(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Monsanto Roundup lawsuit: $289mil. wow

J

JML755

Well-known Member
Just read that a California jury awarded $289 mil to a guy with cancer:

"Johnson, 46, applied Roundup weedkiller 20 to 30 times per year while working as a groundskeeper for a school district near San Francisco, his attorneys said.
He testified that during his work, he had [b:7e63982db9]two accidents[/b:7e63982db9] in which he was soaked with the product. The first accident happened in 2012.
Two years later, in 2014, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma."

We've sprayed it for years around our fences, driveways, etc. Can't say I've never gotten any on myself. But as usual a runaway California jury decided that an [u:7e63982db9]incident [/u:7e63982db9] with Roundup TWO years before he got cancer was what CAUSED THE CANCER! Whose to say what else he ate or was in contact with over the years didn't cause it?

Now I'm not unsympathetic to cancer patients, I know there are a number on this forum. My mother and dad died from cancer. But I'm sure when he got the cancer that he found some ambulance chasers who met him and said "think man, think. What big deep pocket corporation product have you used over your life time". His response was probably "oh, I spilled Roundup on myself a few years ago". :shock: (Lawyers eyes light up!) IMO, Those guys care little about whether Mr. Johnson lives or dies. All they see is $$$$$

Reminds me of the Seinfeld Episodes with Jackie Childs and tobacco or the candy heiress.

I'd be curious if any of you guys who use it regularly have spilled any on yourself or if you think it's caused you harm with proper use.
 
My view is that you would probably be in danger if you are soaked with it, or exposed over long periods of time, but what chemical is not under those circumstances.
 
Well I am not going to touch the red button, but this is only step #1.
It is so sad that the judicial system in this country is so &^=##%$
up. Been there done that for something that should have been thrown
out. The lawers get involved with feel good namdy pamby judges and
you have the recipe. How about Johnson & Johnson with baby powder.
They make two kinds you know. I only use the corn starch one. The talk
is way tooo slippery. Now how many of you want to lean in and tell us
a woman got you know what in her you know where because of baby
powder. What did she do, buy it by the case? The judicial system is
right back to where if some woman weighs the same as a duck.. she
must be a witch! JMHO.
 
What surprises me is that the company gets a judgment against them when their product accidentally gets misused.

Most likely the product will eventually be banned for use.

Where does this stop? Very few things in this world that won't cause harm if misused.
 
David,
I feel the same way. If you bathe yourself in a lot of stuff (brake cleaner, lacquer thinner, etc) you'd probably suffer some ill effects. But did he just leave it on himself when he got soaked? Didn't wash it off? When I get "bad stuff" on me, I will remove it as soon as possible. That's the recommendation on every label for every product except bottled water.

I believe that the skin is a pretty good barrier for most stuff and unless you have an open wound or cut, chances are your body will recover.

Constant exposure is another story. People who worked in asbestos or the Agent Orange exposure in Nam or tobacco users are certainly at more risk than the general population for illness. That's why I'm curious about farmers who've used Roundup for years. Anybody think Roundup has caused them harm?
 
There's always plenty of press coverage for these big jury awards, but little or no coverage of the final settlement. These are almost always reduced on appeal, and often the parties will settle prior to appeal rather than risk the uncertainty of an appeal.

Also, it's very easy to say a jury is "runaway" when you're not actually on the jury, or even in the courtroom, and have no knowledge of the particular case.
 
(quoted from post at 10:17:20 08/11/18) What surprises me is that the company gets a judgment against them when their product accidentally gets misused.

Most likely the product will eventually be banned for use.

Where does this stop? Very few things in this world that won't cause harm if misused.
Click to expand...
ery true. Drink too much water and it will in fact kill you.
 
jeffcat,
I'd forgotten about the baby powder suit. I agree that our judicial system is messed up when it comes to personal injury lawsuits. Doesn't matter how much an individual is to blame for something, if there's deep pockets to be found, some lawyer will find them. And the juries are worse. Not surprising that this suit was filed or tried in San Francisco, CA. home of the wackiest people on this earth.
 
[b:654c4848f0]What surprises me is that the company gets a judgment against them when their product accidentally gets misused.[/b:654c4848f0]

On one hand.....
That is why they have pesticide applicator licenses.
So the general public can not get there hands on dangerous stuff to start with.

Monsanto fought to have this product available to the general public.
Now they can pay the consequences.


On the other hand....
There are so many things bad for you out there who is to say roundup caused this cancer.
 
JMOR that's true there was a radio station that had a challenge on how much water a person could drink in one hour ,a woman drank like two gals of water and was dead that day.
 
I would be surprised if he collects a dime. Just because the WHO has decided that Round Up is a probable cause for cancer(which one)will not stand up in a USA Court of Appeals.
 
How many times have you gone for jury duty? When you watch the
challenge process it makes you cringe. Any wonder how these cases go
so wacky. So few people know that the Jury has the final say. Then
some wack job judge throws out their decision. Not supposed to be but
is done anyway.
 
I have to admit I could believe there is something to the agent orange thing. I know of about five Vietnam vets in this area that died in their 50s from cancer and all told about being involved with agent orange. The cases were brain and stomach cancer, not one colon, non were smokers.

I did have a cousin that died of Alzheimer's at 59. At the time they blamed agent orange, but now he has two sisters with it and a younger sister that is very nervous. Their father ran a commercial refrigeration business.

Jim
 
There is this NEW chemical out. H2O it can KILL YOU !!! We all need to ban together and outlaw it. This scourge will KILL us all if we do not outlaw it today!!!!!

I posted about this in another forum. It takes a California fruit cake jury to come to this conclusion. He had accidents and was soaked in it twice. Two year later he has cancer. Anything used of label can cause death. Look at my satire. How many does water kill each year???

You want to know why he got an award??? He is a minority suing a HUGE company. That is the sole reason he got a pay off. Remember this is the same state that OJ got away with murder in.

If I ran a company of any size one thing I would do is to NOT do any business in California. Makes your life much simpler. Thank them for a large part of our fruit cake EPA nonsense. None of us want bad air or water but I also want to live above a caveman too. The really radical tree huggers want man to drop off the planet.
 
It may very well be overturned on appeal or, the judgement may be significantly reduced but I would not count on it if this is a CA state court. There are loads of fruitcakes in CA and state court decisions cannot be appealed to the US S. CT., absent constitutional issues.

Such nonsense only happens in the US. Contingency fees are immoral if not illegal in just about every other industrialized country on the planet.

Dean
 
Farmers would be better off without Round Up.
Would make it much harder to grow crops, and farm
prices for corn and beans, etc. would go up. Not so
great for the average folks, as price of food would
also go up. Not to worry, it will never happen.
Politicians like happy constituents, and cheap food
keeps them happy. I am not going to say I am for or
against Round Up , these are simple facts.
 
Given that the guy got soaked in it, had a reaction, and continued to use it, I'd say he is at least partly responsible.
Every one of us is different. My mother smoked for 84 years and was healthier than her doctor. By the time I was in middle school, I had a chronic cough and now deal with COPD. Stuff that does not bother me will send the next guy to the hospital, and stuff he is fine with would have me unable to breathe.
 

Chemicas make it possible to feed the world but stupid politicians and/or lawyers (I actually do not expect better from lawyers) who let emotions come into play do not care. I would force feed glyphosphate to the jury. Damned snowflakes.
 
I have the same type of cancer in my gut, exposure to agent orange. Cancer does not run in my family. Boots on the ground in Vietnam. Vets sued Dow chemical. Nothing for USA troops, Australian vets got a settlement because there were only 76,000 troops. They have been get monthly checks since the early 80's. Do the math!
Led
 
I was home about a month from Vietnam. When I developed a rash.Reported to NAS Dallas as ordered. They gave me some ointment to clear it up. Rash would come back once in a while,didn't think much of it.In 2009 I had a heart attack. Doc ask me if I had ever been around Agent Orange.Told him I served in Nam. He said then you were exposed. Since then I have had three strokes,high blood pressure,loss of sight in one eye,bad memory. All related to Agent Orange exposure.

Now I have joined the ranks of many. That the V A is dragging their feet on. Tell the V A you are a nam vet and they don't want to talk or help you.

So if I were you guys. I wouldn't blow off this Roundup deal so quickly.
 
So you think rr is bad ? Would you say that about every other chemical that is on the so called cancer causing list in California ?, ever used coconut oil ? Ever been around wood dust ? how about maybe do you have any bracken ferns around the house ? Or maybe aloe Vera , everyone of those plus many other household chemicals have the same rating as rr in those so called California cancer list, I will agree rr has been overused but this guy doesn't deserve a settlement for because his lawyer thinks he got cancer from rr. I would bet the guy has drank a lot of milk over the yrs too so maybe it was the milk that caused it! On another note My previous dog died after I ran over her at 14 accidentally because she was slow and I didn't see her , she used to follow me around when I sprayed bean feild and wherever she layed down the grass in the yard would die so I sure rr was to blame
 
"Now I have joined the ranks of many. That the V A is dragging their feet on. Tell the V A you are a nam vet and they don't want to talk or help you."

that's just plain baloney. I have had nothing but good experiences with the VA. a high school friend of mine and a Nam vet died from cancer a few months ago. his job in the army was to wash out choppers after they came back from spraying AO. I tried for a long time to get him to sign up for VA health care. he never did it claiming he did not have the time. well now he is dead.


as good a friend as he was I think he was just plain stupid.

get off your azz and sign up. if you need assistance CONTACT your county VA rep.
 
Was he wearing Personal Protective Equipment? Did he remove contaminated clothing and wash skin
promptly? Was he at all trained in the proper use of chemicals?
 
And your first line says farmers would be better off without rr, sounds like you are against it to me . Personally I would much rather use a proven safe chemical like rr than atrazine that has been proven to cause cancer , Monsanto will be gone and them who will be the next company the lawyers will go after ? Maybe the dairy industry because everyone that had died in the last 170 yrs has probably been within 5 Ft of some dairy product so therefore it must cause there death
 
Count your self lucky. I am in my fifth year of getting the V A to do anything. I have the records to prove it. This not the site to go into it. But the GOVT could do more to help us.
 
And just so you know
3 VSO officers
1 DAV offical
Contacted the V A' Which tells me to get an EKG. They already have two from the hospital. Why do they need a third.
Contacted the V A social services office in Temple. They told me to contact the V A office in Temple.
 
Could be you are right , but I think more likely you are just spoiling for a a fight. I truly doubt dairy products are going to be linked to premature death in the general population, as dairy has been consumed since Biblical times. I sight the phrase ? the land of milk and honey ? as evidence.
I am not an organic Zealot , and I have no proof that applying any chemical herbicide will cause cancer or any other long term health problems. This doesn?t change the fact that food was grown for centuries before companies like Monsanto, or Dow came along. And farmers made more profit from the sale of their crops. Now crops are grown in over abundance, and farmers go broke, while chemical companies get rich. Will this guy get his money? Doubt it very much. Does he deserve any compensation? Not qualified to answer that question anymore then you are . My comments only reflect my opinion that we as society, could have continued to feed ourselves without chemical herbicides, but more of your income would have been spent on food. From the current 10% of take home earnings to 30-40% just as it was before WW2. And this would also curb obesity, not too many fat people till after the 50?s
 
don't attempt to do it on your own. I have to ask what is a VSO? apparently I never needed one. are you making phone calls or writing letters ? phone calls to any place is usually a waste of time. send letters certified with return receipt.

my email is open or [email protected]
 
(quoted from post at 13:24:55 08/11/18) Was he wearing Personal Protective Equipment? Did he remove contaminated clothing and wash skin
promptly? Was he at all trained in the proper use of chemicals?
Click to expand...
All good questions that I'm pretty sure the Monsanto lawyers would have asked but.......... personal responsibility and facts don't matter to a jury. Hopefully, there are issues that can be appealed and common sense will prevail.
 
"Barren Wasteland of GMO corn and beans " Traditioanl Farmer. The only barren fields around here are the organic ones with ten foot tall rag weeds and crops maybe knee high.
 
Where does all the organic food in Whole foods and in every other grocery store come from if your fantasy was true that organic farms are nothing but weeds and all?
Farmers now might actually have to learn how to farm again instead of calling in the Chemical Cowboys every time they see some insect or non GMO plant.Like it or not those that want to
use chemicals in food production in this country are vastly out number by consumers that do not want their food grown that way.And this jury verdict will throw fuel to the fire.
 
Funny when you think about it Agent orange was made by Monsanto somehow you have to ask yourself if they really care about how safe their products are. Studies can be easily manipulated. I personally never trust a company when they say their 100% safe. But that is me everybody is entitled to personal opinion.
 
Old farm practices were fine and well when there were no big cities taking up farmland and there was barely 1 billion people to feed. Now that there's close to 8 billion people to feed and less land to grow the food on how do you propose that happens with "proper farm practices"?
 
Since when did it become the responsibility of the United States to feed the World? Why feed a bunch of people that mostly despise the US anyway or are trying to cut our economic throats like China?
Totally stupid idea.About 350 million in the US should an easy job to feed them,walking down the street I don't see too many people that looks like they're missing meals.
 
Another thing I've heard about organic is that many growers have a buddy up the road selling them sprays for cash so there's no paper trail and getting organic prices for non organic product. I'm sure all consumers would love organic food,but hardly any of them are willing to pay extra for it. Nobody wants to put the work and expense into producing their own food they just want to walk into the grocery store put their hand on it it better be perfect and complain about the cost of food at the checkout. Please don't get me wrong true organic is great but it comes at a much higher cost than most families can afford with lower yields that won't produce enough food for the entire planet. Are you going to be the one telling the world were going strictly organic,there's only going to be enough food for 2/3 of you only 1/3 of you can afford it with your current lifestyle.
 
Where do you get all these false assumptions? Come to where I live there are two large supermarkets that sell nothing but organic,the parking lots are almost always crowded plus there are several other chains,even Walmarts that have big organic sections so there are plenty of people willing to pay more for organic.And really you have no idea what it takes to successfully grow organic food or what it costs to grow it.You're just repeating Monsanto talking points and parroting what you heard on the weekend farm shows.
 
It's not just the US it's the entire world. I'm
Pretty sure we'd be ok without Monsanto and GMO's. Unfortunately in order to get the required yields to fulfill markets there has to be a cost effective way to control competition weeds and insects in order to produce enough food that people can afford.
 
Frankly the rest of the world needs to grow their own food,paying farmers subsidies,Federal Crop insurance and all the rest to supply the world with cheap food is beyond stupid.Put the farmers that grow the extra beans and corn on welfare it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run than the food export scam.
 
I'm repeating what our cooperative dairy tried 5 years ago. Organic milk in the store was nearly twice the cost as conventional milk,there's a very small market for food at a 100% premium. I know a few producers that tried it and the premium offered to them was only 25% over conventional pay and they couldn't afford to keep producing for that little extra. They said organic grain was hard to find and near double the cost. They had to take potatoes out of their rotation which is really big here. They were only allowed to treat sick cows with vitamin C. Cows produced quite a bit less to boot.
 
The US milk price is extremely low now,and they rely on export markets to survive along with subsidies as it is. The echonomic world revolves around trade and food is a major part of that.
 
Just because you fellows couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done,there is an organic dairy coop at Dayton VA that is doing quite well.Also every grocery store in the area sells organic milk and dairy products, so someone is producing it and someone is buying it.I think you fellows that live out in low population areas think that the rest of the country is like where you live,its not.My area has lots of high income people that are willing to pay for what they want cost is down on the list.There are subdivisions in my area that have more people than in some rural counties across the country.Anyway consumers will decide what food is sold.
 
Agent Orange was made by Union Carbide. It
was 2,4,5-T, sold in the forestry market as
Silvex. 2,4,5-T was perfectly safe as a
peacetime herbicide, but the US government
asked Union Carbide what could be done to
lower the cost for military use. UC said
they could reduce the refinement of the
product, but it would contain a lot of
dioxins. A known cancer causing agent, even
back in those days. This info came from a
Union Carbide employee way back around
1985. I've been a licensed herbicide
applicator since 1984.
Anyway, the government said "Bring it on,
dioxins and all". So, they sprayed the
Agent Orange up and down the rivers, much
to the delight of the "Brown Water Navy"
who was tasked with patrolling the rivers.
You see, they got tired of having snipers
shoot at them under cover from the river's
edge.
I'm not quite old enough to have been
there, so I'll let those who were there
comment on whether its use was appropriate.
I do not personally believe that thousands
of soldiers have been harmed, maybe some.
The Brown Water Navy folks I have talked to
were very pleased to see the results of the
Agent Orange. They said it saved a lot of
lives.
 
Absolutely they will,also in Ontario there was a much higher volume of certified dairies coming onstream than there was market for so many of them were told they'd have to accept conventional price for their organic product. I get your point that there is a thriving market for organic products,my point is simply that it's not affordable for everyone and everyone needs to eat.
 
DISCLAIMER!!!

While I certainly mean no disrespect those who have served, or those involved with ag chemicals, I've seen a &^%$ ton of friends and acquaintances with no exposure to EITHER scenario get sick and die of cancer. HORRIBLE.


Life is cruel, and sometimes having a scapegoat helps. SAD, but true.

There were a number of cancer deaths on either side of our family tree LONG before Agent Orange, or glyphosate were even thought of.

Who's to blame for those?
 
I hope so, too. Realistically, though, I don't think common
sense will prevail until after a societal apocalypse.
 
Well one good thing about it is that it probably only causes cancer in CALIFORNIA anyway so I shouldn't have to worry here in Montana.I've used that stuff for a lot of years and yes I've spilled it on me and felt over spray hit my face too.I suppose it could affect people in different ways but I can't see that excessive amount for a fine.Recently Smithfield lost a court battle for the amount of 474 million for their hog farm smell.I'll bet any thing that farm was miles from any homes when they started business,the people just kept encroaching on them till this happened.I've seem this with two different egg farms here in Montana and they ran them out of business.
 
(quoted from post at 08:35:07 08/11/18)
Chemicas make it possible to feed the world but stupid politicians and/or lawyers (I actually do not expect better from lawyers) who let emotions come into play do not care. I would force feed glyphosphate to the jury. Damned snowflakes.
Click to expand...


Well that would be a fine statement if you fed the world. You don't. The American farmer only produces about 45% of the worlds food supply. And that's not taking into account weather roundup is safe or not. Nor the amount of corn and beans that are made into fuel.

So average Joe can look this up in 2 seconds on a cell phone. You tell them that you feed the world and they look up that lie they will not believe another word you say.

Rick

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 17:42:16 08/11/18) Old farm practices were fine and well when there were no big cities taking up farmland and there was barely 1 billion people to feed. Now that there's close to 8 billion people to feed and less land to grow the food on how do you propose that happens with "proper farm practices"?
Click to expand...

Again the honesty issue. There are millions of acres of land that are not in production in just the US at this time. And we also have more than enough to turn into fuel too. Then look at the 100's of millions of acres of land in other countries that could be put into production. Again stuff that's easy to fact check on a cell phone.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 18:02:05 08/11/18) It's not just the US it's the entire world. I'm
Pretty sure we'd be ok without Monsanto and GMO's. Unfortunately in order to get the required yields to fulfill markets there has to be a cost effective way to control competition weeds and insects in order to produce enough food that people can afford.
Click to expand...

Really? Then explain the the current prices? When supply is low prices rise. When supply meets demand prices are steady. When supply exceeds demand prices drop. It's how a free market system works. And again, producing so much that we burn it for fuel? And the prices are low? That should be telling you something. And no not that we need another way to used the current crops.

Rick
 
And someone else said it already. They will most likely file an appeal and either get the payout greatly reduced or the whole thing overturned.

What the real deal is that any lawyer who takes a case like this tries to play the jury. First they convince the jury that the company is at fault. Then they convince the jury that the company is hurting everyone with the product. Finally they convince a jury that this rich evil company can afford a nice big payout. And with most major corporations being painted as evil by the news media that can cost way more than it should.

Rick
 
Monsanto,now Bayer, has gotten grain farmers where they want them.Farmers have to purchase their high priced GMO seed every year,use their products to keep the weeds out, its made these crops easy to grow and has has created huge surpluses that have to be sold for low prices.What is the answer big ag comes up with? Produce more crops so they can buy more high priced inputs from the ag companies.Big ag companies getting rich while the farmers barely scrap by,sort of like drug dealer,drug user relationship.Like drugs everyone else can see the problem except for the addict.
 

IN my opinion... if you follow the science.. there is no proof so far. suspicion? yes. Definite proof no. The european study done was not done in a manner to CONFIRM, only show possible link.

SO.. does it cause cancer? Official answer, WE DONT KNOW.

AS to a jury trial, well jury s rule on emotion more often then not. Suspicion and hate of big companies added in, is why most of these verdicts get overturned on appeals court, but only pending on which judge you get. Judges have bias also, and the judge you draw on appeals has a lot to do with the answer you will get. Justice should be blind, but that is NOT the case.

If you have been following the baby powder case, you can see that juries will almost aways rule against Johnson and Johnson and the appeals courts will almost alway run in favor of Jand J.

Why? Lots of talcum power is mined with arsenic in it. J and J ran constant internal testing and also hired an outside lab for independent testing. Their carefully documented records showed they NEVER sold contaminated baby powder. The monitored all incoming sources of product in their quality control. Other cheaper (china, asian) sellers did not test their products.

The Juries are told that J and J paid off the outside lab, but offer no proof. And juries are not the brightest in separating fact from conjecture. An appeals judge will rule on facts and not rumors so J and J is able, so far, to overturn all of the judgements in appeals but at a great legal cost.

So, on the cancer trials, yes juries will always rule for the poor plaintiff in most cases.

Is it monsanto's fault the equipment failed and drenched the guy.
 
(quoted from post at 07:17:44 08/12/18) Monsanto,now Bayer, has gotten grain farmers where they want them.Farmers have to purchase their high priced GMO seed every year,use their products to keep the weeds out, its made these crops easy to grow and has has created huge surpluses that have to be sold for low prices.What is the answer big ag comes up with? Produce more crops so they can buy more high priced inputs from the ag companies.Big ag companies getting rich while the farmers barely scrap by,sort of like drug dealer,drug user relationship.Like drugs everyone else can see the problem except for the addict.
Click to expand...

You dont have to buy from them!!!!!!! Their product is better, better yields better in all ways, but you dont have to buy from them. You dont have to grow the same crop that everyone else is growing the same year. Farmers own decisions have a lot to do with their success or failure. Why blame the seed provider for everyone having record crops and a market glut???? Why blame them for the growing season providing all the harvest at at the same time. Yes like a drug USER, farmers can make poor decisions also..

You make those decisions so that you know there will be combiners, storage, shipping, buyers all lined up and you dont have to worry about the """after harvest""" portion of selling/moving your crop. You choose to let the big boys do that portion and you pay the price of "surplus and demand". A problem that has been going on for thousands of years.
 
(quoted from post at 08:45:31 08/12/18)


great legal cost.
Click to expand...

There you got it! If it were a a low dollar amount they might just pay it even if they are not at fault as it's cheaper than fighting it.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top