Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Update on the Glyphosate Case: Hardeman, Santa Rosa Resident, Testifies
Yesterday, I had a chance to visit the current glyphosate trial in federal district court, a year after covering the original Science Week proceedings for Civil Eats and PRI. During Science Week, the leading cancer risk researchers and scientists presented their reports to Judge Chabbria, who determined what was and what was not "junk science." That laid the groundwork for the experts who will be able to testify in future federal proceedings on this topic.
This was scary then and it's still scary to see non-scientists learn about cancer risk assessment and place one's faith in them. Luckily the jury in the first state court case - the one that decided in favor of the plaintiff, DeWayne Lee Johnson - was very engaged and taking notes throughout the trial.
I know Chabbria's learned a lot more about the science of cancer risk assessment than he knew a year ago. Most of the same experts will be testifying again (as they did in the DeWayne Johnson trial) and in other proceedings.
Yesterday I arrived too late and missed getting a chance to see Mr. Hardeman, who is the plaintiff in this case. He used Roundup on his 50+ acre property in Santa Rosa to eliminate or control poison oak. He then contracted non Hodgkin lymphoma. Yesterday he demonstrated - with the use of sprayer - how he sprayed on a regular basis.
When I was there in the morning shortly after his appearance, the courtroom was filled with about 30 observers, many with laptops taking notes. A daily transcript - and daily summary posts - are published and available on the U.S. Right to Know website.
At the lunch break in the court cafeteria, I did briefly meet and say hi to reporter Sam Levin who is reporting on the case for The Guardian. Here's his latest story from yesterday. Hardeman said he sprayed Roundup for 3-4 hours monthly.
My biggest concern is that this jury did not appear as engaged during expert science testimony. No one was taking notes. Two women had eyes that appeared glazed over by the details. That's understandable. The plaintiff's attorneys really have their work cut out for them in this trial.
For reasons I have yet to understand (but hope to learn more about), Judge Chabbria granted Monsanto's request to divide the trial into two phases - one in which the jurors will not be able to learn about the company's ne'er do well involvement in getting reputable journals to publish industry sponsored research.
In phase two, that's apparently going to be fair game. But there will only be a phase two if the decision of the jury is unanimous.
Posted by Pam Strayer at 12:52 PM