A Jury in the US has determined that Monsanto’s herbicide
glyphosate has caused a claimant’s cancer and awarded him 289 million
dollars in damages.
This notion of punitive damages is wrong, constitutionally
and morally. It is the role of government to penalise, directly or through the
courts, companies that have acted criminally. If fines are levied, they should
be collected by the state. Fines, just like jail sentences, are a matter
between the state – representing its citizens – and the culprit. Damages to a
claimant should only reflect the pain, loss of pleasure, life, etc. of that
specific claimant.
It should, of course, also be the role of governments,
to ensure that dangerous substances are not granted approval. So, in this case,
we have possible supervisory negligence that should be investigated.
Punitive damages, such as these $289 million, are also
impractical, as there are 4000 more glyphosate cases waiting to be
heard. Are each of them going to be awarded 289 million – or is it first come,
takes all?
So far as I know the case against Glyphosate is still inconclusive in scientific respects. It is still being sold and used legally. I am not aware that Monsanto sold Glyphosate in the knowledge that it would cause cancer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you entirely: $289000000,-- will not cure the poor man's cancer. The sum - paid to him alone - is implausible.