{"id":140474,"date":"2018-08-13T08:23:40","date_gmt":"2018-08-13T12:23:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/?p=140474"},"modified":"2023-06-27T12:17:47","modified_gmt":"2023-06-27T16:17:47","slug":"jury-finds-monsanto-liable-first-roundup-cancer-trial-heres-happen-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/2018\/08\/jury-finds-monsanto-liable-first-roundup-cancer-trial-heres-happen-next\/","title":{"rendered":"Jury finds Monsanto Liable in the first Roundup Cancer Trial \u2013 Here\u2019s What Could Happen Next"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the first of many pending lawsuits to go to trial, a jury in San Francisco\u00a0concluded on Aug. 10<\/a>\u00a0that the plaintiff had developed cancer from exposure to Roundup, Monsanto\u2019s widely used herbicide, and ordered the company to pay US$289 million in damages.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, had used Roundup in his job as groundskeeper in a California school district. He later developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The jury awarded Johnson $39 million in compensatory damages to cover pain, suffering, and medical bills due to negligence by Monsanto, plus an additional $250 million in punitive damages.<\/p>\n

This means the jury wanted to punish Monsanto because members believed the company deliberately withheld from the public scientific knowledge that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was a cancer danger. The size of the damages awarded indicates that the jury was not persuaded by Monsanto\u2019s expert witnesses.<\/p>\n

Product liability lawsuits are an important part of American culture. There are many examples of\u00a0companies knowingly adding toxic agents to their products<\/a>. So there must be a process for aggrieved individuals who have been harmed to hold these companies accountable.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, a lawsuit can be brought against any company for any reason, and some may be frivolous. It is an unfortunate comment on our health care system that so many people are uninsured, and if struck by a dreaded disease, must seek money to deal with it somehow from somewhere.<\/p>\n

In many instances, it is simply unknown whether a product and its contents are a danger. This verdict is just the first in what could be a long legal battle over Roundup, and\u00a0proving causality in such cases is not easy<\/a>. But here are some observations from my own experience\u00a0trying to help figure out why people get cancer<\/a>.<\/p>\n

How credible is the scientific case against Roundup?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Much of the plaintiff\u2019s case was based on a widely criticized 2015 statement by the\u00a0International Agency for Research on Cancer<\/a>, part of the World Health Organization, that glyphosate was a \u201cprobable human carcinogen\u201d (Group 2A on its scale<\/a>). A classification of \u201chuman carcinogen\u201d (Group 1) means that a panel of scientists convened by the IARC believes the agent is a cancer hazard to humans, like smoking and ionizing radiation. The 2A classification is not as strong. It means that there is credible evidence, but it does not reach the standard of \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/p>\n

The IARC\u2019s process for determining carcinogenicity has come under heavy criticism before. In particular, in the early 2000s some observers worried that industry was actually influencing the agency to\u00a0downgrade its classification of chemical agents<\/a>. In the Roundup cases, the accusation against the IARC cuts the other way. According to some accounts, it was biased against industry and\u00a0sought a harsh classification for glyphosate<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The IARC has provided a\u00a0detailed defense of its process in the glyphosate evaluation<\/a>. It has also published a\u00a0monograph on glyphosate<\/a>\u00a0with all the gory details of the science behind its evaluation.<\/p>\n

I served on a monograph working group in 2007 for an IARC assessment of\u00a0whether shift work was a potential cancer hazard<\/a>. I have also participated in three other meetings sponsored by IARC over the years, so I have seen the agency\u2019s process up close. In my view, IARC personnel go to great lengths to ensure objectivity and scientific rigor.<\/p>\n

This does not mean that their classifications are the last word. In fact, the agency has often changed its classification of an agent based on new evidence after initial evaluation. Sometimes it has become more certain that the agent poses a hazard, but in other cases it has downgraded the hazard.<\/p>\n

\n