Monsanto lose a 2 billion dollar court case
Agrochemical giant Monsanto, makers of the USA’s most popular weedkiller “Roundup” have been ordered by a Californian court to pay more than $2 billion dollars to a couple who claim that using the product for many years caused them to develop non-Hodgkins lymphoma (cancer). This is the largest loss for the company following a series of lawsuit cases, and is likely not to be the last, as long-term users of the product come forward to claim that the herbicide caused the onset of their cancer.
Brett Wisner the legal representative for Alva and Alberta Pilliod who brought the case to court released a statement following the verdict stating “ Two billion dollars in punitive damages is as clear a statement as you can get that they (Monsanto) have to change what they‘re doing”. Monsanto’s parent company Bayer however remained defiant in their rejection of the claims and confirmed that they will appeal the verdict, with a spokesperson stating that “We have great sympathy, but evidence in this case was clear that both Mr and Mrs Pilliod have long histories of illnesses known to be substantial risk factors for non-hodgkin’s lymphoma”
Bayer also referenced a recent statement from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that found that the suspected guilty chemical glyphosate posed “no risk to public health”. If anything, the statement supported the continued use of glyphosate, which is used on over 100 crops in the USA. Backing up its importance in being a solution to the dilemma of how to feed an ever-increasing population. Agriculture secretary Sonny Purdue was quoted as saying “if we are going to feed 10 billion people by 2050 we are going to need all the tools at our disposal, which includes the use of glyphosate”
The debate on the safety of glyphosate rages on however, with the findings above being in direct contradiction to a 2015 report from the World Health Organization, who found that glyphosate probably was carcinogenic to humans. Something which environmental groups were quick to point out following the court ruling as they applauded the jury for listening to the independent scientific evidence presented in court and rejecting Monsanto’s version of events.
The couple in question, Alva and Alberta Pilliod had been regular users of Roundup for over 30 years, using it regularly once a week to spray the grounds of several properties that they owned, up until they were both diagnosed with the same type of non-Hodgkins lymphoma 4 years apart in 2011 and 2015. The effects of which they are still battling as Alberta still requires medication costing $20,000 a month, including Chemotherapy to fight a brain tumour that has been detected twice. The couple made a statement on how the illness had changed their lives forever. “We wish Monsanto had warned us ahead of time of the dangers and that there was something on the label that said ‘Danger, may cause cancer’. Its changed our lives forever and we can’t do the things that we used to be able to do”.
The Pilliods case was the biggest blow to Monsanto as the issue refuses to go away and they face thousands of similar claims. In August 2018 a jury in San Francisco came to a unanimous decision and awarded $290 million to Dewayne Johnson, who claimed the glyphosate in Roundup caused him to also develop non-Hodgkins lymphoma. In March this year a federal jury again found that the herbicide in question played a significant role in causing the Cancer of 70 year old Edwin Hardeman!
Attorney for the Pilliods, Brett Wisner stated that this most recent case not only sent a message to Monsanto but also to the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) of America, whom he accused of helping to hide the effects of glyphosate “ For 45 years the EPA has been saying it doesn’t cause cancer” “they have to come to grips that they have blood on their hands”.
One thing is for sure this issue isn’t going away any time soon. In the bigger picture it makes you think about what else we could be using on our plants that may be more harmful to our health than we are currently aware of? It feels as if the Monsanto case is just the tip of the iceberg, which could spell the end for them and possibly other large agrochemical companies.
If there are any positives that could come out of a situation such as this, lets hope it is that companies become more responsible and transparent about the chemicals they are using in their products and that they give us the growers more true and open information with which to make an informed decision about what we use to grow our plants safely.
By Rich Hamilton
