#weedkiller era | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

trastornadosrevista · 4 months ago

Text

ASHNIKKO llega al TEATRO VORTERIX

¡Ashnikko trae su universo caprichoso a Buenos Aires!

¡La disruptiva artista pop estadounidense, Ashnikko (she/they), llega en octubre al Teatro Vorterix!

Después de su álbum debut WEEDKILLER, su disco de 13 pistas que mostró miedos y ansiedades, personales, explotados y desmoronados, el universo WEEDKILLER que Ashnikko creó, actúa como un portal a una fantasía distópica que cuenta la historia de una civilización feérica ocupada y destruida por máquinas que se alimentan de materia orgánica, donde el hada protagonista busca venganza convirtiéndose en parte de una máquina: un comentario poético sobre el desastre ambiental. Y la rápida evolución de la tecnología.

Dentro de este cosmos, Ashnikko invita al público argentino a su presentación en el país. La cita será el próximo 11 de octubre en el teatro Vorterix, y la venta de entradas generales ya está activa por la web de All Access.

El primer show de Ashnikko en Argentina tuvo lugar en Lollapalooza en marzo de 2022. En esa ocasión, la prensa elogió la actuación de la artista como "frenética", para transmitir el poder que aportó al escenario.

Ahora, la cantante y rapera regresa con aún más capas. Desde el demoníaco rap de los primeros sencillos como “Halloweenie” y “STUPID (con Yung Baby Tate)” hasta el espeluznante pop alternativo de los éxitos virales “Daisy” y “Slumber Party (con Princess Nokia)”, Ashnikko ofrece un sonido en constante evolución anclado en un humor descarado y una personalidad subversiva que no podría pertenecer a nadie más.

ACERCA DE JUANA ROZAS

JUANA ROZAS es una cantante y compositora nacida en Buenos Aires, que comenzó su carrera musical en bandas locales antes de lanzarse como solista en 2019, proponiendo una estética visual gótica y vanguardista.

VLADI, su disco debut, capturó el interés de la industria y la crítica especializada, gracias a su innovador trabajo en torno al hyperpop, la electrónica y la música experimental. Pero detrás de sus filosos sintetizadores y del uso explícito y frenético del autotune hay un gran caudal vocal, una fuerza interpretativa y una propuesta refrescante para toda la escena.

Luego del éxito de su álbum debut, JUANA está lista para una nueva era musical, dejando de lado al terror para darle espacio al glam. Es así como CARIÑO y POSE marcan el final de VLADI, para ceder el paso a un nuevo capítulo musical. Tras una exitosa gira por Europa por Bern, Praga, Berlin, Amsterdam; en este 2024, prepara un disco con colaboraciones relevantes y formará parte del lineup del Lollapalooza.

Top shows: Primavera Sound, Lollapalooza, Pride Festival Prague, Festival MicroClima, Pride March Buenos Aires.

0 notes

normal-with-adhd-is-a-joke · 1 year ago

Text

however excited Swifties were for the Eras tour I'm that excited for the Weedkiller tour. I keep having to stop myself from thinking about it too much because I accidentally raise my own heart rate and feel sick XD

1 note · View note

madammuffins · 2 years ago

Text

I love these games!

1. Strut by Emeline

2. Scatterbrain by Emei

3. If There Is A God, It's Me by Plvtinum

4. Villain by Bella Poarch

5. Weedkiller by Ashnikko

6. Randy McNally by TX2

7. Too Good by Able Heart

8. All About Me by Lilyisthatyou

9. Wish You The Worst by Ryan Mack

10. God Sent Me As Karma by Emlyn

Safe to say, ya boo is in their villain Era 🖤

Tagging @eveandtheturtles and anyone else who wants to.

Top 10 songs on repeat

I was tagged by @robotforest to put my top 10 songs on repeat! :D Here it goes! It's a hell conglomerate of fantasy metal music, and Dwarven pride (I'm 4f11in gotta find pride somehow), so I apologize in advance. My music taste is ALL over the place.

Diggy Diggy Hole by Wind Rose

Valhalla Calling ft. Peyton Parrish by Peyton Parrish and Miracle of Sound

When the Hammer Falls by Clamavi de Profundis

Rise of the Chaos Wizards by GloryHammer

Bilbo's Last Song by Clamavi de Profundis

The Last Dragonborn by DragonForce

Drunken Dwarves by Wind Rose

The Hammer and the Anvil by The Longest Johns

Glory to the Brave by HammerFall

Flight of the Sapphire Dragon by Twilight Force

I'm tagging nobody in particular, and everyone who wants to do this! :D Feel free to tag me or not, doesn't matter, just have fun and share that music you love!!

#tag game #spotify #music #top ten songs

24 notes · View notes

daffodil--lament · 3 years ago

Text

howl and sophie have a divorce era (weedkiller day) but it lasts less than 12 hours because those two are obsessed with each other and sophie can't actually leave him

#hmc #howl's moving castle #howl's moving castle book

612 notes · View notes

greener-books · 2 years ago

Text

Get Your Hands Dirty with These Farming Books

If you Google "organic farming books" or "top farm books," you're likely to develop a slew of children's books with charming illustrations of men in overalls and straw hats talking about raising cows or driving tractors.

However, there are many farm books available for adults who want to learn more about food and agriculture and how the decisions our farmers make today will affect the world. These fantastic farm books delve into history and science, feature forward-thinking farmers, or spin captivating fiction while teaching readers and providing a diversity of viewpoints on how agriculture has evolved in the modern period.

Please continue reading to know more….

We Are What We Eat: A Slow Food Manifesto

Alice Waters, a longstanding supporter of the Slow Food Movement, examines how food shapes our identities. Waters' latest book examines how food has harmed people and the environment and how it may help heal and restore. "How we eat is how we live," she writes in the book's introduction.

Waters covers America's different food eras, from World War II victory gardens to frozen dinners and fast food, more contemporary farm-to-table efforts, and the virtues of biodiversity and sustainability through her own lived experiences. Above all, the book is a contemplation on how what we eat affects not just ourselves but also the planet and what may be done to effect long-term change.

What's Good? A Memoir in Twelve Ingredients

Chef Peter Hoffman, whose New York City's Savoy restaurant helped pioneer farm-to-table cooking, delves into our foods' cultural, historical, and botanical origins. The book is based on his excursions to Union Square Greenmarket.

He begins his ingredient tour and story with leeks and potatoes, travels through strawberry and garlic season, and finishes with late-season greens like kale and radicchio. He tells personal anecdotes about these crops and chronicles their evolution and the experiences of the farmers and vendors who raise and promote them. Hoffman provides a recipe for home cooks to make with each component at the end of each chapter.

The Economics of Sustainable Food

This book examines why economists and policymakers overlook the negative consequences of the global industrial food system, such as starvation, economic losses, and environmental destruction. Nicoletta Batini, the editor, claims that macroeconomic policy has mainly ignored food systems, and she has gathered a collection of essays that offer suggestions for making food more sustainable.

For example, various authors look into taxing high-carbon-footprint foods, supporting land and sea farming, and providing schools with matching cash to buy local organic vegetables.

The Heirloom Gardener: Traditional Plants & Skills for the Modern World

John Forti, historical horticulture and ethnobotanist, honours the value of gardens in the past, present, and future. The Traditional Gardener is a part essay collection. This half gardening guide encourages readers to embrace heirloom seeds and traditions while also acting as a timely reminder to slow down and reconnect with nature.

Organic Gardening for Beginners: An Eco-Friendly Guide to Growing Vegetables, Fruits, and Herbs

Want to build an organic garden at home but not know where to begin? This book is an excellent starting point. Lisa Lombardo, a homesteader, teaches how to grow dozens of fruits, veggies, and herbs in sustainable, pesticide-free, and environmentally friendly ways. She also provides a helpful breakdown of the most common insects you'll encounter—both good and bad—and practical advice on assisting the beneficial insects in growing and safely ridding your garden of pests.

Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment

Stephanie Seneff, an MIT scientist, warns about the hazards of the herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, was first patented in 1961 and then re-patented as a weed killer by Monsanto in 1968.

Seneff discusses glyphosate's use in agriculture and references studies linking the chemical to cancer, kidney failure, birth deformities, infertility, and other ailments. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which revealed the environmental repercussions of pesticide use, has been likened to the novel.

Urban Farmers: The Now (and how) of Growing Food in the City

According to some projections, cities will eat 80 per cent of all food by 2050. As a result, future generations will rely heavily on urban farmers to feed them.

Photographer Valery Rizzo and journalist Mónica R. Goya present a wide range of urban agriculture models in this book, including rooftop gardens and vineyards, community gardens, and underground mushroom farms. It also provides helpful hints for those interested in urban gardening, beekeeping, composting, natural dyes, and other topics.

Article Source: https://greenerbooks.co.uk/blog/post/get-your-hands-dirty-with-these-farming-books

0 notes

lollipoplollipopoh · 6 years ago

Video

youtube

China in the Middle East: Behind Xi's economic charm offensive - Counting the Cost by Al Jazeera English China, the world's second-largest consumer of crude, has stepped up its investment in the oil-rich Middle East with a pledge of more than $23bn in loans and millions more in aid. President Xi Jinping also wants talks on free trade areas and is putting forward an "oil and gas plus" investment model to representatives of 21 Arab nations at a forum in Beijing. He believes it's a model that can create jobs and helps safeguard China's future energy requirements. Xi told Arab leaders that China would like to form a strategic partnership to become "the keeper of peace and stability in the Middle East ... and good friends that learn from each other." The Middle East plays a vital role in the billion-dollar One Belt One Road Initiative, a megaproject that aims to link people in Asia, Africa and Europe via an ultramodern trade route. It is a reinvention of the ancient Silk Road for the modern age. Middle East countries currently provide more than half of China's crude oil imports and China is the largest trading partner with the region. Its goal is to double its Middle East trade to $600bn by 2020. So what is behind Xi's latest economic charm offensive in the Middle East? "This is part of a long-term plan of China to secure its resources for the future," says Reuben Mondejar, professor for Asian initiatives at the IESE Business School at University of Navarra, Barcelona. "Oil is very important, energy resources for China will be more and more crucial in the coming 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. So they have already invested in other places like Africa and South America for other resources. But for the oil the Middle East is the primary area, and the platform that they are conveniently using now is the Belt and Road." Mondejar believes that "because of the current situation with the trade war and all of this isolationism, protectionism ... China needs friends. And this is good timing to make friends by announcing $23bn in economic largesse." But according to Mondejar, an economic partnership with the "Middle East is more problematic than [with] South America, for example. The Middle East is probably the most volatile region in the world at the moment, so China is stepping into a very difficult area." Also on this episode of Counting the Cost: Ethiopia-Eritrea peace: We examine how the economic landscape in the Horn of Africa is changing as a new era of peace looms. Mohammed Adow reports from Addis Ababa on the state of Ethiopia's economy. And Charles Robertson, chief economist at Renaissance Capital, looks at the challenges that lie ahead. From quantum computing to 3D printing: We look at the world's best innovators in 2018 and what it means if you live in a country that didn't make the top 10. Francis Gurry, director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization, discusses the economics of innovation. Safe or cancer causing? Monsanto's Roundup, one of the world's most profitable and widely-used weedkillers, goes on trial. Kristen Saloomey reports from New York. This tax must go: Protests in Uganda, after the government moves to tax social media apps. Malcolm Webb reports from Kampala. - Subscribe to our channel: https://ift.tt/291RaQr - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish - Find us on Facebook: https://ift.tt/1iHo6G4 - Check our website: https://ift.tt/2lOp4tL

#youtube #video #news #aljazeera

1 note · View note

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

E.P.A. to Review Attacks on Science Under Trump WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is taking the unusual step of making a public accounting of the Trump administration’s political interference in science, drawing up a list of dozens of regulatory decisions that may have been warped by political interference in objective research. The effort could buttress efforts to unwind pro-business regulations of the past four years, while uplifting science staff battered by four years of disregard. It is particularly explicit at the Environmental Protection Agency, where President Biden’s political appointees said they felt that an honest accounting of past problems was necessary to assure career scientists that their findings would no longer be buried or manipulated. In a blunt memo this month, one senior Biden appointee said political tampering under the Trump administration had “compromised the integrity” of some agency science. She cited specific examples, such as political leaders discounting studies that showed the harm of dicamba, a herbicide in popular weedkillers like Roundup that has been linked to cancer and subsequently ruling that its effectiveness outweighed its risks. The broader list of decisions where staff say scientific integrity was violated is expected to reach about 90 items, according to one person involved in the process. It currently includes well-known controversies like the ricochet of decisions around Pebble Mine, a proposed copper and gold mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region, as well as rulings around relatively obscure toxic chemicals. “Manipulating, suppressing, or otherwise impeding science has real-world consequences for human health and the environment,” the E.P.A. administrator, Michael Regan, said in an agencywide email message on Tuesday. “When politics drives science rather than science informing policy, we are more likely to make policy choices that sacrifice the health of the most vulnerable among us.�� He asked employees to bring “any items of concern” to the agency’s scientific integrity officials or the independent inspector general and pledged to encourage “the open exchange of differing scientific and policy positions.” “I also promise you that retaliation, retribution, intimidation, bullying, or other reprisals will not be tolerated,” Mr. Regan wrote. The E.P.A. was the epicenter of some of the administration’s most questionable decisions. Mr. Trump’s first administrator, Scott Pruitt, removed the agency’s web page on climate change (which has since been replaced); fired and barred independent scientific advisers who had received grants from the E.P.A. (a policy that a court ultimately found to be illegal) and then replaced them with many industry representatives; and rolled back scientifically-supported policies such as limiting pollution from trucks with rebuilt engines after meetings with executives and lobbyists. Mr. Pruitt’s successor, Andrew Wheeler, faced accusations that he repeatedly ignored and shut out his own scientists in decisions such as issuing a rule curbing but not banning asbestos; declaring the health effects of chlorpyrifos, a widely-used pesticide, “unresolved” despite years of agency research proving its danger to infants; and pushing through a policy (which has since died in the courts) to limit the type of health and epidemiological studies that could be used to justify regulations. Former Trump administration officials said the effort by Mr. Biden’s E.P.A. to discredit their work, which they maintained was conducted with robust scientific discourse, was its own brand of politics. “Every decision we made in the Trump administration was rooted in science and was based on both advice and concurrence with the career scientific team,” said Mandy Gunasekara, who served as Mr. Wheeler’s chief of staff. “Not all of them agreed, but that’s with any team.” Jonathan H. Adler, director of the Center for Environmental Law at Case Western University, said he shared some of those concerns. Understanding how many people could die at a certain level of exposure to a chemical is science, he explained. Deciding whether that risk justifies lowering the threshold for that chemical’s use is a policy judgment. “The line between what’s science and what’s policy is not always well guarded,” Mr. Adler said. Michal Freedhoff, the E.P.A.’s new acting assistant administrator in the office of chemical safety, agreed in a recent interview that disagreements over how science should inform policy are common in every administration. But, Ms. Freedhoff said, what she discovered shortly after she joined the agency in January went well beyond that, and beyond what she was expecting to find. She said she has had briefings meetings in which scientists have hesitated to explain how and why certain decisions were made during the Trump years, only to learn of multiple instances in which the researchers were told to disregard data or certain studies or were shut out of decision-making altogether. Ms. Freedhoff also said career scientists and other employees had been forced to spend an “inordinate” amount of time helping politically connected companies obtain favorable classifications for their products. The E.P.A. declined to specify the companies involved or their political connections, saying that some of the decisions were under review. But officials said one decision related to the claims that a small company could make for its pesticide. That involved at least three meetings with Trump administration appointees — unusual for what should be a routine staff-level decision. In another instance, Biden administration officials said, career scientists were required to spend a significant amount of time helping a company that wanted to have its product classified in a way that required less E.P.A. oversight. Let Us Help You Understand Climate Change “The involvement and the direction that the career staff were being given really crossed a line,” Ms. Freedhoff said. Those smaller interventions, which she said she discovered only after taking her post, led her to write a March 10 memo to her staff outlining some of the more high-profile scientific integrity violations that had been made, she said. The memo urged employees to speak out “without fear of either retaliation or being denigrated” if they had scientific opinions that did not align with the new administration’s decisions. “Unless we very clearly change direction and reaffirm the agency’s commitment to scientific integrity, transparency and decision-making about the best available science,” the agency will face continued skepticism from the courts and the public, Ms. Freedhoff said. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, who served as head of the chemical safety office under Mr. Wheeler, said she was hurt by Ms. Freedhoff’s memo. “When someone like me reads a memo like this there’s a little bit that feels a little personal,” she said, “because even though it’s not written about me, I believe many of us who were appointed to the administration worked really hard to value the staff and to value the science.” She said the examples Ms. Freedhoff cited involved differences in scientific opinion, not violations of scientific integrity. One such decision involved pulling back on an Obama-era plan to regulate the solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE, until a new assessment was conducted. Emails first reported by Reveal News showed that when the agency concluded in 2019, as it had in the past, that TCE was unsafe because, even at low levels, it could deform the hearts of fetuses, the White House directed major changes to override the findings. Ms. Dunn, however, said the changes to the report followed a robust discussion among scientists and peer reviewers about the cardiac study. Choosing to emphasize some opinions over others “doesn’t necessarily mean there is a lack of integrity in the process,” she said. “It means there are differences in opinion.” Mr. Adler said uncovering malfeasance and learning from past errors was important, but also cautioned against “endless recriminations” and the “environmental equivalent of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission” at the E.P.A. He was referring to the restorative justice body assembled in South Africa after the end of apartheid. William K. Reilly, the E.P.A. administrator under the first President George Bush and a critic of both Mr. Pruitt and Mr. Wheeler, said he disagreed. “There’s no precedent for the attack on science, the sweep of it, the blatancy of it that we saw in the last administration,” Mr. Reilly said. He said a public reckoning was precisely what the E.P.A. needed now. “Although it could look like politics, and probably does to the Trumpies, it’s a reasonable adjustment to what has to be a major transformation,” he said. “It’s a response both to the reality of the scientific abuse that occurred and also important to agency morale.” Source link Orbem News #Attacks #EPA #review #Science #Trump

0 notes

tinyshe · 4 years ago

Text

Cornucopia’s Take: Ghostwriting aside, industry funded science seeks answers to industry needs. Cornucopia calls for research on behalf of truth, accuracy, and all of us, rather than only corporate balance sheets.

Inside the Academic Journal That Corporations Love Pacific Standard by Paul D. Thacker

Source:

USACE Europe District

A recent Monsanto lawsuit opens a scary window into the industry of junk science.

A recent lawsuit against Monsanto offers a clear and troubling view into industry strategies that warp research for corporate gain. In a lawsuit regarding the possible carcinogenicity of the pesticide Roundup, plaintiffs’ lawyers suing Monsanto charge the company with ghostwriting an academic study finding that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is not harmful. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used weed killer and is critical for successful cultivation of genetically modified crops such as corn and soybean, which are resistant to the pesticide.

Ghostwriting remains pervasive in some areas of academic research; in 2010, I helped author a Senate report on the matter. Studies drafted by corporations and then published in scientific journals with academic authors have been used to sway government decisions, court cases, and even medical practice. A host of universities have been caught in ghostwriting scandals, including Harvard University, Brown University, Stanford University, and Emory University.

The study currently under scrutiny appeared in 2000 in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, the journal of the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. On closer inspection, the ghostwriting charges seem unconvincing , and Science magazine reports that officials at one university have investigated and rejected the charges.

Monsanto has also strenuously denied the ghostwriting allegations and defends the integrity of the study on a blog: “The paper also underwent the journal’s rigorous peer review process before it was published.”

But the term “rigorous” is hardly an accurate description for the journal. Indeed, a glance into the journal’s history offers a telling window into the industry of creating and packaging junk science with the appearance of academic rigor.

“Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology is a vanity journal that publishes mercenary science created by polluters and producers of toxic chemicals to manufacture uncertainty about the science underlying public-health and environmental protections.” says David Michaels, professor of environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University School of Public Health. (Michaels recently returned to this position after serving as the administrator of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration.)

The history here is long, and damning. In 2002, several academics and public-health activists sent a letter to Elsevier complaining that the journal lacked transparency and a conflicts-of-interest policy, and that it could not demonstrate editorial independence from corporate sponsors. A couple of years later, I began studying the ISRTP’s membership and journal, and combing through the minutes of the society’s meetings.

The year before the journal published the Roundup study, the society held its June 1999 council meeting in the Washington, D.C., office of Keller and Heckman, the chief law firm for the chemical industry. In a recent court case, for example, Keller and Heckman represented the Vinyl Institute in a lawsuit to roll back 2012 regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency limiting toxics emitted during PVC production. Keller and Heckman also bills itself as the premier law firm for the tobacco and e-vapor industries. The minutes from the June meeting note a member of Keller and Heckman attending along with representatives of several chemical industry trade associations. Minutes from February 2002 also record the meeting taking place in Keller and Heckman’s D.C. office and state that future meetings will also be held at the law firm.

“[I]t is unusual to see a regulatory toxicology journal run out of a law practice office!” says Dr. Lynn Goldman, dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University and one of the signatories on the 2002 letter.

“Having its meetings hosted by a corporate law firm is so obviously inappropriate — unless you aren’t so much a scientific society as a faux-science outlet for the corporate clients and funders of the journal’s authors,” says Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist who specializes in chemical policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council and is another of the 2002 letter signatories. After reviewing the Roundup study published in 2000, Sass says it doesn’t appear to be “what we normally call ghostwriting.” The study’s acknowledgement section, which is hidden behind the journal’s paywall, clearly notes Monsanto’s heavy involvement in the study’s science.*

“These people wouldn’t be able to stuff the scientific literature so successfully — muddying the waters and creating the false impression of controversy — if they didn’t have their go-to journals like Reg Tox Pharm,” she adds.

Examining the journal’s editorial board, Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University who studies conflicts of interest and corporate influence on science, notes that industry consultants litter the journal’s masthead. Indeed, the journal’s editor is Gio Gori, a former consultant for the tobacco industry. In 1998, Gori partnered with Steven J. Milloy of JunkScience.com in a letter to Science magazine criticizing a story about tobacco consultants. I later outed Milloy in the New Republic for being on the payroll of the tobacco companies while writing articles for FoxNews.com that disparaged the science of second-hand smoke. And, in 2007, Gori published an op-ed in the Washington Post calling the science of second-hand smoke “bogus.”

Gori’s work for tobacco, Krimsky says, “places his credibility down at the bottom.”

Other controversial members of the journal’s editorial board include Michael L. Dourson and Dennis J. Paustenbach. Dourson is the president of TERA, a scientific consulting firm that was the subject of a 2014 investigation by Inside Climate News and the Center for Public Integrity highlighting the group’s cozy ties to industry. Documents made public during tobacco litigation note Dourson’s work for the industry.

When questioned about his tobacco consulting, Dourson said: “Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He had dinner with them.” He continued, “We’re an independent group that does the best science for all these things. Why should we exclude anyone that needs help?”

In 2005, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story questioning the role of Paustenbach and his company ChemRisk in a case that became the basis for the movie Erin Brockovich. According to the Journal, ChemRisk was hired to reanalyze data from a study that found chromium-contaminated groundwater linked with a range of public-health illnesses. Chemrisk’s reanalysis of data was then published in a new study under the names of two Chinese researchers without any mention of ChemRisk’s involvement, and was promoted for the next decade in court cases and regulatory filings. After the Journal article, the study was retracted, and environmental groups sought to have Paustenbach censured by the Society of Toxicology.

Seven years later, the Chicago Tribune wrote an investigative story critical of Paustenbach’s work for the chemical industry on flame retardants, and the Center for Public Integrity published an investigation last year noting Paustenbach’s work for Ford Motor Company to downplay the dangers of asbestos in car brake pads.

“This might be a kind of a rogue journal that looks like a journal,” Krimsky says.

The problem is that it’s not just Monsanto, and it’s not just this one journal. Corporations regularly buy academics to do their bidding, recasting industry talking points to create the beginnings of an alternative scientific canon. Universities do little to stop it, while academic journals, sometimes prestigious, are often complicit. Perhaps public shame remains the most — or only — effective medicine.

https://www.cornucopia.org/2017/04/science-bought-paid/

[note Bayer has since bought Monsanto’s; yes the Bayer company of Nazi Germany]

Five things to know about Bayer and Monsanto

August 13, 2018

Five things to know about Bayer and Monsanto

by Michelle Fitzpatrick

A cancer victim's surprise court victory over US pesticide maker Monsanto could open the floodgates to a slew of similar lawsuits, potentially leaving the firm's new German owner with a major case of buyer's remorse.

From the toxic legacy of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller to fears about its use of genetically modified seeds, here's what you need to know about the $63-billion (55-billion-euro) merger between Bayer and Monsanto.

Heroin

Founded in Germany in 1863, Bayer is still best known for making aspirin. More infamously, it briefly sold heroin in the early 20th century, marketed as a cough cure and morphine substitute.

During World War II, Bayer was part of a consortium called IG Farben that made the Zyklon B pesticide used in Adolf Hitler's gas chambers.

Through a series of acquisitions over the years, Bayer has grown into a drug and chemicals behemoth and now employs some 100,000 people worldwide.

Agent Orange

Monsanto was established in St. Louis, Missouri in 1901, setting out to make saccharine.

By the 1940s, it was producing farm-oriented chemicals, including herbicide 2,4-D which, combined with another dangerous chemical was used to make the notorious Vietnam War-era defoliant Agent Orange.

In 1976, the company launched probably its best-known product, the weed killer Roundup.

In the 1980s, its scientists were the first to genetically modify a plant cell. Monsanto then started buying other seed companies and began field trials of GM seeds.

It eventually developed soybean, corn, cotton and other crops engineered to be tolerant of Roundup.

Goodbye 'Monsatan'

Dubbed "Monsatan" and "Mutanto", the US firm has for decades been in the crosshairs of environmentalists, especially in Europe, who believe that GM food could be unsafe to eat.

Campaigners also abhor Monsanto's production of glyphosate-based Roundup, which some scientists have linked to cancer although other studies dispute this.

Hoping to ditch Monsanto's poisonous reputation, Bayer has said it plans to drop the company's name from its products.

But Friends of the Earth, which has dubbed the merger a "marriage made in hell", said it would simply switch its protests to Bayer so long as it continues Monsanto's practices.

Another complaint about the latest consolidation in the industry is that it leaves the global seeds and pesticides market in the hands of just a few players—potentially pushing up prices and limiting choices for farmers and consumers.

Hello, lawsuits?

A California jury last week ordered Monsanto to pay nearly $290 million in damages to a dying groundskeeper after finding that the company failed to warn him that using Roundup products might cause cancer.

Observers say the landmark win by Dewayne Johnson, who has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, could pave the way for thousands of cases against Monsanto.

Bayer's share price plunged more than 10 percent in response.

Monsanto has vowed to appeal the ruling, while Bayer insisted that herbicides containing glyphosate are "safe".

Analyst Michael Leacock of MainFirst bank said the legal setback was "an unlucky outcome" for Bayer just two months after sealing the takeover.

"It is highly likely that investors will take a very dim view of the recent deal," he said.

High price to pay

In an industry preparing for a global population surge with many more mouths to feed, Bayer was keen to get its hands on Monsanto's market-leading line in GM crop seeds designed to resist strong pesticides like Roundup.

It was also lured by Monsanto's data analytics business Climate Corp, believing farmers will in future rely on digital monitoring of their crops.

But the takeover, one of the largest ever by a German firm, comes at a high cost.

As well as the eye-watering price tag, Bayer had to give up much of its seeds and agrichemical business to satisfy competition concerns.

Those divestitures have gone to none other than Bayer's homegrown rival BASF, the unexpected beneficiary of the mammoth deal.

And following the California court verdict, Bayer may now have to set aside huge sums to settle future Roundup claims.

"The total cost, in our view, could easily reach $10 billion" if Bayer were to settle with a still larger number of plaintiffs, said Leacock.

Explore further

Bayer shares plunge after Monsanto cancer ruling

#education #health #toxins #poison

0 notes

dirtyhancls · 7 years ago

Note

ask meme: do all of the them Ψ(｀▽´)Ψ

What’s the last book you read? What did you think of it?

hmmm I reread like half of Graceling, and it’s as good as ever and I’m still bitter that Kristen Cashore hasn’t written anything since the series. it’s YA but also Monster novel TM and so thought provoking

What’s the worst book you’ve ever read, and why?

Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry (tbh i read this in 6th grade and HATED it with a Burning Passion but I also don’t remember like 90% of it. just kno that i hated it)

A book you found overhyped, and why

A Hero At The End of the World. I agree with most of the review about it-- it’s very evident the author comes from a fanfic background bc writing fic is very different from novels and there’s some things that don’t translate (character development? relationship development?) if you read the book with the knowledge that its essentially drarry fanfic it makes sense, as its own novel there’s a lot rushed

Ereaders versus physical books is such a false dichotomy. Instead, tell me what other formats (phone apps, tumblr fiction, twitter haikus) you read in

IBOOKS !!!!!!!! ibooks saved my life bc now i can find most books online and then download them and read them it’s amazing

Which genre(s) don’t you read? Why not?

romance jfc i just dont go there sorry (mostly bc of the covers)

If you read in more than one language, is there a difference between the experience of reading in your native language(s) and reading in other languages?

nope cannot read chinese rip

If you’re not a native English speaker, how much do you read in your native language versus how much you read in English? How do you feel about that? // If you’re a native English speaker, go find a book in your second/third/etc language, or in translation, to add to your to-read list

can i count latin as a third language lmao?? screw it i’m doing it one day i’ll read the entirety of the aenied in latin

The book you read when you’re stuck in bed sick

HMMM my go to book is probably The Amulet of Samarkand? or maybe Six of Crows

Fiction or non-fiction or both? In what ratio? Where do you draw the line between the two?

pretty much 100% fiction but i;m aiming to change that (And the Bnad Played On is next on my list)

The book(s) you bought because the cover was pretty, and whether it was worth it

:/ i dont usually buy books but i guess you can count A Conjuring of Light? Bc the cover was super pretty and my aesthetic, although i would’ve bought it regardless just bc it was the final book in the series

The worst book hangover you’ve ever had

HOO BOY Ptolemy’s Gate or Code Name Verity

Do you have to finish one book before you start the next one, or do you read multiple books at the same time?

finish but mostly bc i read so fast that if i finish a book it’s usually in a day or two

The fictional character you want to believe you resemble and the fictional character you actually resemble

i want to believe i resemble Sirius Black but i probably actually resemble Remus Lupin

The book that, in hindsight, really should have clued you in to the fact that you’re _________ (queer/in love/doomed to be an academic/etc)

Artemis Fowl/The Bartimaeus Trilogy that I’m not as clever as i fancied i was

The book that you reread over and over again and get new things from every time

G O D probably The Bartimaeus Trilogy

The book that you don’t dare reread for fear it won’t be the same any more

Hnnnnnnnnng i’m a huge believer in rereads so but lowkey Percy jackson bc now that i’m older i've realized a lot of its flaws

Preferred bookshelf organisation scheme

by my favorites

Do you theme your monthly/yearly/etc reading (eg Year of Reading Women)?

Nope bc i’m super inconsistent with reading nowadays and i’m super picky about tstarting new books

That book with a twist that felt like a blow to the chest. Tell me about it. (But warn for spoilers if necessary!)

CODE NAME VERITY once we got to Maddie’s POV i sobbed my way through it culminating in me having to put the book down at that one BANG BANG moment bc i couldnt see through my tears and also my heart had died inside my chest, AND THEN ALSO when they read her notes/confession and my mind was blown by how clever everything was.

The coolest bookshop you’ve ever been to

i can’t remember the name I think it’s the one world cafe but it’s a cafe/bookshop/bar and super cool, but also there’s a barnes and noble with a fishtank built in an old powerplant thats hella cool

The book you gave up on, and the reasons why

The Wrath and the Dawn, sorry too boring and generic and also like, annoyingly straight

The book you finished even though you hated it, and the reasons why

Heart of Darkness bc i had to for school

The book you expected to hate, didn’t, and then got angry about not hating

Grapes of Wrath tbh

The book that you got into because of the movie/TV series/etc, and the relative merits of each version

HOWLS MOVING CASTLE

i luv the movie ofc, it’s gorgoeus in all ways and delightful but not gonna lie the story telling is not very good and it sorta makes no sense until u read the book. don’t like the witch of the waste plot and howl becomes much too mysterious wizard for my tastes

SOPHIE AND HOWL ARE THE DELIGHT OF THIS BOOK, their characters are what makes it tbh, Book Howl is the best howl bc he’s ridiculous and hilarious and a coward and i luv it. sophie is less of a mouse (even tho she still thinks she is ahaha) and the part where she’s so pissed off she turns water into weedkiller is my fav. it’s also just a complete subversion fo fantasy which i think miyazaki sorta doesn’t get

The only book care question that actually means anything: do you write in your books? If so, in pen or in pencil?

NOPE I WANT MY BOOKS IN PRISTINE CONDITION

Do you read reviews of books? Before or after you read the books themselves? Why? Why not?

usually only read reviews of 1. books that havent come out yet and 2. books after i’ve read them to see what other people say. also occasionally 3. i read reviews to make fun of them

The book you’re embarrassed to admit you’ve read

tbh tbh tbh captive prince just to see what it was like for myself and god jfc

The one where the fanfic was better than the original (and the relevant AO3 links, pls)

like, any number of klance fic tbh or HP fic but here’s some like, absolute amazing ones

As Red as Hearts and Autumn- Mauraders Era fic that breaks my heart everytime, particularly fond of this Sirius

call me, beep me most people kno this, but a staple of klance and very well done

it’s quite bizarre, and will remain this way- more klance but also this made my heart hurt

we must unite inside her walls or we'll crumble from within more respectful of HP women than JK Rowling ever was or will be, i love this so much

Catfished- never thought this would be a thing but draco is turned into a glass fish and harry realizes things

thread our way through a string of stars tbh one of the best klance fics i’ve ever read and probably ever will read

Your vacation reading habits

agressive rereads

The book you read the blurb of, constructed a version of in your mind, and were promptly disappointed by once you finally got around to actually reading it

A Hero At the End of the World :/

Bonus question: rec me something!

READ CODE NAME VERITY FOR THE LOVE OF UR LIFE

#asks #louisxvi #ask meme

1 note · View note

azveille · 6 years ago

Text

'The world is against them': new era of cancer lawsuits threaten Monsanto

A landmark verdict found Roundup caused a man’s cancer, paving the way for thousands of other families to seek justice

Dean Brooks grasped on to the shopping cart, suddenly unable to stand or breathe. Later, at a California emergency room, a nurse with teary eyes delivered the news, telling his wife, Deborah, to hold out hope for a miracle. It was December 2015 when they learned that a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was rapidly attacking the man’s body and immune system.

By July 2016, Dean was dead. Deborah gets emotional recounting the gruesome final chapter of the love of her life. But in recent months, she has had reason to be hopeful again.

In an historic verdict in August, a jury ruled that Monsanto had caused a man’s terminal cancer and ordered the agrochemical corporation to pay $289m in damages. The extraordinary decision, exposing the potential hazards of the world’s most widely used herbicide, has paved the way for thousands of other cancer patients and families to seek justice and compensation in court.

“It’s like a serial killer, but it’s a product,” said Brooks, 57, who has a pending case against Monsanto, alleging that her husband’s use of the company’s popular weedkiller at their home led to his fatal disease. “It’s unconscionable … I don’t see how they can win. The world is against them.”

Brooks said she cried when she learned that a jury had ruled in favor of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the terminally ill former school groundskeeper who became the first person to take Monsanto to trial over Roundup. The verdict stated that Monsanto “acted with malice”, knew or should have known its chemical was dangerous, and failed to warn consumers about the risks.

Monsanto has filed an appeal, and a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in San Francisco. The stakes are high for Monsanto and Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant that acquired the company earlier this year. Energized by the Johnson win, a snowballing series of courtroom challenges are now threatening the legacy and finances of the corporations – and the future of a chemical that is ubiquitous around the globe.

The fight against 8,000 plaintiffs

Monsanto has argued that “junk science” led to the jury’s ruling on the chemical called glyphosate, which the company brought to market in 1974. Sold under numerous brands, including Roundup and Ranger Pro, the herbicide is now worth billions of dollars in revenues and is registered in 130 countries, with approvals for use on more than 100 crops.

Johnson, who is not expected to survive for more than two years, said he had prolonged exposures to glyphosate while applying the herbicide to school properties, at least twice accidentally getting large amounts of the chemical on his skin. Because Monsanto has insisted that the product is safe and has no cancer warnings on its labels, Johnson said he did not know about the risks until it was too late.

His award of $289m, which included $250m in punitive damages, is a game-changer for the 46-year-old, who will leave behind a wife and three children. But Monsanto is fighting to keep it from him.

One man's suffering exposed Monsanto's secrets to the world

Carey Gillam Read more

“It’s a big red flag for the company,” said Jean M Eggen, professor emerita at Widener University Delaware Law School, adding of the verdict: “It brings more people out who might not otherwise sue.”

Roughly 8,700 plaintiffs have made similar cases in state courts across the country, alleging that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides led to various types of cancer. The impact could be huge if Monsanto continues to fight and lose in jury trials, and an accumulation of wins could force the company to consider settling with plaintiffs.

“It could become very costly,” said Eggen, comparing the fight to that of the tobacco industry, which aggressively fought cases in court but eventually decided settlements were the best option. “It’s really a business decision.”

Monsanto may ultimately consider changing the labels to warn consumers about cancer risks and work to settle with consumers who have had high exposures, said Lars Noah, University of Florida law professor: “It’s sort of a wake-up call that their strategy was unrealistic.”

Of the thousands of cases, there are more than 10 trials on track to start in 2019 and 2020, with court battles ramping up in California, Montana, Delaware, Kansas City and St Louis (where Monsanto is headquartered). Farmers, gardeners, government employees, landscapers and a wide range of others have alleged that Monsanto’s products sickened them or killed their loved ones.

“This is a tremendous number of trials for one year and will allow plaintiffs to get critical evidence in front of juries – evidence not seen before,” said the attorney Aimee Wagstaff.

The first plaintiffs who may have an opportunity to face Monsanto in a courtroom are Alberta and Alva Pilliod, a California couple. Alberta, 74, has brain cancer while her husband, 76, suffers from a bone cancer that he said has invaded his pelvis and spine – both forms of NHL.

Given their age and cancer diagnoses, their lawyers have argued they have a right to a speedy trial. Monsanto, however, has opposed the request, and a hearing on the matter is set for Tuesday.

The couple, who have two children and four grandchildren, used Roundup from the 1970s until a few years ago – around their yard and on multiple properties they purchased and renovated. The couple said they chose the herbicide because they believed it wouldn’t be harmful to the deer, ducks and other animals that roamed their property. They were also sure it was safe for themselves.

“We are very angry. We hope to get justice,” Alberta told the Guardian, noting that they didn’t use protective gear when they sprayed and would not have used Roundup the way they did if they knew the risks. “If we had been given accurate information, if we had been warned, this wouldn’t have happened.”

Alva said the cancer had destroyed their lives: “It has been a miserable few years.”

Their lawyers hope to go to trial before it’s too late. Alberta’s doctors have said she has “substantially high risk” for recurrence, has “deep brain lesions” from the cancer – and is likely to die if she does relapse.

‘We are not going to be silent’

The Pilliods and other plaintiffs taking on the company have long argued that Monsanto led a “prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general public that Roundup was safe”.

Attorneys have cited internal Monsanto records that they say demonstrate how the company has manipulated and corrupted the scientific record with respect to the herbicide’s safety. The scrutiny has escalated in recent weeks.

On 26 September, the prominent scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology issued an “expression of concern”, saying that its published research finding glyphosate to be safe had not fully declared Monsanto’s involvement.

The high-profile correction came after litigation revealed that the company was involved in organizing and editing article drafts. Monsanto was linked to a scientific review that countered a crucial 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More evidence could emerge at forthcoming trials about Monsanto’s questionable involvements in scientific papers, plaintiffs’ attorneys said.

A Bayer spokesman, Utz Klages, said in an email that the number of cases filed was “not indicative of the merits of the litigation”. He called glyphosate a “breakthrough for modern agriculture” and “cost-effective tool that can be used safely to control a wide range of weeds”.

Regulatory reviews and scientific studies have demonstrated that glyphosate is safe and not a cause of NHL, he said, adding: “The Johnson verdict is not final and concerns a single, specific case.”

EU on brink of historic decision on pervasive glyphosate weedkiller

John Barton, a California farmer who used Roundup for decades and was diagnosed with NHL in 2015, said he was eager to go to trial, especially since Monsanto and Bayer were still telling the public that glyphosate was safe.

“Monsanto needs to realize that we are not going to be silent any more,” said Barton, a third-generation farmer, who is part of a California lawsuit filed by the Baum Hedlund firm, which represented Johnson. “We are not going to roll over and play dead … People should be warned that this stuff is everywhere and we should be careful of this product.”

Barton, 69, said he also feared that his three sons could get sick due to their Roundup exposure.

“My dad exposed me to this. He never would’ve done that if he knew it was dangerous,” he added. “I have this guilt that I may have endangered my own sons.”

Deborah Brooks described NHL as “torture”, recounting her husband lying on towels on the floor trying to stop endless nosebleeds and the constant illnesses that plagued him while his immune system suffered.

“Nobody should have to go through that. It takes life in such a terrible way,” said Brooks, whose husband was 72 years old when he died. “I’m fighting for the honor of my husband and all the others that have come before and will come after … My heart goes out to those victims who don’t know they’re victims.”

Bayer declined to comment about the Brooks or Barton cases. A spokeswoman, Charla Lord, said in an email that because the Pilliods are both in remission and there was “no indication of any imminent cancer recurrence”, the company is arguing that an early trial date was not warranted.

Legal experts said it was possible the Johnson appeal could lead to a reduced monetary award. The courts could also find that there was insufficient evidence to prove that glyphosate causes cancer or that attorneys failed to demonstrate that the herbicide caused Johnson’s cancer.

Those outcomes could be devastating for Johnson and a setback for those fighting glyphosate. But cancer patients and families across the country will be able to push forward regardless of what happens in San Francisco, said David Levine, a University of California Hastings law professor.

“Even if Monsanto gets a complete victory here, it’s not going to stop other plaintiffs.”

Carey Gillam is a journalist and author, and a public interest researcher for US Right to Know, a not-for-profit food industry research group

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help.

The Guardian is editorially independent. So we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias. It isn’t influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This means we can give a voice to the voiceless. It lets us challenge the powerful - and hold them to account. And at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical, it’s what sets us apart from so many others.

The Guardian’s long term sustainability relies on the support that we receive directly from our readers. And we would like to thank the hundreds of thousands who are helping to secure our future. But we cannot stop here. As more of you offer your ongoing support, we can keep investing in quality investigative journalism and analysis. We can remain a strong, progressive force that is open to all.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as £1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

0 notes

kansascityhappenings · 6 years ago

Text

Jury awards $289 million in damages after man says he got terminal cancer from Monsanto’s Roundup

Watch Video

In a groundbreaking case against agricultural giant Monsanto, a jury has awarded $250 million in punitive damages and nearly $40 million in compensatory damages to a former school groundskeeper who said he got terminal cancer from the weedkiller Roundup.

Dewayne Johnson was seeking about $400 million in punitive damages and $39 million in compensatory damages from Monsanto, his attorney Timothy Litzenburg said.

Johnson’s victory Friday could set a massive precedent for thousands of other cases against Monsanto.

Johnson was the first of hundreds of cancer patients to take the company to court over its popular weedkiller, Roundup.

CNN reported last year that more than 800 patients were suing Monsanto, claiming Roundup gave them non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Since then, hundreds more plaintiffs — including cancer patients, their spouses or their estates — have also sued the agricultural giant, making similar claims.

Johnson’s case was the first to go to trial because in court filings, doctors said he was near death. And in California, dying plaintiffs can be granted expedited trials.

Lesions on much of his body

Johnson, 46, applied Roundup weedkiller 20 to 30 times per year while working as a groundskeeper for a school district near San Francisco, his attorneys said.

He testified that during his work, he had two accidents in which he was doused with the product. The first accident happened in 2012.

Two years later, in 2014, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

On bad days, Johnson is too crippled to speak. Lesions have covered as much as 80% of his body.

Litzenburg said the most heartbreaking part of Johnson’s testimony was when the father of two described telling his sons that he had terminal cancer. Johnson’s wife now works two 40-hour-per-week jobs to support the family, Litzenburg said.

How carcinogenic (or not) are Roundup and glyphosate?

The big questions at stake were whether Roundup can cause cancer and, if so, whether Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the product’s cancer risk.

In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said the key ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

“For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” the report states.

But Monsanto has long maintained that Roundup does not cause cancer, and that the IARC report is greatly outnumbered by studies saying glyphosate is safe.

“More than 800 scientific studies, the US EPA, the National Institutes of Health and regulators around the world have concluded that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer,” said Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of strategy.

He highlighted the Agricultural Health Study, which studied the effects of pesticides and glyphosate products on farmers and their spouses from 1993 to 2013.

“Many had already been using Roundup and other formulated products (since) it first came on the market,” Partridge said.

A summary of that study said “no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma).”

“We all have sympathy for Mr. Johnson,” Partridge said. “It’s natural he’s looking for answers. Glyphosate is not the answer.”

But Litzenburg said glyphosate isn’t the big problem — Roundup is. He said the interaction between glyphosate and other ingredients in Roundup cause a “synergistic effect” that makes the product more carcinogenic.

Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord disputed that notion, saying regulatory authorities help ensure Roundup as a whole is safe.

“The safety of each labeled use of a pesticide formulation must be evaluated and approved by regulatory authorities before it is authorized for sale,” she said.

The National Pesticide Information Center — a cooperative between Oregon State University and the EPA — said studies on cancer rates in humans “have provided conflicting results on whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated with cancer.”

What did Johnson have to prove?

While it’s impossible to prove Roundup caused Johnson’s terminal illness, it’s also impossible for Monsanto to prove Roundup did not cause his cancer.

“Cancer is a very difficult case to try,” Litzenburg said. “You can’t X-ray it or biopsy it and come back with what caused it.”

In this case, Monsanto was not required to prove anything. The burden of proof was on Johnson, the plaintiff.

But that doesn’t mean Johnson’s team had to prove Roundup was the sole cause of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The question was whether Roundup was a “substantial contributing factor” to Johnson’s illness.

“Under California law, that means Mr. Johnson’s cancer would not have occurred but for his exposure to Roundup,” Monsanto spokeswoman Lord said.

She noted that it’s possible his cancer could have developed from something unrelated to Roundup.

The majority of lymphoma cases are idiopathic — meaning the cause is unknown, according to the American Cancer Society.

Litzenburg agreed that most non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases have not been linked to one primary reason in the past. But he said the tide is starting to turn — similar to how it took decades for people to learn that tobacco can be a big contributing factor for lung cancer.

“You can’t take a lung cancer tumor and run a test that proves that tobacco caused that cancer. … You’re seeing the same thing here,” Litzenburg said. “I think we’re in the beginning of that era of this dawning on us as a country — as a public — the connection between these two things.”

Thousands of cases to follow

Litzenburg said he and other attorneys have more than 2,000 similar cases awaiting trial in various state courts.

He estimates another 400 cases have been filed in federal multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

MDL is similar to a class-action lawsuit because it consolidates pre-trial proceedings for the sake of efficiency. But unlike a class-action lawsuit, each case within an MDL gets its own trial — with its own outcome.

In other words, one MDL plaintiff might get a large settlement, while another plaintiff might get nothing.

No dates have been set for those MDL trials, Litzenburg said.

But one advantage of filing in state court — as Johnson did — instead of through MDL is that state courts sometimes produce an outcome faster.

And in Johnson’s case, time is critical.

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/2018/08/10/jury-awards-289-million-in-damages-after-man-says-he-got-terminal-cancer-from-monsantos-roundup/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/jury-awards-289-million-in-damages-after-man-says-he-got-terminal-cancer-from-monsantos-roundup/

0 notes