Costco quits selling Roundup

(July 22, 2019) Costco announced this summer that it will quit selling Roundup.  A Costco spokesperson announced May 29 that the company is not planning to sell Monsanto’s best-selling concoction this season. Some 12,000 Roundup lawsuits now plague the beleaguered chemical company.

Costco’s decision came shortly after Monsanto lost its third straight trial tying Roundup to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A Costco spokesperson announced: “Costco is constantly reviewing its (product) lineup, and is not planning to sell RoundUp this season.”

The announcement came closely on the heels of Monsanto’s latest trial loss over Roundup, a $2.055 million verdict for a couple who both developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma following years of Roundup exposure. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a couple in their seventies, have both been diagnosed with lymphoma. Alva suffers from a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that has moved into his bones and spine. Alberta has brain cancer linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The decision not to carry RoundUp is not one that most giant box stores have followed. Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Kroger and others continue to sell Monsanto’s toxic pesticide despite the many Roundup lawsuits which followed cancer warnings issued by the World Health Organization. In 2015, the WHO declared that glyphosate – Roundup’s only listed active ingredient, despite much evidence that shows Roundup’s surfactants greatly increase the toxicity of the entire Roundup cocktail – is a “probable carcinogen. ” The WHO arrived at its conclusion after reviewing approximately 1000 independent studies, none of which were sponsored by Monsanto.

Retailers that sold people Roundup have not been named so far in the lawsuits against Monsanto, nor has the U.S. EPA, which regulates (if one can call it that) Roundup and glyphosate for consumer, commercial or agricultural use. So far, most Roundup lawsuit petitions have not named any of these peripheral parties in the more than 12,000 new lawsuits that have been filed to date against Bayer AG, which now owns Monsanto.

Curiously, the U.S. EPA first banned glyphosate more than 30 years ago, then inexplicably reversed its decision. Roundup remains on most shelves today despite the growing body of scientific evidence linking Roundup and lymphoma, along with Monsanto’s three huge legal losses over the product. The company is now 0-3 in Roundup cancer trials.

Meanwhile, Monsanto and Bayer AG continue to repeat their claim that “four decades of extensive science” prove Roundup is safe. Recent evidence suggests, however, that at least some of that “science” may have been forged. Unsealed documents released as part of another court case suggest Monsanto may have faked its own safety studies to produce its own corrupt science.

According to US Right to Know,the third Roundup-cancer case to go to trial  revealed several damning facts about Monsanto.  They include:

  • Monsanto spent millions of dollars to develop covert PR campaigns. The money financed ghostwritten studies and stories aimed at discrediting independent scientists whose work found Monsanto’s poison products were not as safe as Monsanto advertised them to be.
  • When the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sought to evaluate glyphosate toxicity in 2015, Monsanto engaged the assistance of EPA officials to delay that review.
  • Monsanto enjoyed a close relationship with certain industry-compromised EPA officials who have repeatedly backed Monsanto assertions about the safety of its glyphosate products.
  • Monsanto’s internal worker safety recommendations called for wearing a full range of protective gear when applying glyphosate herbicides; but Monsanto failed to warn the public to do the same.
  • As part of the third trial, evidence showed Monsanto hired a corporate intelligence company “to take the temperature on current regulatory attitudes for glyphosate.” That company’s report indicated that a domestic policy advisor at the White House said: “We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

Monsanto\EPA Collusion

Other shocking news also came out of the third trial against Monsanto: emails were released showing EPA officials may have colluded with Monsanto to help slow the release of the dangers of the pesticide from the public. EPA also fed Monsanto consistent updates.

So why does the EPA continue to allow the sale of Roundup?  Why do many retailers continuing to sell it, given glyphosate’s research-based link to genetic damage, Alzheimer’s disease, and a wide range of other health issues that include ADHD, Alzheimer’s Disease, autism, birth defects, celiac disease, colitis, heart disease, inflammatory bowel syndrome, kidney disease, liver disease, Parkinson’s Disease?

Glyphosate Unsafe at any Dose

Another study released by the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund, cites research that shows as little as 1 part per trillion of glyphosate can stimulate breast cancer and disrupt the body’s delicate hormonal system.

The Global Glyphosate Study found that the so-called “safe” amounts set by the EPA aren’t actually safe at all and are instead linked to microbiome imbalances and DNA damage. A microbiome is the sum of all the microbes in the body. It differs from person to person, creating a sort of microscopic “fingerprint.” While our understanding of microbiomes is still new and incomplete, an imbalanced microbiome may be a risk factor for many possible diseases.

Fourth Roundup Trial

The fourth Roundup cancer trial is slated for this fall in St. Louis, Monsanto’s hometown.

Related

Share

Judge calls Monsanto “reprehensible,” refuses to toss Jury Verdict

 (July 16, 2019) Calling Monsanto “reprehensible” for concealing the cancerous hazards of Roundup, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria refused to toss out a jury verdict against the chemical giant this week.

Judge Chhabria oversaw the Roundup trial in which a jury, in March 2019, ordered Monsanto to pay Ed Hardeman $80 million.

Mr. Hardeman alleged in his 2016 lawsuit petition that he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup for 26 years around his 56-acre property. His northern California land included hiking trails dotted with poison oak, which Mr. Hardeman said he dosed heavily with Roundup. Then he woke one morning with a golf-ball sized lump on his neck, and was soon diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, around Christmas 2014.  Monsanto’s lawyers say he has been in remission for four years after taking chemo “therapy.”

In reviewing the case at Monsanto’s request, the judge did agree this week to reduce the $80 million verdict to $25 million. He said he found the punitive damages award “unreasonably high.” At the same time, Judge Chhabria said he agreed with the plaintiff’s side that the roughly $5 million in compensatory damages awarded to Ed Hardeman was sufficiently supported by the trial evidence. However, the judge called the jury’s $75 million punitive damages award against the Bayer AG unit “constitutionally impermissible.”

Judge: Monsanto’s Conduct Reprehensible

“The jury’s punitive damages award was approximately 15 times the size of the compensatory damages award,” said the judge. “Monsanto’s conduct, while reprehensible, does not warrant a ratio of that magnitude, particularly in the absence of evidence showing intentional concealment of a known or obvious safety risk.”

Judge Chhabria found that the $75 million in punitive damages exceeded the constitutional limit set by the due process clause which prohibits “grossly excessive” punitive damages. He reduced the punitive damages award to $20 million, which changed the total amount to around $25.3 million.

The California jury unanimously found Monsanto liable for failing to warn that glyphosate, Roundup’s only listed active ingredient, could cause cancer. The jury awarded Mr. Hardeman more than $80 million, shocking the chemical giant in the first federal bellwether trial.

Jury Unanimous over Failure to Warn, Negligence, Design Defect
After deliberating for a day, five women and one man found Monsanto liable on a failure-to-warn claim, a negligence claim, and a design defect claim. The six awarded Mr. Hardeman $200,967 in economic damages, roughly $5 million in future and past noneconomic damages, $75 million in punitive damages.

Bayer spokesperson Christopher Loder called Judge Chhabria’s decision to slash the punitive damages award a “step in the right direction.” Mr. Loder also repeated again Monsanto’s oft-repeated claim that the damage awards are not supported by “reliable evidence and conflict with both the weight of the extensive science that supports the safety of Roundup, and the conclusions of leading health regulators in the U.S. and around the world that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.” He also said that Bayer plans to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

Judge rejects Monsanto Bid to Toss Jury Verdict

On July 12, Judge Chhabria denied Monsanto’s bid for a new trial. He said there was no reason to overturn the jury’s verdict on Mr. Hardeman’s design defect claim because sufficient evidence supported a finding that Roundup is defective under California law when sold without a warning.

The judge also rejected Monsanto’s argument that the jury saw an “inaccurate view” of the scientific and regulatory landscape around Roundup.

Judge: Monsanto limited Evidence, made its own bed
“This argument is fundamentally about the scope of the trial,” the judge said. “While Monsanto is correct that the jury wasn’t presented with the entire regulatory landscape, that is primarily a function of the evidentiary parameters Monsanto itself requested, and was largely granted, in response to motions in limine.”

Monsanto is also fighting two other huge trial losses over Roundup. Prior to Mr. Hardeman’s March 2019 verdict, an August 2018 trial resulted in a $289 million judgment against Monsanto for school groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson, a verdict later slashed to $78 million. In the third Roundup trial, in May 2019, a jury awarded a husband and wife a $2.055 billion verdict. Alva and Alberta Pilliods’ case is one of approximately 13,400 pending. Most are consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL Court) before Judge Chhabria.

Judge calls Monsanto “reprehensible,” refuses to toss Jury Verdict

The case is Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. et al., case number 3:16-cv-00525, and the MDL is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02741, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Related

 

Share

Monsanto Money Buys Science

(July 12, 2019) Monsanto money buys science. The embodiment of the way Monsanto works to buy whatever scientific “expert” opinions it needs is readily seen in the person of one Dr. Nina V. Federoff. This woman has been outed as a shameless industry shill by Stacy Malkan of U.S. Right to Know. Ms. Malkan’s exposé titled, “Nina Fedoroff: Mobilizing the authority of American science to back Monsanto” is an impressive piece of journalism in an age when good journalism grows increasingly rare. Most journalism simply does not pay well unless one writes for Monsanto or some other corporation that can afford to pay a shameless promoter like Henry I. Miller.

Ms. Malkan follows the money to show just how Dr. Federoff has, for years, served her Monsanto and GMO benefactors. The doctor does so by never divulging the fact that she has been rewarded in one form or another by Monsanto and other corporations of its ilk that promote the genetically modified (Read: genetically perverted) food industry.  For more on the subject, please see “Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives, based on a book of the same name by Jeffrey M. Smith.

Ms. Malkan demonstrates how Dr. Federoff has promoted chemical industry giants like Monsanto, as well as all things GMO, while posing as a disinterested third-party “expert.” Federoff has done her work for Monsanto – like the execrable Michael Taylor before her – not only by moving through the revolving door that runs between government “service” and industry employment, but also by posing as someone with a talent for the truth when it comes to Monsanto and genetically perverted food.

Dr. Federoff is a perfect example of all that is rancid and wrong in Washington D.C. She does her dirty work in the dark for an industry that makes its money by killing things, and she does it while pretending to work in the light as a disinterested third party. A principal factor in her duplicity is her failure to disclose her industry ties, her vested interest in promoting Monsanto and GMOs. She routinely pretends to operate independently of her corporate benefactors. She virtually never reveals who is paying her to promote (or defend) Monsanto and GMOs, but her ruse begins to unravel when every position she ever held has been nothing but a promotion for the chemical and GMO industries that poison the world with toxic pesticides like Roundup.

Using the AAAS to advance agrichemical industry policy objectives

As Ms. Malkan reports, during her 2011-2012 run as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and as Chair of the Board of Directors from 2012-2013, Dr. Fedoroff worked with agrichemical industry allies to advance key policy objectives. She worked to keep genetically engineered foods unlabeled. She worked to defeat a proposal by the U.S. EPA that would have required additional data on the health and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops which are classified as pesticides. She wants us eating pesticides without our knowing it, wants us blindly eating without question or knowledge whatever her corporate benefactors choose to “produce.”

AAAS helped persuade voters to oppose GMO labeling

In 2012, the AAAS Board of Directors under Dr. Fedoroff’s chairmanship, moved to convince California voters to vote against GMO-food labeling. California’s Proposition 37 was a ballot initiative to label GMOs. A review of the many political statements made by AAAS found no other examples of the organization trying to influence voters ahead of a state election. The AAAS and Dr. Fedoroff refused to respond to USRTK requests for comment. USRTK works to promote labeling,which 90 percent of U.S. citizens polled have said they prefer.

The AAAS board’s statement opposing GMO labeling contained inaccuracies, according to longtime AAAS members. Several of them denounced the anti-labeling statement as a “paternalistic” attack on consumer rights that misled the public by omitting important scientific and regulatory context.

AAAS goes to Bat for Industry

Curious similarities appeared in language used by the AAAS and the industry-funded campaign to defeat Proposition 37. “Is a major science group stumping for Monsanto?” Michele Simon asked in Grist. Ms. Simon, noted Ms. Malkan, described the board’s statement as “non-scientific but very quote-worthy,” and noted that the accompanying AAAS press release contained “talking points” that matched No on 37 campaign literature.

AAAS Lack of Transparency

In a 2013 letter to Science magazine, another group of 11 scientists raised concerns that the AAAS board’s statement on GMO foods “could backfire.” They wrote, “we are concerned that AAA’s position represents a poorly informed approach to communicating science …  appearing to be less than transparent is a really bad idea for the scientific community.”

Dr. Fedoroff was an early supporter of the industry-backed “‘No’ on 37” campaign. She was listed on an industry website in June 2012 as one of four scientists representing the “scientific and academic community” who opposed GMO labeling. The industry campaign later asked Dr. Fedoroff to help recruit more academics to their cause, which she did, according to an October 1, 2012 email to Meghan Callahan of BCF Public Affairs.

Helped kill data requirements for pesticide-producing plants

While serving as AAAS president in 2011, Dr. Fedoroff worked with agrichemical industry allies and an industry lobbyist to stop the U.S. EPA from requiring companies to provide additional health and safety data for genetically engineered foods that are classified as pesticides. The USRTK web site presents detailed emails showing just how low Dr. Fedoroff was willing to go to please her corporate masters.

Please see Ms. Malkan’s entire US Right to Know story to see just how Dr. Fedoroff operates at the behest of Monsanto and others.  Her being outed by USRTK is one more nail in Monsanto’s coffin as it tries to continue fooling the public regarding its carcinogenic Roundup and its promotion of toxic GMO “food.”

Related

Share

Fourth Roundup Trial set for Monsanto’s Hometown

(July 9, 2019) After losing the first three Roundup trials by decisive, unanimous jury verdicts in California, Monsanto is set to face its fourth Roundup trial next month in the company’s hometown. Whether Roundup cancer plaintiffs or Monsanto will enjoy any edge in a Roundup trial staged in St. Louis is an open question.

Which side has the edge in St. Louis?

Some may feel the plaintiff’s side has the edge in St. Louis. Unlike the three California trials, Monsanto employees can be forced to appear on the witness stand in the Missouri venue. In addition, recent legal history at the gateway to the West has seen several juries levy large verdicts against corporate defendants.

On the other hand, Monsanto has donated lots of (tax deductible) monies to local charities, and it may be difficult for the plaintiff’s side to find a juror in the area who either hasn’t worked for the chemical giant, or who doesn’t know a family member, friend, or acquaintance who has.

Plaintiff Sharlean Gordon

The plaintiff in the fourth trial is Sharlean Gordon, a cancer-stricken woman in her 50s. Her case – Gordon v. Monsanto – begins Aug. 19 in St. Louis County Circuit Court. The venue is located just a few miles from the St. Louis-area campus that long functioned as Monsanto’s world headquarters, until Bayer bought Monsanto in June 2018. Ms. Gordon’s case was filed in July 2017, in a petition that includes more than 75 plaintiffs. Hers is the first case in the first group in St. Louis to go to trial.

According to her lawsuit petition, Ms. Gordon purchased Roundup and used it for at least 15 continuous years, through approximately 2017. She was diagnosed with a form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2006.  She has suffered two stem cell transplants, and, at one point in her treatment, spent a year in a nursing home. She is now so debilitated that it is difficult for her to walk or even  move at all.

Roundup-non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Link

Sharlean Gordon’s case — like that of some 12,000 others filed around the U.S. — alleges that using Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused her to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Ms. Gordon’s lawyer called the evidence against Monsanto, along with the company’s conduct, “the most outrageous I’ve seen in my 30 years of doing this. (The) things that have gone on here, I want St. Louis juries to hear this stuff.”

Ms. Gordon’s trial will be followed by a September 9 jury trial also set for St. Louis County, in a case brought by plaintiffs Maurice Cohen and Burrell Lamb.

Monsanto 0-3 vs. Roundup Plaintiffs

The August and September trials follow a stunning $2 billion jury verdict decided against Monsanto on May 13, 2019. In that case, an Oakland, California jury awarded married couple Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who both suffer from cancer, $55 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion each in punitive damages.

Monsanto Covered Up Evidence

The Pilliod trial jury found that Monsanto has spent years covering up evidence that Roundup, along with its only listed active ingredient – glyphosate – cause cancer.

That latest ($2 Billion) verdict came just over a month after a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $80 million in damages to Edwin Hardeman, who also developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup. In the first Roundup trial last summer in San Francisco, a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson. Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with terminal cancer after he used Monsanto’s top-selling poisons in his school groundskeeper’s job.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the California cases were unable to compel Monsanto scientists and executives to testify because they had to travel more than 100 miles or out of the state where they live or work. In St. Louis, that dynamic changes dramatically. Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the St. Louis trials plan to subpoena several Monsanto scientists to appear on the witness stand to answer questions directly in front of a jury.

Monsanto / Bayer Investor Confidence Shattered

The three huge trial losses have left Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG under heavy criticism from angry investors and shareholders. Monsanto’s unsettled investors have pushed share prices to their lowest levels in nearly seven years. Monsanto’s poison Roundup problems have erased more than 40 percent of Bayer’s market value.

Some angry investors are calling for Bayer CEO Werner Baumann’s head. Mr. Baumann pushed for Bayer’s Monsanto acquisition, which closed in June 2018 just as the first Roundup trial was starting.

Bayer maintains that no valid evidence proves a cancer causation link with Monsanto’s herbicides. Bayer says it believes it will win on appeal. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, however, has ordered Bayer to begin mediation talks aimed at potentially settling the sprawling mass of lawsuits that includes roughly 13,400 plaintiffs in the United States alone.

All the plaintiffs are cancer victims or family members of same. All allege Monsanto engaged in a plethora of deceptive tactics to hide the risks of its poison herbicides. Charges include Monsanto’s manipulating the scientific record with ghostwritten studies, colluding with regulators, using outside people and organizations to promote the safety of Monsanto products while making sure they appeared to be acting independently of the company.

Roundup Lawsuits in Canada

Meanwhile, the Roundup litigation that began in the U.S has crossed into Canada. A Saskatchewan farmer leads  a class action lawsuit against Bayer and Monsanto. His allegations mirror those brought in the U.S. lawsuits.

Related

Share

Chlorpyrifos Tragedy enabled by EPA

The ongoing chlorpyrifos tragedy that has unfolded over several decades shows once again how our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been captured by industry. EPA executives have violated the agency’s own rules in order to keep chlorpyrifos on the market. The story of chlorpyrifos – along with Monsanto’s cancerous Roundup – shows just how blatant the corruption of the agency has become.

Related: Monsanto Trials reveal EPA Industry Ties 

What is Chlorpyrifos?

Chlorpyrifos is a highly toxic pesticide harming our children and us, as industrial chemical farming operators continue to use it despite well-established data proving its neurotoxicity.

Chlorpyrifos (pronounced: klawr-pir-uh-fos) is widely used in U.S. chemical agriculture. Industrial farmers spray it on crops to kill different  pests. It smells slightly skunky or sulfuric, somewhat like rotten eggs or garlic. It can harm those who touch, inhale, or eat food it has poisoned, and that involves a lot of food, including most of the naton’s GMO corn and many of our non-organic fruits and vegetables.

Lower Birth Weight, Reduced IQ, Loss of Memory, More

Acutely toxic, chlorpyrifos is linked with neurodevelopmental harms in children. Prenatal chlorpyrifos exposures are linked with lower birth weight, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders, delayed motor development.

Acute poisoning suppresses the enzyme that regulates nerve impulses in the body and can cause convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and sometimes even death. Chlorpyrifos is one of the pesticides most often linked to pesticide poisonings. Besides “accidental” exposures, the poison has harmed  thousands of people directly, purposely, as it was first used in trench warfare as a nerve gas agent to sicken or kill the other side’s soldiers.

How are people exposed to chlorpyrifos?

Today, civilians are exposed to chlorpyrifos through residues on foods commonly sprayed with it, like corn, wheat, fruits and vegetables; by drinking water contamination; from toxic spray that drifts from pesticide applications. Farm workers are exposed to chlorpyrifos from mixing, handling, and spraying it. They also face chlorpyrifos exposure while entering fields where it was recently sprayed.

EPA Bans Chlorpyrifos’ Home Use in 2000

Even the EPA has found unacceptable risks to human beings, banning chlorpyrifos for home use in 2000. (Apparently the agency thinks the chemical has magical “targeting” properties when used on our food and made to run off into our drinking water.) Children are especially at risk because they often stick their hands in their mouths. They also eat more fruits and vegetables and drink more water and juice for their weight compared with adults.

EPA reneges on Chlorpyrifos Ban

Many grassroots citizen’s groups, like Earthjustice, have demanded that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ban chlorpyrifos, as it is known to harm human health, water, and wildlife. The U.S. EPA was mandated by the courts to make a decision in 2017. However, two days before the deadline, the slippery agency refused to ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA then reversed its own proposal to ban the pesticide.

After years of work in the courts, Earthjustice attorneys presented oral arguments – on behalf of the organization’s clients – at a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc re-hearing on Mar. 26, 2019. Earthjustice attorneys argued that chlorpyrifos must be banned from all food uses.

Some 24 days later, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling: U.S. EPA is ordered to decide by Jul. 18 whether to ban chlorpyrifos.

Patti Goldman, the lead attorney, explained the legal issues behind the case shortly before the Ninth Circuit rehearing:

“The Ninth Circuit had, on Aug. 9, 2018, previously ordered U.S. EPA to finalize its proposed ban on chlorpyrifos within 60 days, based on undisputed findings that the pesticide is unsafe for public health, and particularly harmful to children and farmworkers. The agency stalled, requesting the court to re-hear the case.”

The Earthjustice client list includes the League of United Latin American Citizens; Pesticide Action Network North America; Natural Resources Defense Council; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Farmworkers Association of Florida; Farmworker Justice; Greenlatinos; Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; Learning Disabilities Association of America; National Hispanic Medical Association; Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste; and United Farm Workers.

Why Chlorpyrifos needs banning

A growing pile of evidence shows prenatal exposure to even very low levels of chlorpyrifos – those far lower than what EPA has been using – permanently harm babies. Peer-reviewed studies tracking real-world chlorpyrifos exposures of mothers and their children have reached similar conclusions.

In November 2016, EPA released a revised human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos that confirmed that there are no safe uses for the pesticide. EPA found that:

  • All food exposures exceed safe levels. Children aged 1–2 are exposed to levels of chlorpyrifos 140 times what even the EPA deems safe.
  • There is no safe level of chlorpyrifos in drinking water.
  • Pesticide drift reaches unsafe levels at 300 feet from the field’s edge.
  • Chlorpyrifos is found at unsafe levels in the air at schools, homes, and communities in agricultural areas.
  • All workers who mix and apply chlorpyrifos are exposed to unsafe levels of it, even with maximum personal protective equipment and engineering controls.
  • Field workers are allowed to re-enter fields within 1–5 days after pesticide spraying, but unsafe exposures continue 18 days (on average) after applications.

With these shocking findings, one can only wonder how the EPA can now fight to stop or delay a complete ban on this poison. The disgraced former U.S. Attorney General Scott Pruitt began the latest round of EPA corruption when he reversed an Obama-era plan to phase out and ban the chemical entirely. Mr. Pruitt is gone, thankfully, as he resigned under duress; but his dirty work lives on, at least for now.

Chlorpyrifos Lawsuits

Besides lawsuits against the U.S. EPA for failing to enforce its own edicts, chlorpyrifos lawsuits are being filed for people and their children who have been harmed by this toxic chemical made by Dow, who also brought us the war crime poison Agent Orange, along with a nasty list of other toxic chemicals poisoning the world.

Related

Share

Penn. Court Ruling gives Clergy Abuse Victims Time

(June 24, 2019)  A Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling this month gives clergy abuse victims more time to file a claim.  On June 11, 2019, the state’s highest court reversed a lower court which had found the claims of a woman time-barred after she alleged that she was abused as a child in the church.  This reversal in her case potentially opens the door for many others to pursue claims which were previously thought to be time barred by statutes of limitations.

Related:  Pennsylvania Priest Abuse Lawsuit

The woman’s case – and perhaps the fate of hundreds of others – turned on the work of a special Pennsylvania grand jury.  Last summer, that jury published the results of a two-year study which found that more than 1,000 Catholic students had been abused by more than 300 priests in the last several decades in the Penn diocese. The church’s cover-up of all those crimes led to the June 11 ruling.

Church’s Cover-up Opens up SOL

The Penn Superior Court ruled on June 11 that the woman’s lawsuit is not time barred because the church engaged in fraud and covered up her abuser’s previous crimes prior to his sexually abusing her. When the plaintiff had previously filed her case and attempted to pursue a lawsuit against her alleged abuser and the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, church officials claimed not to know that her abuser had also been previously accused of abusing other children before her.  Documents uncovered in the 2018 Penn. grand jury investigation appear to show that those church officials were lying. They knew of the priest’s prior history of abuse, yet failed to take proper action.

Fraud, Constructive Fraud, Civil Conspiracy

The Penn. Superior court’s ruling explains that Ms. Rice read the 37th Investigative Grand Jury Report detailing a systematic cover-up of pedophile clergy in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. She sued the Diocese, Bishop Adamec, and Monsignor Michael E. Servinsky 1 (“the Diocesan Defendants”) a few months later. Ms. Rice alleges that they committed fraud, constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy to protect their reputations and that of Reverend Charles F. Bodziak, her childhood priest and accused abuser.

Case was previously Time Barred

Because Fr. Bodziak allegedly molested Ms. Rice in the 1970s and 1980s, the trial court, relying on the Penn. Superior Court’s precedents and the statute of limitations, dismissed her lawsuit. Claiming that the trial court should apply the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment doctrine, and the statute of limitations for civil conspiracy, Ms. Rice appealed.

Nicolaou v. Martin

Ten months later, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 A.3d 880 (Pa. 2018). The High Court emphasized the jury’s prerogative, under the discovery rule, to decide whether a plaintiff’s efforts to investigate a defendant were sufficiently reasonable to toll the statute of limitations. The court wrote that, “Nicolaou has opened the courthouse doors for Ms. Rice’s case to proceed past the pleadings stage, notwithstanding this Court’s precedents to the contrary.”

Fraudulent-Concealment Theory

The court further wrote:  “In addition, Ms. Rice’s alleged circumstances allow her to argue to the finder of fact that the Diocesan Defendants owed her a fiduciary duty to disclose their ongoing cover-up and Fr. Bodziak’s history of child molestation. By failing to disclose, the Diocesan Defendants’ silence may have induced Ms. Rice to relax her vigilance or to deviate from her right of inquiry. The trial court, therefore, erred by not permitting her case to proceed according to her fraudulent-concealment theory. 

Finally, even if a jury rejects those two tolling theories, Ms. Rice’s civil conspiracy count remains viable. She alleges a continuing conspiracy and that the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in 2016. Based upon these allegations, Ms. Rice has filed this lawsuit well within the statute of limitations for civil conspiracy. 

Accordingly, we reverse the order granting judgment on the pleadings to the Diocesan Defendants and remand for the case to proceed in the trial court.”

Facts Alleged in the Complaint

Ms. Rice alleges in her First Amended Complaint that she belonged – as a child and teenager – to St. Leo’s Church in Altoona. She attended the Catholic school associated with her parish when the Diocesan Defendants assigned Fr. Bodziak to serve as St. Leo’s pastor. They did so despite knowing or having reason to know he had molested young girls. Fr. Bodziak began sexually abusing Ms. Rice in the mid-1970s when she was about nine years old. He  continued abusing her until she turned 14.

Fr. Bodziak asked Ms. Rice’s parents if she could clean the rectory where he lived. They agreed, and while she cleaned his home, the priest gave Ms. Rice wine and sexually assault her. Ms. Rice also played the organ at St. Leo’s Church and sang at masses. Under the auspices of allowing her to practice her music, Fr. Bodziak gave her a key to the church. Then he repeatedly kissed and molested her in the choir loft. The abuse increased to twice a week – in the priest’s car, a nearby cemetery, the rectory, the church itself. Some 35 years later, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania convened the 37th Statewide Investigative Grand Jury to examine child-sexual assault throughout the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. It issued an official report of its findings on March 1, 2016.

From that report, Ms. Rice first learned that the Diocesan Defendants knew or should have known of Fr. Bodziak’s pedophilia prior to assigning him to St. Leo’s Church. The Defendants kept the evidence about abusive priests in a secret archive, separate from other personnel files. Ms. Rice asserted a confidential relationship between her and the Diocesan Defendants, based upon her work as a parish organist, cantor, and rectory cleaner, coupled with her young age, Catholic schooling, and the trust she had placed in the Diocesan Defendants to guide and to protect her.

The high court ruled that the “Diocesan Defendants purportedly violated their corresponding fiduciary duty to warn her about Fr. Bodziak’s past as a child predator. They thereby placed their own reputation and finances ahead of her safety and mental health.”

Penn. Court Ruling gives Clergy Abuse Victims Time

The case – WL 2427919 – is Renee’ A. RICE v DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, Bishop Joseph Adamec (Retired), Monsignor Michael E. Servinsky, Executor of the Estate of Bishop James Hogan, Deceased, and Reverend Charles F. Bodziak.

Related

Share

IVC Filter case filed against Rex Medical

(June 15, 2019)  Matthews & Associates Law Firm and Philadelphia attorney Rosemary Pinto filed an IVC filter lawsuit against Rex Medical L.P. and Argon Medical Devices, Inc. on March 6, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County.  A jury trial for the case is set to begin Oct. 2, 2019.

The lawsuit petition states the plaintiff, a woman from Georgia, was implanted with an Option Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter made by Rex Medical, and marketed and distributed by Argon. That IVC filter has caused, and continues to cause, significant injuries.

After the plaintiff reported abdominal pain, she underwent a CT scan in Dec. 2016.  That scan showed that her Rex’ Option Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter (IVCF) had perforated through the walls of the vena cava. Two physicians denied repair or removal of the device due to the potential complication levels.

Rex’ Option Retrievable Filter caused Significant Injuries

As a direct result of the IVCF’s intractable position, the plaintiff suffered injuries that include  perforation of the Option Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter. The petition says that the struts of the filter have perforated to the fullest extent possible, resulting in severe pain and life-threatening complications. The most medial strut of the filter perforates the woman’s aorta, which could cause death from loss of blood should the aorta perforate further. The most lateral strut of the filter perforates the right renal veins, which leaves the plaintiff at risk of kidney failure. The three anterior struts perforate the small bowel and could cause gastrointestinal problems.

The petition accusing Rex Medical reads, in part:

“(The) perforated filter places the plaintiff at an increased and continual risk of complications, such as the potential for the filter to become embedded and occluded with blood clots, thereby disrupting the normal flow of blood to the heart and lungs. The perforated filter also poses an increased and continual risk of fracturing. Fractured portions could travel to the lungs or heart, possibly causing immediate death or serious injury. The plaintiff needs the perforated filter removed, but doing so could cause severe complications and even death. 

The plaintiff is now forced to live with severe pain and complications caused by the filter, as well as the possibility that the filter could, at any moment, cause any of the aforementioned or other complications. That reality has led to severe fear, stress, and anxiety.” 

Nature of the Case – General Allegations

The petition further states that prior to the plaintiff’s being implanted with the filter, the defendants knew and should have known that the device was defective and unreasonably dangerous for the following reasons:

  1. Defendants failed to conduct sufficient clinical testing, such as animal studies, to determine how the device would function once permanently implanted in a human.
  2. Defendants knew (the) Option filter had a high rate of embedment, fracture, migration, and excessive tilting and perforation of the vena cava wall once implanted in the human body. Defendants (knew) such failures exposed patients to serious injuries, including: death; hemorrhage; cardiac/pericardial tamponade; cardiac arrhythmia; other symptoms similar to myocardial infarction; severe and persistent pain; perforations of tissue, vessels, organs; inability to remove the device.
  3. Defendants also knew or should have known that certain conditions or post-implant procedures, such as morbid obesity or open abdominal procedures, could affect the safety and integrity of the device.
  4. The risks for the Option Vena Cava Filter were and are substantially higher than other similar devices.
  5. The Option filter contained conditions, which Defendants did not intend, that resulted in the device not performing as safely as the ordinary customer would expect.
  6. Despite being aware of these risks, Defendants misrepresented, omitted, and/or failed to provide adequate warnings of these risks or instructions for safe use.
  7. Even as Defendants designed, marketed and sold what they alleged to be a device that specifically reduced these risks of the Filter, they nonetheless failed to issue a recall of the Filter or otherwise notify customers that a safer device was available.

Causes of Action Charged

  • Negligence
  • Strict Products Liability — Failure to warn
  • Strict Product Liability — Design Defect
  • Strict Product Liability — Manufacturing Defect
  • Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
  • Negligent misrepresentation
  • Punitive damages allegations

IVC Filter case filed against Rex Argon

The jury trial beginning Oct. 2 is expected to last at least three weeks. The case is  # 170300241.

Related

Share

Chlorpyrifos Pesticide linked to Autism, ADHD, Lower IQ

Several studies have linked pesticides to child development problems. Those near farms face the greatest risk.

(June 17, 2019) Young children exposed to pesticides containing chlorpyrifos can suffer lifelong problems that include autism, ADHD, Parkinson’s-like tremors, and lower IQ. Many injured by chlorpyrifos were exposed to the chemical while in the womb of their pregnant mothers. Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos has been linked to anomalies in the brain’s surface.

What is Chlorpyrifos?

Chlorpyrifos — patented by Dow Chemical in the 1960s — belongs to a nasty family of toxic pesticides called organophosphates. These pesticides work as neurotoxins to kill insects. In bigger doses, they’re also neurotoxic to human beings.

People once used chlorpyrifos to control insects at home, though the EPA has banned residential use.

Besides homes, chlorpyrifos was widely used as a multipurpose insecticide for many agricultural and residential applications – from flea control for pets to mite protection for crops.  Trade names include Lorsban, Lock-On, Cobalt. Chlorpyrifos was also marketed and sold for home and industrial uses under the brand name Dursban.

Farm workers and others who often handle or inhale chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates are at the “highest risk of exposure,” the NIH says. When it’s sprayed in homes and gardens, residents are also at a “higher risk of exposure,” says the NIH.

The EPA banned chlorpyrifos for residential uses in 2000, except where it might be “safely” contained in ant and roach bait products.

How does Chlorpyrifos work?

Chlorpyrifos lethally disrupts the nervous system of its targets. Dow developed it to rid homes and gardens of cockroaches, ants, mites, and other undesirables. The problem is that human beings can also be vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects in small, continuous doses.

Chlorpyrifos Pesticide linked to Autism, ADHD, Lower IQ

Chlorpyrifos exposure occurs in many ways. Families living near farms that spray chlorpyrifos on their fields are acutely affected. Runoff from agricultural uses can put the chemical in drinking water. If you think you are safe from chlorpyrifos, don’t buy any fruits and vegetables; its residue can remain on fruits and vegetables in your local grocery store.

Over the past several years, many studies have shown prolonged exposure to chlorpyrifos hurts neurodevelopment in fetuses and young children. It leads to a heightened risk for autism and ADHD. A recent EPA report detailed the risks of exposing infants and pregnant women to chlorpyrifos. It demonstrated a potential link to intelligence deficits; the development of autism; problems with attention, memory, and motor skills.

Dow disputes Scientific Findings

Dow disputes virtually any and all findings which point to chlorpyrifos dangers. A company website claims: “The weight of the evidence of years – in some cases, decades – of scientific study continues to demonstrate that there is no link between chlorpyrifos and any of these health concerns.” Dow, like another poison giant – Monsanto — has been funding its own scientific research to fight the growing consensus about chlorpyrifos.

Dow is preparing for a long legal battle to keep chlorpyrifos on the market, and, by turn, in our air, food, and water.

California Chlorpyrifos

It’s no surprise that the country’s largest food producer sees more chlorpyrifos dumped on it than any other state.  RevealNews.org reports that chlorpyrifos is used most heavily in the California counties of Fresno, Tulare and Kern.

A recent University of California, Davis study found that pregnant women living near fields treated with the pesticide chlorpyrifos were three times (3x) more likely to have a child with autism. Early childhood exposure has been linked to developmental delays.

California counties with highest chlorpyrifos use, including agricultural and nonagricultural uses such as landscaping, mosquito control and, before 2001, residential fumigation:

County Pounds of chlorpyrifos used, 1991-2012 Percentage change, 1991-2012
     
Fresno 7.2 million 78%
Tulare 6.1 million -21%
Kern 5.4 million 70%
Kings 3.2 million 97%
Stanislaus 2 million -66%
Imperial 1.8 million -50%
San Joaquin 1.7 million -59%
Merced 1.5 million -51%
Monterey 1.4 million -68%
Los Angeles 1.4 million -99%

Related

Share

Jury awards $12M In Talc Suit against J&J, Colgate

(June 13, 2019) – A California jury ruled yesterday that asbestos in Johnson & Johnson and Colgate Palmolive’s talcum powder products likely caused a woman’s cancer. The jury awarded the dying woman $12 million. It was the latest of several cases J&J has lost over its Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower talc products. Thousands of similar lawsuits remain pending across the country instate and federal courts.

The 12-member state court jury deliberated for five days before concluding it is more likely than not that J&J’s baby powder and Shower to Shower, along with Colgate’s Cashmere Bouquet, contained asbestos that caused Ms. Patricia Schmitz’s mesothelioma.

Negligence, Design Defect, Failure to Warn, Concealment
The jury found both companies liable for negligence, design defect, failure to warn, and concealment.  The jury did not determine whether J&J and Colgate acted with “malice, oppression or fraud.”  Such a finding could have warranted punitive damages. The jury were also unable to find J&J liable for another intentional misrepresentation claim for advertising company talc products as “pure,” in spite of knowing they could be contaminated with asbestos.

The $12M  jury award included approximately $2 million in economic damages and $10 million in noneconomic damages. The jury found J&J 30 percent responsible, its subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. 10 percent responsible.  The jury found Colgate 40 percent responsible. They also found non-party Avon Products Inc. 20 percent responsible.

The highly contentious trial began back on April 23 in Oakland, California. Ms. Schmitz claimed  decades of exposure to J&J and Colgate talcum products was a substantial factor in causing her cancer. The 61-year-old was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2018. Her attorneys told the jury that she is not expected to live past this summer (2019).

J&J Execs knew Talc contained Asbestos

The jury heard wildly-conflicting expert testimony from mineralogists, pathologists, epidemiologists, microbiologists, and microscopists. Ms. Schmitz’s experts and attorneys pointed to dozens of internal corporate documents since the 1960s which they claimed show Colgate and J&J executives knew their companies’ talc products could contain asbestos.

Ms. Schmitz’s attorneys argued that the companies’ corporate executives downplayed the risks, skewed lab results, promoted imprecise talc testing methods, refused to replace talc with non-toxic cornstarch, failed to warn consumers and federal regulators.

Both sides complained to Judge Frank Roesch throughout the proceedings that their opponent had mentioned topics which he had specifically excluded from trial. On two occasions, J&J attorneys asked the judge to declare a mistrial.  He rejected both mistrial bids, called the second request “ridiculous.”

Sanctions for J&J Attorney?

Judge Roesch said during closings that he would entertain a request for sanctions against J&J’s counsel Alexander Calfo.  The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that J&J’s attorney, Mr. Calfo, repeatedly violated the judge’s pretrial orders during J&J’s closing arguments. They also argued that he  attacked the court. A June 25 date is set to hear that motion.

Growing List of Verdicts against J&J for Talc Products

This latest verdict adds to a growing list of plaintiffs’ wins in jury trials over claims that J&J’s talc products were contaminated with asbestos and caused their users’ cancers.

Earlier in 2019, another California jury awarded a woman and her family nearly $29.5 million over similar claims against J&J and talc supplier Cyprus Mines. In 2018, a New Jersey jury awarded Stephen Lanzo III and his wife $117 million. State judges in both cases have since refused to throw out or reduce the verdicts.

In May 2019, a New York jury hit J&J and its talc supplier with a $325 million verdict that included $300 million in punitive damages. That jury found the company’s talc powder likely caused Donna Olson’s pleural mesothelioma.  In a similar case in South Carolina, however, a jury cleared J&J of similar allegations.

J&J currently faces a federal probe and federal multidistrict litigation in New Jersey over claims that some of its talc products caused cancer. It also faces at least four securities suits over the allegations of asbestos contamination, according to its February 2019 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

J&J was also hit with whopping $4.69 billion verdict in another talc cancer case, and Colgate was hit with a $13 million verdict in 2015.

Imery’s Bankruptcy Bailout
Imerys Talc America Inc., a J&J supplier, was originally named as a defendant in Ms. Schmitz’ complaint, but avoided trial after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2019. Imerys said it faces up to $100 million in debt from a litany of lawsuits over claims that talc which it produced contained asbestos.

Jury awards $12M In Talc Suit against J&J, Colgate

The case is Schmitz v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number RG18923615, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.

Related

Share

New NY Law helps Sex abuse Victims

(June 10, 2019) A New York state law change this year helps sex abuse victims seek justice that may otherwise have been lost to them. The Child Victims Act had languished for years at the NY state Capitol before finally becoming law on Jan. 28, 2019. The new law gives victims of child sexual abuse a new opportunity to seek justice against their tormentor(s).

Governor Cuomo signs Bill S2440 into Law

The bill that Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law will give some long-suffering victims a belated victory which they had awaited for years. The governor announced in Manhattan at a special signing ceremony for the bill: “After a 13-year ordeal and after decades of personal pain for so many, I hope you can find a slight sense of peace and a slight sense of vindication that you did not endure this pain without reason.”

What does the new law do?

The 2019 Child Victims Act changes the state’s strict statute of limitations on sexual crimes against children. It opens up a one-year window to revive past claims of any age.

The new law:

  • extends New York’s statute of limitations to allow for criminal charges against child sex abusers until their victims turn 28 for felony cases, up from the current 23.
  • allows victims to seek civil action against their abusers and institutions that enabled them until they turn 55.
  • opens up a one-year, one-time-only period to allow all victims to seek civil action, regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred.

Who Can File for the Child Victims Act?

A survivor of sexual abuse may be able to bring a claim against the abuser or entity responsible for facilitating the abuse if:

  • The abuse began prior to the victim’s 18th birthday.
  • The abuse took place in New York State.
  • The victim suffers from physical, psychological or other injuries; or
  • The victim previously filed a claim that was dismissed based on the (previously) expired statute of limitations (SOL).

Childhood sexual abuse survivors of any age may be able to bring a claim until August 14, 2020.

After August 14, 2020, sexual abuse survivors may only be able to bring a claim until age 55.

Why the Law Change Now?

The new law came into being after citizens and lawmakers in several states responded to the shocking Pennsylvania grand jury report last summer which revealed that more than 300 Catholic priests had abused more than 1,000 school-aged children over several decades. The Pennsylvania report opened the eyes of the country to the ongoing problem of child sex abuse.  The report showed that the abuse was aided and abetted by churches that hid the monstrous crimes while often coddling the criminals and shielding them from prosecution.

Amid the Penn scandal and others involving the church, a full-throated outcry from advocates and some lawmakers said victims should have further recourse against those who either committed the crimes or failed to face the problem.

Mr. Cuomo noted that Pope Francis said the church should not protect abusive priests.

“The priests should be punished,” said Mr. Cuomo at the signing.  “Pope Francis said these people should have access to the courts for legal resolution. (I) think the bishops have worked to protect the church. [T]hey compounded the problem by covering it up and not taking responsibility.”

Opposition to the New Law

In the state Capitol at Albany, the law faced fierce opposition from the church as well as from insurance companies fearing a flood of Priest abuse lawsuits.

Republicans controlled the NY state Senate for the past decade and blocked the measure, though it repeatedly passed the Democrat-led Assembly. Everything changed in November 2018 when Democrats won control of the Senate.

The state Catholic Conference dropped its opposition at the end of 2018 after it got the NY Legislature to back language stating that public institutions can also be sued during the one-year look-back period.

“We therefore remove our previous opposition and pray that survivors find the healing they so desperately deserve,” the Catholic Conference tweeted, though critics said church officials acquiesced only after they knew the new Democrat control of NY government meant the law could no longer be stopped from passage.

The Senate unanimously approved the bill on Jan. 28, and the Assembly passed it 142-3.

New NY Law helps Sex abuse Victims

The most serious felony sexual crimes against children already had no statute of limitations prior to the new law, though mid- and lower-level felonies had a five-year statute of limitations, which kicks in when the victim turns 18.

The statute of limitations will now be based on a person’s age, not the length of time since the allegations.

Clergy Abuse Lawsuits

With the look-back period now opened up, more lawyers and victims are planning to come forward with clergy abuse lawsuits.

The look-back period opens in summer 2019, and remains open for a year, beginning Aug. 14.

Related

Share