Bayer, a subsidiary of Monsanto, is located in the US because of their weed killer with the controversial active ingredient glyphosate again on the dock. After the seed giant had collected in the past year, already a bitter defeat in front of a US court, is scheduled to begin this Monday in San Francisco the second process. Here, too, it is alleged cancer risks of Monsanto selling Roundup. The group is accused of the dangers of deliberately concealed. For Bayer it is a lot of money and good reputation is at stake.

The plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman makes Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup, for his disease to lymph glands cancer. Monsanto sold the “for human health hazardous” product without adequate warnings, and should be sentenced to compensation for damage stated in the indictment. Bayer and Monsanto to reject the allegations vigorously. However, the risk for the group is large – in total, there are in the USA, around 9300 plaintiff, the wave comes just in travel.

First judgment in Gyphosat process shocked stock

The first verdict in a U.S. litigation to glyphosate had provided in August, a great deal of attention and made it clear how risky the approximately 63 billion Dollar Monsanto Acquisition for Bayer. A jury had decided that the company should pay the cancer patients Dewayne Johnson a total of $ 289 million (255 million euros). Although the presiding judge lowered the amount later drastically, and also the lower damage rate says little, as the group has filed an appeal. It came to a guilty verdict, it was a shock that sent Bayer’s share price in a tailspin, and heavily in the stock market value took a toll.

glyphosate-process, Despite the criminal’s estate to more than $ 200 million – that’s why Bayer is fighting against Monsanto-judgment DPA

Now, however, it is really serious. This is because, unlike the first process, it is the first case that will be heard by a Federal district court and is part of a mass process. The competent judge Vince Chhabria numerous complaints from farmers, gardeners, and consumers are bundled, the case Hardeman is a so-called “Bellwether Case”, the output of which is considered a trendsetter for the many other Federal actions. For months the lawyers of the parties to the dispute needling in the process of preparation with a view to the question of which studies are allowed as potential evidence.

In the process, it deals with technical questions

The position of judge Chhabria is yet difficult to assess. He had shown initially sceptical as to whether the evidence could be clear enough to come to the clear conclusion that glyphosate – as the plaintiffs claimed, causing diseases such as cancer of the lymph nodes. In the case of the contested question of what evidence it accepted, could prevail, but no party was correct. After it initially seemed, than any amount of Material would be held against Monsanto in the process, it should be now, but at least partially. The skirmish in the run-up to show how difficult it is for the Jury.

From the seed to the trade So a few corporations control what we eat By Katharina Grimm

Because it comes to technical issues, the high level of Expertise. So the science could not be clarified in spite of long-standing conflicts so far, whether Roundup can lead to cancer. Bayer and Monsanto relied long on some 800 studies show that glyphosate “can be safely applied and not cancer”. Most recently, she back paddled, however, and acknowledged that not all studies specifically relate to cancer risks of the herbicide. The opposite side also has a lot of Material to Hand, recently two new studies, which could weigh on Bayer appeared.

but Above all, the many U.S. actions are based on the International cancer research Agency of the world health organization (WHO), the Monsanto weed killer in 2015 as “probably carcinogenic” for humans to classify. A success for Bayer judge Chhabrias decision of January to share the collection process in two stages was, however. As a result, it will first go to the question of whether glyphosate is a carcinogen. The plaintiff should be able to confirm this, so would then be discussed in the further course, whether or not Monsanto has fraudulently deceived about the risks of its products.

fin / Hannes Breustedt / DPA

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here