns.
And how is it that the claims are that women got cancer from using Baby Powder but men who use it Baby Powder as a talcum powder did not??
No. One more try. You can do it!
Row crop farmers will have to go back to old school cultivating if that happens. Monsanto won’t be happy.
I surrender (glyphosate).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.