Monsanto Pays 93 Million to Victims In Settlement
Cassandra Anderson
NaturalSociety
February 27, 2012
NaturalSociety
February 27, 2012
Monsanto
tentatively agreed to a $93 million settlement with some residents of
Nitro, West Virginia. Nitro is a small town that got its name from
manufacturing explosives during WWI. It was also the site of a Monsanto
chemical plant that manufactured 2,4,5-T herbicide that was half of the Agent Orange recipe. Herbicide 2,4,5-T was contaminated with the caustic by-product dioxin. This settlement may open the floodgates to successfully suing Monsanto for its poison.
Nitro Settlement
Herbicide 2,4,5-T was phased out in the late 1970′s. Dioxin is the
most dangerous chemical known and has a 100 year half-life when leached
into soil or embedded in water systems. The Veteran’s Administration
recognizes and pays out on Agent Orange injury claims that include
cancer, birth defects in children of exposed victims, leukemia, liver
disease, heart disease, Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes and chloracne.
Despite an explosion in the Nitro plant in949, not a single penny
has been paid to residents of Nitro for dioxin injuries, per an attorney
that worked on a previous dioxin case. After 7 years of litigation, and
on the heels of the EPA releasing part of its dioxin
assessment report, Monsanto has made a tentative agreement to settle a
class action suit with some Nitro residents for a total of $93 million.
Here are the proposed settlement figures:
- Medical Testing: $21 Million
- Additional Screening: $63 Million
- Cleanup of 4500 homes: $9 Million
Bloomberg reports that
this settlement will reduce Monsanto’s 2012 net income by 5 cents per
share, but Monsanto may face additional lawsuits and fines. There are
potentially 80,000 property damage claims
alone that could cost Monsanto $3.9 billion in cleanup costs. Dioxin
has contaminated soil and has been found in dust in residents’ homes at
very high levels.
Nitro Residents vs. Monsanto
Several months ago, the judge in the Nitro case issued a gag order in
this case, which was unusual, so details are a bit sketchy. It is
unclear whether the following evidence was introduced:
1. Monsanto is alleged to have burned dioxin waste in open pits, spewing dioxin and its ash into the air and polluting land.
2. The EPA recommended that Monsanto be criminally investigated for
fraud in covering-up dioxin contamination in its products, including
2,4,5-T herbicide. Monsanto failed to report contamination, substituted
false information to show no contamination or sent in “doctored” samples
of their products devoid of dioxin to government regulators.
3. The EPA recommended that Monsanto be criminally investigated for fraud in falsifying health studies. These flawed studies that concluded
dioxin did not cause cancer and other negative health effects (except
chloracne) were used to deny benefits to Viet Nam veterans.
4. Solutia, a Monsanto spin-off company that once owned its Nitro plant, was found by the EPA
to have many deteriorating drums of dioxin buried near the Kanawha
River. The Nitro plant produced dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T from 1949 to
1971.
Agent Orange Government Contractor Immunity
In the past, both Monsanto and Dow Chemical enjoyed government
immunity as government contractors under numerous outrageous rulings by
Judge Jack Weistein, according to journalist Laura Akgulian.
Dr. Gerson Smoger’s huge body of evidence in another case appears to
point to intentional fraud by Agent Orange manufacturers, but the
Supreme Court refused to hear Smoger’s case to allow veterans to sue
producers. And Agent Orange producers’ immunity continued. Here are a
few examples of reasons why manufacturers should be denied immunity:
1. 2,4,5-T herbicide makers engaged in defective manufacturing of
2,4,5-T by cooking it at a high temperature when they knew that slow
cooking would eliminate dioxin.
2. Dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T was not a new chemical, but had been
produced since the 1940′s, so it was not created specifically for
government purposes.
3. The US government appears to have had no knowledge dioxin contamination or its hazards in 2,4,5-T, but the manufacturers did.
Spaulding vs. Monsanto | Immunity Denied
In a separate case, the Spauldings, former residents of Nitro, filed a lawsuit
in a New York federal court against Monsanto for allegedly burning
toxic dioxin waste in open fire pits. In late 2011, Judge Paul Gardephe
denied Monsanto’s request for summary judgement for its government
contractor immunity defense because Monsanto failed to prove that the
government was aware and sanctioned Monsanto’s open pit burning of
dioxin waste in Nitro.
This case has some promise because the judge appears to be aware of
limits to immunity. Stuart Calwell, the attorney in the Nitro case that
was just settled is also representing the plaintiffs in this case.
Conclusion
Property damage from dioxin contamination may be less difficult to
prove than dioxin-related medical injuries. For instance, cancer can
incubate in the body for decades, so it would be hard to prove that
dioxin exposure was the direct cause of the cancer.
However, the judges in the West Virginia court case deemed civil
engineer Robert Carr’s testimony inadmissible and blocked it, using the
excuse that the cost for cleanup was too speculative as it ranged
between $945,000 to $3.9 billion. The wide range is due to factors like
how much property would be remedied and the level of cleanup, that may
include incinerating contaminated soil in a kiln. The judges should have
allowed a jury to determine those facts. Dioxin is not safe at any
level, so costs could skyrocket easily.
Additionally, the judges decertified the property damage cases, which
means that each plaintiff must sue individually, instead of as a group
in a class action suit. Lawsuits of this nature can cost upwards of
$200,000, so individuals may be discouraged form suing. However,
Monsanto just offered $9 million to clean some houses, so there appears
to be merit to the property damage complaint.
People can sue individually under one lawyer (not a class action
suit) to defray legal costs. An environmental attorney advised that
these people may also sue for negligence, nuisance, trespass and
battery. If punitive damages were awarded, 900% over the cost of the
damage could be assessed against Monsanto.
The case settled without any finding of wrongdoing by Monsanto. This
is appears to be the reason why they agreed to the settlement — to avoid
accountability and punitive damage charges. The $93 million is chump
change for Monsanto an will barely affect their share prices. Monsanto
has now set a precedent for settling claims, and hopefully some good
attorneys will seize the opportunity in order to hold Monsanto accountable.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-pays-93-million-to-victims-in-settlement/#ixzz1ycSx9ppx
No comments:
Post a Comment