'Monsanto ordered to pay $289m as jury rules weedkiller caused man's cancer'

[Nearly Sane]

Is a jury trial the best way to decide this?



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-trial-cancer-dewayne-johnson-ruling

[Roses]

I don't think a judge and jury are the right people to decide if the weed killer can cause cancer. More research is probably needed to get definitive proof that this is the case, or not.

Having said that, I got rid of our weedkiller when I heard that it could be a danger.

[jeremyp]

Is a jury trial the best way to decide this?



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-trial-cancer-dewayne-johnson-ruling

No. I think it is possible they got the decision wrong. I think they have made the mistake of assuming correlation is causation. The man used Roundup for many years. The man got cancer. The boy was inoculated with MMR. The boy developed autism.

Even if there is a causal relationship, $289 million is an excessive award even given the horrendous value for money that the US healthcare system provides.

[Rhiannon]

I don't think a judge and jury are the right people to decide if the weed killer can cause cancer. More research is probably needed to get definitive proof that this is the case, or not.

Having said that, I got rid of our weedkiller when I heard that it could be a danger.

But when it comes to awarding damages in a court of law, who should do it, if not a judge?

[Harrowby Hall]

I have the impression that courts of first instance, in the USA, often award damages that are ridiculously out of scale with the harm done. A company like Monsanto will appeal, and if the decision is upheld, a more considered level of compensation will be awarded.

And anyway, appeal courts don't have juries. In some (many?) USA jurisdictions the compensation award is made by the jury.

[Udayana]

No. I think it is possible they got the decision wrong. I think they have made the mistake of assuming correlation is causation. The man used Roundup for many years. The man got cancer. The boy was inoculated with MMR. The boy developed autism.

Very superficial comparison of two cases which are not comparable.
You can't show correlation on single event samples.

As I understand, the published studies on glyphosate do not show any correlation with cancer. The case was based on Monsanto e-mails supposedly showing that Monsanto were interfering with studies so  results may not be considered independent.

The small sample MMR/autism studies by Wakefield claiming correlation were based on falsified data and were essentially fraudulent.
 

Even if there is a causal relationship, $289 million is an excessive award even given the horrendous value for money that the US healthcare system provides.

That is because punitive damages were given, covering not only compensation for suffering incurred, but punishment for acting "with malice or oppression".

[Udayana]

An update, as now there are a growing number of cases.

US jury awards $2bn damages in Roundup weedkiller cancer claim

Common weed killer glyphosate increases cancer risk by 41%, study says
 

"All of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL," the authors wrote in a study published in the journal Mutation Research.

With quite a few caveats.

[Dicky Underpants]

Very superficial comparison of two cases which are not comparable.
You can't show correlation on single event samples.

As I understand, the published studies on glyphosate do not show any correlation with cancer. The case was based on Monsanto e-mails supposedly showing that Monsanto were interfering with studies so  results may not be considered independent.

Monsanto seem to have some pretty ruthless business methods and would probably not be above distorting scientific data for their own financial gain, but I understand that they are not the sole manufacturers of glyphosate. Individual claims of health problems like this relating to the use of agricultural and horticultural chemicals need to be considered, but the reaction worldwide to the use of glyphosate seems to be totally out of proportion to any perceived risk (is it not or soon to be banned in Europe?*) Glyphosate is an extremely useful weedkiller in that it breaks down quickly in the soil into harmless components, and does not leave residues like many weedkillers. Best not to drink it (or sodium chlorate either) though.

*France has apparently banned sales of glyphosate, but paradoxically the European Greens have opposed moves for a total ban.