UPDATE: Monsanto Wins Against Residents Of 7 States In Carcinogens Lawsuit

UPDATE: Although one court ruled Monsanto won’t face penalties for PCB, a long-lasting carcinogen, another similar suit by the City of San Diego is still pending.
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    UPDATE July 15, 2015: Monsanto prevailed over residents of seven states in a suit filed against the company over deaths and illnesses related to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cancer-causing chemical compounds manufactured by subsidiaries of the international agribusiness corporation until the late 1970s.

    A jury in a St. Louis County court found Monsanto not guilty last week, the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported. Monsanto applauded the verdict while insisting the company no longer manufactures chemicals for anything but agriculture (a claim that contradicts the company’s apparent involvement in the manufacture of white phosphorous for the U.S. military).

    The Dispatch’s Tim Barker notes that, “It’s unclear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on other pending litigation involving Monsanto and its PCB history.” This includes an ongoing lawsuit between Monsanto and the City of San Diego.



    MINNEAPOLIS — Already struggling from the bad publicity generated by a report linking an ingredient in its popular herbicide Roundup to cancer, agribusiness giant Monsanto is facing lawsuits over another carcinogenic substance it once sold.

    Residents of seven states are suing Monsanto over its manufacture of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, which were once a common ingredient in industrial fluids like coolants before scientists discovered their toxic qualities. Although banned by Congress in 1979, PCBs now represent a persistent pollutant in the environment, resulting in continued exposure and ongoing, expensive clean-up efforts.

    In addition to Monsanto, the residents are also suing Solutia, Inc., a chemicals company spun off from Monsanto in 1997, and Pharmacia, Monsanto’s former pharmaceutical unit that’s been owned by Pfizer, Inc. since 2003.

    Writing for the St. Louis Business Journal, Ben Unglesbee offered background on the suit, which was filed on May 28:

    “According to the suit, filed by Alabama resident Roger Bailey and 11 others from six states, Monsanto manufactured and sold 99 percent of PCBs made in the U.S. ‘Because PCBs were dumped in the environment over decades by Monsanto, its customers, and the end users of various PCB-containing products, PCBs are now ubiquitous in the environment,’ the plaintiffs’ complaint said.

    In response, Monsanto officials said: “We believe the allegations are without merit and the former Monsanto Company is not responsible for the alleged injuries.”

    The City of San Diego is also suing Monsanto over its manufacture of PCBs, claiming their ongoing toxic effect on the environment is a public nuisance. While other cities have successfully sued Monsanto or its spin-off companies for their role in the improper disposal of the chemical near its manufacturing plants, these lawsuits take a broader approach, blaming Monsanto for its ongoing effect on the lives of residents. ThinkProgress’ Natasha Geiling elaborated on this approach:

    “Though the case might not be traditional, it’s not without precedent.

    ‘The analogy would be lawsuits against paint manufacturers for lead paint,’ Rena Steinzor, professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and president of the Center for Progressive Reform, told ThinkProgress. Asbestos is another example of a toxic substance often cited in claims of public nuisance.

    Public nuisance cases dealing with lead paint and asbestos have seen limited success across the United States, largely being denied by courts — with the exception of California.”

    While six states rejected public nuisance claims that linked lead paint to cancer, California proved the exception, paying out handsomely to plaintiffs:

    “Judge James Kleinberg, according to a review of the case by the law firm Morrison & Foerster, found that a company could be considered liable for having created a public nuisance if ‘companies had created or assisted in creating the nuisance by actively selling and promoting lead paint with actual or constructive knowledge about its health hazards.’ In the end, three of the five companies were found liable and ordered to pay a $1.1 billion fine to assist in the clean-up of over 4.7 million California homes.”

    These lawsuits mark the second time Monsanto products have been linked to cancer in 2015. A March report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, as “probably” carcinogenic. In the months since then, reaction against the chemical has been widespread, with Brazil’s public prosecutor seeking to ban the chemical and Colombia taking action to stop its use in the war on drugs.

    Be Sociable, Share!

     

    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    ___________________________________________
    This entry was posted in Health & Lifestyle, Inside Stories, National, Top Stories and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Pingback: White Phosphorous War Crimes Connect Israel To Monsanto | Friends of Syria()

    • Pingback: Washington State Launches Historic Lawsuit Against Monsanto Over PCBs |()

    • Pingback: Washington State Launches Historic Lawsuit Against Monsanto Over PCBs()

    • Pingback: Monsanto Ordered to Pay $46.5 Million in PCB Lawsuit in Rare Win for Plaintiffs – Pam Jones()

    • Pingback: Monsanto condenada en $ 46,5 millones en el pleito de PCB en raras victorias de los Demandantes | Evangelizadoras de los apóstoles()

    • Pingback: Monsanto Ordered To Pay $46.5 Million In PCB Lawsuit | PopularResistance.Org()

    • Pingback: Monsanto Ordered To Pay $46.5 Million In PCB Lawsuit In Rare Win For Plaintiffs | Care2 Causes()

    • Pingback: Monsanto Ordered to Pay $46.5 Million in PCB Lawsuit in Rare Win for Plaintiffs - NationofChange | Progressive Change Through Positive Action()

    • Pingback: Monsanto Ordered to Pay $46.5 Million in PCB Lawsuit in Rare Win for Plaintiffs | ecoiko.eu Cyprus Green Eco Energy Resource Centre and Directory()

    • Pingback: Monsanto Proven To Be The Source of White Phosphorus Used in Gaza Massacre | Talesfromthelou()

    • Pingback: Monsanto Proven To Be The Source of White Phosphorus Used in Gaza Massacre - Counter Current News()

    • Pingback: Big Ag Is Big Money For Congress: Monsanto Spends $2.5M Lobbying In 2015()

    • Pingback: WHITE PHOSPHOROUS WAR CRIMES CONNECT ISRAEL TO MONSANTO | altahrir, news of Islam, Muslims, Arab Spring and special Palestine()

    • Pingback: White Phosphorous War Crimes Connect Israel To Monsanto()

    • Pingback: White Phosphorous War Crimes Connect Israel To Monsanto |()

    • Pingback: Neil Young Teams Up With Willie Nelson’s Sons On An Anti-Monsanto Album()

    • Pingback: TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » White Phosphorous War Crimes Connect Israel to Monsanto()

    • Ancomp

      < ✜✱✪✪✲✜ +mintpressnews +*********….. < Now Go R­e­­a­d M­o­r­e

      16

    • Pingback: White Phosphorous War Crimes Connect Israel To Monsanto – Kit O’Connel/MintPress.com | Plato's Guns()

    • Theem1962

      < ✜✱✪✪✲✜.+ zeldadungeon+ *********Reset your job with modvive < Find More='' ……..''

      41

    • Pingback: White Phosphorous War Crimes Connect Israel To Monsanto()

    • dubinsky

      interesting to see if this doesn’t get thrown out of court

    • Gayle

      ———- that’s a full enjoy with mintpressnews……. _________ Continue Reading

    • HectorEMary

      Reset your job with mintpressnews Find Here

    • JaimeAHamilton

      sadv

    • Robere’

      We farmers rejoiced when Monsanto started selling Roundup. Before Roundup we used 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T both of which are central nervous system poisons. Or we sprayed used motor oil on weeds. I’ve used Roundup for over 35 years. In that time I’ve spilled it on my pants, splashed it on my hands and I’m sure I’ve breathed the mist. I’m 68 and healthy as a horse. My older brother has used it for 40 years and he and his two sons are all healthy.

      • your both liars, have hidden cancers not daignosed yet & deserve a bullet to the forehead in public for siding with Monsanto against Americans.

      • bhwsr

        Your nose is growing Robere!

    • Crave

      Couldn’t happen to a nicer company…

    • Garlon Ethyl Ester

      When I worked at Dow Chemical in the Garlon facility our skin was constantly burning. We had the head operator Becky come and talk to us and she said it only effected light haired skinned people. Come to find out the Garlon at the time was Garlon Ethyl ester which contained 2,4-d, 3,5-t each at 25% with 50% garlon tar which needed to be heated and applied. They lied and subjected countless people to the almost the same ingredients as Agent Orange which we now know causes several health effects like diabetes. These companies don’t care about people and will even use their employees to make a buck….things need to change….and by the way Dow knew when the DNR was coming by for inspections….dirty dirty corporations

      • I have long stated the difference between Garlon 4 & Agent Orange is ZERO. trichlorphenyl is TCP any way you dice it. regardless of the military or decade.

      • CINEMABLEND

        This is with refrence mintpressnews … Tap To Continue

      • DavidDFerguson

        All time hit the mintpressnews Find Here

    • Kojak Bear

      Government should be Sued why do they Allow IT?

      • zeisel

        They’re all scratching each others back.. that’s why.

    • Jeanne Marie Bentsen

      We have another battle to fight first. Unfortunately, nothing is organic anymore. The Military Industrial Complex is spraying Aluminum, Barium and Strontium into the atmosphere around the globe. They are trying to kill us off. Monsanto has developed Aluminum resistant seeds…hmmm. Let’s work together and fight. Go to this reliable site for more info https://www.facebook.com/dane.wigington.geoengineeringwatch.org

    • John

      Monsanto needs to be run out of business, ALL of their executives tared and feathered, taken into the streets and line the streets with people taunting them and giving them only glyphosate to drink as they march in the hot sun. Very disgusting criminals they are.

      • much much too peaceful for me, when you are up for hanging them in public count me in. and hanging the damned pigs protecting them too.

    • bearass

      Monsanto is a bunch of greedy rat turds

      • Monsanto is a bunch of jeew ish negro sellers from louisisana, google Isaac Monsanto reciepts. the language is lovely.

    • Jared Smith

      Good luck with that lawsuit, you will need it as 1) the statute of limitations for filing such a thing has likely long since expired 2) the plaintiffs will have to show they were actually harmed by Monsanto’s products and not something else which considering the sheer number of toxic products that humans have been exposed to over the years is going to be a very very large hurdle.

    • Roy Hopke

      Another crummy article with no connection to discredit roundup, other than the same company used to manufacture another chemical. Sleazeball tactics.

    • jtatman1

      Nothing will end until the public starts eradicating monsanto officials. Let’s put bounties on them.

    • GivesIt Thought

      I wish Monsanto Corporation and its executives a permanent place in Hel!.

    • dblamp2

      Until the current administration removes former Monsanto executives from the USDA , things with Monsanto will not change

    • just assassinate the very 1st judge hearing this so the second one knows the public has had it with dirty monsanto “judges”.

    • Fay

      ———-.i like me mintpressnews ——- —————– Keep Reading

    • Anna

      “Not the same today …” – yet, still has drug its feet over addressing harm until forced to do so. And intent on PR campaigns to re-brand itself whilst consistently using the old tactics to attack critics. Still adamantly opposed to transparency, as before. Re: Germany’s evaluation – the evaluation was actually a review and certification of a review presented by industry. In short, there was no independent review made of the actual studies; how could there be ? These studies are confidential (trade secrets).

    • Tont Davies

      #1 Today the Monsanto company is not the same as the old company called Monsanto but they did a favor for a company (Solutia) that held the liability for old Monsanto – when Solutia the old Monsanto chemical company went bust instead of anyone losing access to sue for anything, new Monsanto took over the responsibility – they didn’t have to. .So while new Monsanto will have share in paying lawsuits they are not morally liable. No one in today’s Monsanto was in old Monsanto in the 1970’s, no management or share holders probably (some shareholders just be chance) – they would have to 80 years old and still working and new Monsanto is more a seed company. The old Monsanto stopped making and selling PCBs before they were banned but others kept on making and using them.

      #2 The other cancer issue that does involve new Monsanto is the WHO group that said glyphsaote a herbicide that is about 50% made by Monsanto is probable cancinogen — it was put in the same group as barber shops, pickled veggies and night work – not exactly a high risk and more importantly 3 other parts of WHO who deal with food safety say it is not a carcinogen. The WHO group that did spent 4 hours reviewing and didn’t use useful scientific analyses and have admitted an agenda irrespective of the facts. A German EU study that lasted 4 years said it is not likely a carcinogen. The other 50% is made by the myriad of Chinese companies but everyone ignores them because that doesn’t fit their political agenda to bash Monsanto and GM crops.

      You have to look at safety data and base the analysis on dose. With low to higher doses of glyphosate fed to rats there were some doses in some experiments that showed increases in cancer versus the no glyphosate but if even higher doses had lower cancer then that means the higher cancer with the lower doses was just a coincident and not caused by the glyphosate. In other words if you feed the safest chemical to rats some will have a small increase in cancer but since its not dose related – going up with dose and in fact goes back down with higher dose then it is not real. Expert toxicology people know this. Focusing on glyphosate make us miss the real dangers.
      Toxicity needs to consider the hazard – at high doses could glyphosate cause harm. Then at what does could there be harm e.g. 50 g per kg body weight of person per 1 day then exposure – if factory workers are exposed to 0.0001g per kg per day and farm workers 0.0000001g per kg per day and food eater 0.0000000001 g per day —— it doesn’t matter that you can find that people who eat corn might have 0.0000000001 g of glyphosate in them per kg since it is 1 million times lower than the possible active dose.
      It is said that dihydrogen oxide is a one of the most toxic chemicals – it does kill thousands every day and drinking larger doses will kill you but when you realize it is WATER then you see how people can mess with your mind in these things
      There is a scathing rebuttal by the EU scientists to the WHO shown in

      http://www.bfr.bund.de …so you don’t have to trust what I am saying

      Does glyphosate cause cancer?

      BfR Communication No
      007/2015, 23 March 2015

      In its
      recent evaluation from March 2015, the International Agency for Cancer Research
      (IARC), as the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization
      (WHO), came to the conclusion that glyphosate should now be classified as a
      carcinogenic substance in Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans), based on
      “limited evidence” in human-experiments and ”sufficient evidence” in
      animal-experiments. This classification was pub­lished in a short report in the
      “Lancet” journal on 20 March 2015.

      As the
      ”Rapporteur Member State” for the active substance glyphosate within the
      framework of EU re-evaluation, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)
      was responsible for the human health risk assessment and has assessed
      glyphosate as non-carcinogenic. This was supported by competent national,
      European and other international institutions for health assessment including
      the WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). BfR is therefore
      issuing its comments on this classification by IARC based on the published
      short report.

      The
      International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is the specialized cancer
      agency of the World Health Organization. The main objective of the IARC is to
      promote international collaboration in cancer research. The evaluations of
      carcinogenic risk are made by interna­tional working groups of independent
      scientists and are qualitative in nature. No recommen­dation is given for
      regulation or legislation. For this reason, 17 experts from 11 countries met at
      the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) in March
      2015 in order to assess the carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic effects of
      4 organophosphates and glyphosate. The working group classified glyphosate as
      “probably carcinogenic to hu­mans”. This assessment will be published as volume
      112 of the IARC Monographs.

      In the opinion of BfR, the
      classification of glyphosate as “carcinogenic in Group 2A” (probably
      carcinogenic to humans) as published in the 20 March 2015 issue of the
      “Lancet” journal comes as a surprise, since other evaluations performed
      by supranational bodies such as the WHO-Panel of the Joint Meeting of Pesticide
      residues (JMPR, 2004), and also by national regulatory agencies such as the
      U.S.EPA had concluded the contrary, i.e., that glyphosate was not carcinogenic.
      Unfortunately, the database on which the IARC evaluation is based is not known,
      since a background monograph that is usually produced by IARC following the
      evaluation meetings has not yet been released. Therefore, a comprehensive and
      scientifi­cally sound consideration of the data and arguments that led to the
      IARC- conclusion is sim­ply not possible at the moment.

      In addition, Germany is the
      ”Rapporteur Member State” in the ongoing re-evaluation process of glyphosate in
      the EU. For this purpose, an extensive ”Renewal Assessment Report” (RAR) was
      provided in 2013 and has been revised in 2014 and again in 2015. The 2013
      report was circulated by EFSA to the EU Member States and was made available
      for public consultation in 2014. Revisions were made to take into account the
      several hundred comments and re­marks. The toxicological and residue chapters
      of the report have been prepared by the Fed­eral Institute for Risk Assessment
      (BfR). For this purpose, BfR has compiled the most com­prehensive toxicological
      database, presumably worldwide, for glyphosate. This database comprises
      hundreds of studies that were performed by or on behalf of the many
      manufactur­ers of glyphosate and thousands of references from the open
      literature. This huge amount of data makes glyphosate nearly unique among the
      active substances in plant protection prod­ucts. BfR thinks that the entire database
      must be taken into account for toxicological evaluation and risk assessment of
      a substance and not merely a more or less arbitrary selection of studies.

      In the absence of more
      reliable information from IARC, BfR has tried to allocate the findings that are
      mentioned in the brief “Lancet” publication to certain studies in our database
      and, by doing that, to put them into perspective.

      The new IARC classification
      for glyphosate as a carcinogenic substance is based firstly on “limited
      evidence” in humans. This risk is derived from three epidemiological studies in
      the USA, Canada and Sweden based on a statistical correlation between exposure
      to glyphosate and an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. However, this
      assessment was not con­firmed in a very large cohort of the also cited
      “Agricultural Health Study” or in other studies. A recent publication
      from 2012 has reviewed the epidemiologic literature to evaluate whether
      exposure to glyphosate is associated causally with cancer risk in humans and
      the relevant methodological and biomonitoring studies of glyphosate. The review
      found non-consistent patterns of positive associations indicating a causal
      relationship between total cancer or any site-specific cancer and exposure to
      glyphosate. The current report of BfR to the EU based on the evaluation of over
      30 epidemiological studies came to the overall assessment that there is no
      validated or significant relationship between exposure to glyphosate and an
      in­creased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other types of cancer.

      Secondly, IARC points to
      findings of studies based on animal experiments submitted by the producers of
      glyphosate as evidence for the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate. All these
      find­ings were also considered in the glyphosate assessments of BfR, which did
      support the con­clusion of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) of
      the FAO/WHO responsible for the assessment of active substances in pesticides:
      “In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of
      genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is
      unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans”. BfR does not have any
      infor­mation as to how many of the 11 long-term studies on rats and mice that
      were assessed as valid were available to IARC.

      Moreover, IARC concluded
      that a glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours. In general, testing of
      formulations should not be used for toxicological evaluation of active
      substances because co-formulants may alter the outcome to a large extent.
      Therefore, the claim, based on this 2-stage cancer model in mice, that a highly
      concentrated, skin-irritating formulation containing the active substance
      promotes skin tumours is not considered by the institutions in the EU to be
      evidence for the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate.

      It is not possible to fully
      examine the indications for the genotoxic potential of glyphosate based on the
      short report published by IARC, in particular due to the fact that the
      assess­ment included studies using formulations that are not specified in any
      detail.

      The fact
      that different bodies assess issues differently due to differing information
      and as­sessments of experimental data is part and parcel of the risk assessment
      process. BfR will therefore perform a thorough review of the classification
      issued by IARC once the mono­graph becomes available.

      • IOnlyRespond ToIdiots

        (The above comment brought to you by a Monsanto industry insider)

      • IOnlyRespond ToIdiots

        (The above comment brought to you by a Monsanto industry insider)

        #1 There’s no statute of limitations on death/murder
        #2 Monsanto has known that glyphosate was highly carcinogenic since the late 70s. Their EPA trials from that time showed cancer in every single dosed group over multiple trials. It also showed zero cancer in every control group of those trials. After colluding with Monsanto agents placed at the very top of the EPA, Monsanto was allowed to add “historical controls” to their trials. These *unnamed* control groups from unrelated trials with higher incidents of cancer were used so that Monsanto could negate their own results with respect to the original control groups with zero cancer. They then successfully claimed that all the cancer identified in the dosed groups was not “statistically significant.” Of course, these trials are not up for peer review as they have been locked away as trade secrets, though some addendum is available and some trials have been leaked to certain individuals.

        As for the BfR, they showed concern over the lack of peer reviewed studies concerning Roundup and its competitors. While glyphosate has been studied, glyphosate isn’t what is sprayed on plants. Roundup is a chemical cocktail of glyphosate and surfactants that are designed to increase the effectiveness of the active ingredient, namely glyphosate. These industry recipes are trade secrets and not open for peer review. Some estimates claim that Roundup is 10-100 more toxic than glyphosate alone. The BfR recognized this and said more study is needed.

        I could go on…

        • monsanto remains unconcerned as they purchased long ago every american judge.

          • FarmersSon63

            Monsanto is 5% the size of ExxonMobil, and you actually believe that? LOL
            What a maroon.

            • I’ve never seen exxon take a farmers farm because exxon pollen blew on it, never seen Monsanto lose a case in any court in any country. I doubt I’ll get the chance to put a very deserved rope around your lying neck either unfortunately.

              • FarmersSon63

                Monsanto has never taken someones farm because the pollen from the GMO plant blew on it.
                Why do you feel you need to lie?
                GMO corn or soybeans can never cause a neighboring crop to express the GMO trait in excess of 1%. Monsanto has never sued anyone unless the unauthorized crop expressed the trait in excess of 90%. These farmers signed an agreement not to save their seed for planting as seed the next year. They were in violation of their signed agreement, so they got sued. If they didnt agree with the terms, they should not have signed the agreement and not bought the seed.

        • FarmersSon63

          “Monsanto has known that glyphosate was highly carcinogenic since the late 70s”

          That is a complete lie and you know it.

          40 years of use and there has not even been a confirmed tummy ache, let alone a death from cancer from eating glyphosate residues. Prove me wrong.

          http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/glyphosa.htm

          “Carcinogenic effects: Rats given oral doses of up to 400 mg/kg/day did not show any signs of cancer, nor did dogs given oral doses of up to 500 mg/kg/day or mice fed glyphosate at doses of up to 4500 mg/kg/day [58]. It appears that glyphosate is not carcinogenic [97].”

          • Michael McCarthy

            the woo is deep in this thread. Run while there is still time, before the jets come to spray.