Monsanto Heads To Court As Jury Trials Against Roundup Poison Begin

Via America’s Lawyer: The latest in the case against Monsanto’s Roundup and a refresher on what we know so far about the dangers. Then, a look at the Trump administration’s policy of detaining migrant children, and the failed attempts by the justice department to delay reuniting children with their families.

To learn more about this topic, visit

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

Follow more of our stories at

Subscribe to our podcast

The first major lawsuit against Monsanto over the safety of their blockbuster weedkiller, Roundup, is currently underway. So far, the science being presented by the plaintiff is looking really, really bad for Monsanto. But we've known about this science for decades, yet the company has been engaged in one of the largest cover ups imaginable to downplay the scientific reporting that told us that Roundup and the main ingredient was highly toxic.

Joining me to talk about Monsanto's legal problem and other legal issues of the week is Farron Cousins, executive editor of Trial Lawyer magazine. Farron, as you know, I took the first three depositions on liability for this company that were actually taken. I took those about two months ago. Our trials start against Monsanto in the summer. We have 16 consolidated cases that we're going to try. But this case is being tried now. Some very capable lawyers. I think what happens sometimes is people judge the first case and they say, "Well, this is going to determine the future of the project." That's not really the case. As a matter of fact, interestingly enough, I handled the asbestos litigation, the first 12 asbestos cases that were tried throughout the country before I actually started, they were 12 losses. Then all of a sudden, not because of me but because of some good lawyering, all of a sudden, people started winning cases all over the country. Then that solved the asbestos crisis here in America.

What is your take on this case? I know the case so well because I've taken the depos. What is your take as you stand looking on the outside of this, what's happening?

Well, to start, I think a lot of the legal analysts out there are trying to use the most recent history, forgetting everything about the past, and they're saying, "Well, if this goes the way that the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder cases go, after that first loss for J&J, it was just downhill from there for the company."

Yeah. Exactly.

They think that they can translate that to Monsanto, but everything is different. But so far, we're a week and a half into this trial, I'm liking what I'm seeing the lawyers do here because they're not only focusing on here's science one, science two. They're out there, they came out of the gate, showing that this was a cover up. Monsanto engaged in potentially illegal behavior, depending on how you want to look at it. But they engaged in a decade's long covered up, hired toxicologists who when they finally said something they didn't like or came to a conclusion Monsanto didn't like, fired the person, buried their science-

Right.

... and instead went with pseudo science.

Well, let me say, I know these lawyers. These are very good lawyers. The first case is always interesting because a lot of it depends on the judge. If the judge has talent, and votes aren't in yet, if the judge has talent and is able to work through really complex issues, then both sides have ... they've got an equal chance. I don't know much about this judge right now. We're going to know probably in about another week as we watch her rulings.

But I do know this. I do know that the science is so bad for Monsanto here. It's this bad. As a matter of fact, when I was taking these first three depositions, what we found in the deposition was that the top toxicologist in the company, the woman who knew everything about the dangers of this product, she knew about the risk of cancer, the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, she knew about neurological risk, she knew about birth defects risk, she knew all of this.