How Monsanto Evades DNA-Alteration Liability

[Patricia Dines <73652.1202@CompuServe.COM>]

Hi -

Disturbing information on liability law that greatly limits consumer recourse
for products that do harm.  I don't understand how they can settle cases with
effected parties that don't sign on, stopping all future litigation!!  Seems
counter to the intent of the law to me.  Seems important to understand,
publicize, and overturn this principle, if we want corporations to be
responsible for their actions (or is only welfare mothers that need to do
that...??)

As you might know, Monsanto makes rGBH as well as pesticides (including
Roundup); genetically engineered soybeans, corn, and potatoes (which they're
trying to refuse separate labelling on, and farmers and consumers are
protesting); NutraSweet (which has been linked to serious health effects, though
that's gotten little press); etc....

I'd say they feel comfortable taking risks with our well-being with their
products, and would be quite delighted at laws that would limit their liability
(responsibility) for the (predictable) negative outcomes.  Unfortunately, this
also consistently means that, when consumers express concern about their
products, they respond by refusing to adequately label them (ex. that the
soybeans are genetically engineered or that cows were treated with rGBH) and
they use the courts and the threat of expensive lawsuits to stop competing
products from indicating that they *don't* use their products (ex. rGBH).

If we can't depend on our regulation system to stop products that are known to
be dangerous, then we must have a functioning free market - which depends on
consumers having sufficient information to make informed choices.  I strongly
question whether they should be able to limit their liability when they refuse
us even that.

P. Dines

P.S.  It seems that this corporate avoidance of liability will leave others
exposed.  For instance, if Dow et al won't pay for Agent Orange harm, does that
mean the Vets Administration must carry all the responsibility?  (i.e. the U.S.
taxpayer)  Then what about when information emerges about the harm being done by
any other of their products - who will be left holding the bag then?  The city
that used the pesticides?  The farmer that used the hormones?  Or just the
people harmed with no recourse?  Who will be bankrupted and have their lives
ruined so the corporations can continue avoiding responsibility for the known
hazards they expose us to daily...?  (Of course, that kind of stuff doesn't
really happen, does it? Oh no........)

--- FORWARD ---

From: INTERNET:dbriars@world.std.com
Sender: o-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu
Date: Sat, Nov 9, 1996, 10:19 PM
Subject: How Monsanto Evades DNA-Alteration Liability
Date: Nov 7, 1996
From: John Coleman <jscolem@ibm.net>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Sat, 26 Oct 1996 06:33:18 -0700
To:            veggie@bath.ac.uk
From:          "Peter M. Ligotti" <pmligotti@earthlink.net>
Subject:       How Monsanto Evades DNA-Alteration Liability

[ snippet from article on rBGH article titled "Drug Experiments on People"
with pertinent info on how Monsanto protects itself from product liability ] .
. . .

)>How can Monsanto risk an experiment on the food supply of the American public
)>and world community? If widespread harm should occur, might not the company
)>be liable for billions of dollars in damages and possible bankruptcy?

Luckily for Monsanto, and others similarly situated, recent court rulings have
provided safe shelter for corporations whose consumer products result in
massive litigation.

The new corporate shelter was invented by Judge Jack Weinstein in the case of
Vietnam veterans seeking damages from Dow, Diamond Shamrock, Monsanto and
other companies that produced Agent Orange. Agent Orange was an herbicide
used in Vietnam to defoliate jungles. Many American troops exposed to the
chemical during the war say they and their children were harmed. The
National Academy of Sciences and the Veterans Administration in 1993 said
the vets WERE harmed. [12]

The courts allowed the companies to settle with some of the plaintiffs for a
fixed amount, with the stipulation that no future lawsuits can be brought
against the Agent Orange manufacturers, even by people who weren't party to
today's settlement because they did not know they had been harmed. In
future, if a person develops a disease they believe was caused by Agent
Orange, they cannot sue--their Constitutional right to due process was
extinguished by the original settlement.

This is exceptionally important because litigation typically proceeds in
stages. As we saw in the case of asbestos, each new lawsuit brings forth
more evidence of what a company knew when. Jury awards and penalties
increase as a company's deceptions and coverups are progressively revealed.
The first plaintiffs may fail completely, but the 20th or 50th may be
awarded many millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, as
the courts see, and then punish companies for, a pattern of unethical
behavior.

The new legal doctrine cuts off the possibility of a series of suits against a
company, thus providing almost complete protection against suits that might
cause bankruptcy.

This new legal doctrine has recently been used to limit the liabilities of
companies that marketed silicone breast implants. It is a creative legal
invention which sharply limits the liability of corporations that market
possibly-harmful products that have not been fully tested for safety.
Recently more than 8 million Vietnam veterans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
review this new legal doctrine, on the ground that their Constitutional
rights had been taken from them.

The attorney generals of all 50 states joined with the vets asking the
Supreme Court to review this new doctrine. [13]

The Supreme Court refused. And that is one reason why companies are willing
to risk exposing the general public to drugs in their food without fully
understanding the consequences. Under doctrines invented by the Reagan/Bush
courts, corporations are protected but the public is not.

------
[12] Institute of Medicine, VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE: HEALTH EFFECTS OF
HERBICIDES USED IN VIETNAM (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993).

[13] P.B. Onderonk, Jr. and others, "No. 93-860 In the Supreme Court of the
United States, October Term, 1993, Shirley Ivy v. Diamond Shamrock on Petition
for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit."

------
Descriptor terms: fda; genetic engineering; biotechnology; rbgh; bgh; bst;
rbst; recombinant bovine growth hormone; food safety; david s kronfeld;
immune system; allergies; allergens; milk; hormones; igf-1; insulin-like
growth factor 1; nih; national institutes of health; monsanto; cows; animal
health; mastitis; antibiotics; sulfa drugs; tetracyclines; sulfamethazine;
carcinogens; general accounting office; donna shalala; health and human
services department; hss;hssd; gao;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign                              Press Office
PO Box 62                                        Phone/Fax 802-586-9628
Craftsbury VT 05826-0062                    Email dbriars@world.std.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcspotlight.org/
http://www.interlog.com/eye/Misc/McLibel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" electronic mailing list, send email

     To: majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Message: subscribe mclibel

To unsubscribe, change the message to: "unsubscribe mclibel"