Jump to content
knucklehead bob

In Blow to Bayer, Jury Finds Roundup Caused Plaintiff’s Cancer

Recommended Posts

knucklehead bob

unanimous jury decisionon  Tuesday handed a first-round victory to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, as the six jury members found that Hardeman’s exposure to Roundup was a “substantial factor” in causing his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The jury decision means the trial now moves into a second phase in which jurors will take up the issue of liability and damages.

Jurors deliberated for nearly a week before weighing in on the one question they had to answer in the first phase of the bifurcated trial.  U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria sharply limited the evidence jurors could hear in the first phase to evidence dealing solely with general and specific causation. That meant the first phase was filled with discussions and debates over various scientific studies. The first phase mostly excluded evidence about Monsanto’s alleged actions to control or manipulate the scientific record and claims that Monsanto has worked to suppress evidence of harm with its herbicides. But such evidence will be allowed in the second phase as the jury considers the company’s conduct.

Following the verdict, Judge Chhabria told the jurors about the second phase: “The issues that you will be considering are whether Monsanto is legally liable for the harm caused to Mr. Hardeman and, if so, what the damages should be. So those are the issues that you will begin considering tomorrow.”

The verdict was a significant victory not just for Hardeman, but for the other thousands of plaintiffs around the United States who have sued Monsanto and also allege exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The company already has one loss from last summer’s jury verdict in favor of a dying California groundskeeper. Another case begins next week in nearby Oakland, California.

In response to today’s verdict, Aimee Wagstaff of Andrus Wagstaff, PC and Jennifer Moore of Moore Law Group, PLLC, co-trial counsel for the Plaintiff, issue the following statement:

 “Mr. Hardeman is pleased that the jury unanimously held that Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup. Instead, it is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue. We look forward to presenting this evidence to the jury and holding Monsanto accountable for its bad conduct.”



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that’s pretty cool in my books, sucks that people ,companies and governments have been buying and spraying that shit all over the place for the last 30 years... 



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
knucklehead bob
17 minutes ago, Coastal said:

governments have been buying and spraying that shit all over the place for the last 30 years... 


Hemp for soil remediation :beavisnbutthead: 


Maybe ? 




Here’s how the story goes: From Chernobyl to Fukushima, hemp is an agricultural superhero —cheaper than technology, more environmentally friendly than chemicals and able to clean up radioactive soil in a single season.

But there’s a problem with this story. In the plethora of articles touting hemp’s ability to pull radioactive toxins from contaminated soils, they usually cite the same scientific source: a study whose results were never published.

In 1998, the New Jersey-based company Phytotech, in partnership with Consolidated Growers and Processors (CGP) and the Ukraine’s Institute of Bast Crops, planted industrial hemp near the Chernobyl site to study its application to remediate the soil. But, for various reasons, the results of their research never reached the public. Today, the question remains: Did Phytotech actually find out that hemp could effectively remediate radioactive compounds?

A Cautionary Tale of Research Gone Missing

What can be pieced together from various secondary sources is that CGP was initially excited with their findings. In 1999, the CGP filed a document with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that said they had an “exclusive license for a phytoremediation process technology for all applications that would utilize industrial hemp as the plant.”

Unfortunately for CGP, theyfiled for bankruptcythe next year. Before they went bankrupt, one of the scientists on the team, Dr. Slavik Dushenkov, was able to present his research at the XVI International Botanical Congress in Saint Louis, Missouri, which was the only opportunity the scientific community had to hear Phytotech’s findings, since no scientific paper reporting the results of those field experiments has been published.

Since Phytotech did not publish their data, generations of researchers have relied on hearsay, looking at books or other studies that reference hemp remediation. But since those sources also did not have a study to reference, some of them have major inconsistencies casting doubt on the alleged findings.

“Since Phytotech did not publish their data, generations of researchers have relied on hearsay.”

Two recently published books reference the Phytotech research, a 2014 textbook called “Soil Remediation and Plants” and “Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Volume 241,” published in 2017.

In “Reviews of Environmental Contamination,” the authors say Phytotech’s research found hemp to be the “most efficient plant useful for eliminating toxins such as metals, solvents, pesticides, explosives, etc. from contaminated topsoil.”

In “Soil Remediation,” the authors report that Phytotech found “hemp was as good as sunflower” at extracting radioactive Cesium and Strontium isotopes, and that sunflowers could “remove as much as 95 percent of toxic contaminants.” This book was the only source to actually describe the experiment, which the authors claim examined hemp’s ability to pull toxins from contaminated water, not topsoil, as “Reviews of Environmental Contamination”claims.

While Phytotech’s findings on hemp weren’t enough to be worth publishing, there appears to be something that the company believed was worth trademarking in 1993, and then again in 1996, regarding “environmental remediation services; namely, remediation of environmental pollution.” As both of those trademarks predate their hemp research, which began in 1998, and neither specifies radioactive compounds or hemp, it is unlikely the trademarks had anything to do with the supposed hemp research. For whatever reason, Phytotech let their first trademark expire and cancelled their second trademark on May 8, 2004.

What We Really Know About Hemp Phytoremediation

If Phytotech did find anything useful, it appears to have been lost to the ages in a bad game of telephone played out over two decades on the internet. Thankfully, there is more recent research that shows hemp can phytoremediate radioactive compounds. In 2004, a study in the Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry looked at 28 different species of plants and found hemp to be the fourth best remediator of radium out of all species examined (even better than sunflowers).

The rest of the literature on hemp as a phytoremediator has focused on its effectiveness at pulling heavy metals and other chemical compounds, rather than radioactive isotopes, from contaminated soils.

In the past 19 years, at least three studies have shown hemp be an effective remediator of several toxic heavy metals, including copper, cadmium, nickel, lead and chromium. One 2006 study in the International Journal of Phytoremediation even found that hemp can sequester the compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are groups of chemicals that occur in gasoline and oil and can be carcinogenic.

The studies do disagree over where the bulk of those toxins are sequestered, with some studies saying the toxins are stored in the roots and others saying it’s in the leaves.

Regardless, Dr. Dushenkov’s 1999 presentation of Phytotech’s research does seem to have spurred on a surge of research on hemp’s usefulness as a phytoremediator.

But given the promising findings on hemp phytoremediation over the past two decades, and the continued need to remediate toxic areas like Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is surprising that so little is being done with that research.

While hemp is currently being used in Taranto, Italy to clean up the toxins from a massive steel factory, it hasn’t yet caught on in the United States, where it could prove helpful at the Hanford Nuclear Site, referred to as “America’s Chernobyl,” as well as numerous other polluted areas. Perhaps with time, the legends around hemp’s radioactive remediation powers will prove to be true.


Edited by knucklehead bob

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use Guidelines Privacy Policy and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..