{"id":483,"date":"2020-07-20T00:26:25","date_gmt":"2020-07-20T00:26:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aladaymobilemedia.com\/?page_id=483"},"modified":"2021-08-10T18:08:14","modified_gmt":"2021-08-11T02:08:14","slug":"gmo-news","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/aladaymobilemedia.com\/ru\/good-life-good-food-recipe-of-the-week\/gmo-news\/","title":{"rendered":"GMO NEWS"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/h1>\n

From the desk of Robin McCall; 8\/10\/2021<\/span><\/h2>\n

\"\"Hello,<\/p>\n

As I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve heard, yesterday the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Pilliods and rejected Monsanto\u2019s request for immunity based on federal preemption and upheld their reduced verdict of $86.7 million.<\/p>\n

Statement from R. Brent Wisner, Co-Lead Trial Counsel for\u00a0Johnson v. Monsanto and Pilliod et al., v. Monsanto.<\/em><\/p>\n

“Monsanto-Bayer has now lost every appeal, and for good reason. The trials were based on good law and good science. Today, the California Court of Appeal fully affirmed the Pilliod verdict. It rejected Monsanto\u2019s request for immunity based on federal preemption and upheld the an historic $86.7 million judgment, which included punitive damages. The Court confirmed that there was substantial evidence that Monsanto \u2018acted with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others in its efforts to shape the scientific inquiry into glyphosate and Roundup,\u2019 and that Monsanto\u2019s conduct was \u2018reprehensible.\u2019 This is a major triumph for the Pilliods and plaintiffs everywhere. Monsanto needs to pull its head out of the sand and Roundup off the shelves now.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

You can read the order here:\u00a0https:\/\/www.baumhedlundlaw.com\/documents\/Pilliod-Appellate-Order.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Best regards,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Robin McCall
\nDirector of Public Relations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/h2>\n

May 21, 2021 from Children’s Health Defense<\/span><\/h2>\n

Bayer\u2019s share price crashed over 4% on Thursday after Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California\u00a0threw out<\/a>\u00a0their attempted $2 billion deal to settle future\u00a0cancer claims<\/a>\u00a0against their top selling glyphosate-based herbicide,\u00a0Roundup<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bayer reacted by stating Thursday: \u201cWhile the company will remain in the residential lawn and garden market, it will immediately engage with partners to discuss the future of glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market, as the overwhelming majority of claimants in the Roundup\u00a0litigation<\/a>\u00a0allege that they used Roundup Lawn and Garden products.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a brief order that addresses what the judge called only \u201cthe most glaring flaws\u201d of the deal, Chhabria turned aside the complicated agreement, the second time he\u2019s shot it down, Bloomberg reported Thursday. The rejected settlement is part of a broader $11.6 billion agreement to resolve Roundup lawsuits in the U.S. from about 125,000 consumers and farmers.<\/p>\n

full story here<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

May 17, 2021 from Carey Gillam at US Right to Know<\/span><\/h1>\n

In a blow to Monsanto owner Bayer AG, a federal appeals court shot down the company\u2019s argument that federal regulatory backing of the company\u2019s herbicides preempts claims made by cancer patient Edwin Hardeman.<\/p>\n

Bayer\u2019s\u00a0primary hope since losing all three trials held so far is to obtain a U.S. Supreme Court finding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s approval of its products under\u00a0the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act\u00a0(FIFRA)\u00a0essentially bars complaints that Monsanto didn\u2019t warn of any cancer risk with its herbicides.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a dead duck in the water,\u201d Hardeman lawyer Aimee Wagstaff said of the preemption defense. \u201cThey need to let that one go.\u201d Read the latest in the\u00a0Roundup Trial Tracker<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A loss for transparency and public health<\/strong>: In U.S. Right to Know v. University of Vermont, the Vermont Supreme Court\u00a0denied our request<\/a>\u00a0to obtain, via the Vermont Public Records Act, a professor\u2019s emails about the food industry lobby group International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).<\/p>\n

Read more about how ILSI operates\u00a0as a food industry lobby group<\/a>.<\/p>\n

New documents posted:\u00a0<\/strong>5,691 new documents on food and beverage companies are posted in the\u00a0UCSF Food Industry Documents Library<\/a>.\u00a0The documents, including some donated by U.S. Right to Know, shed light on how corporations like Coca-Cola partner with academics and researchers on obesity, nutrition and exercise.<\/p>\n

More public health and food news of the week:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n