Monsanto Ordered To Pay $289 Million In Roundup Cancer Trial (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report from the BBC involving glyphosate, the world's most common weedkiller: Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289 million in damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer. In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers. It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer. Monsanto denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says it intends to appeal against the ruling.

The claimant in the case, groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, is among more than 5,000 similar plaintiffs across the US. Mr Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014. His lawyers said he regularly used a form of RangerPro while working at a school in Benicia, California. Jurors found on Friday that the company had acted with "malice" and that its weedkillers contributed "substantially" to Mr Johnson's terminal illness.

Comments

The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that roundup doesn't cause cancer.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the politics comes into play. A court FINDS that the chemicals used DO cause cancer. BUT, it is politically "expedient" to those in (real) power to keep Monsanto in business - not getting sued to shreds. So we can unfortunately but safely predict the will wear the victim out to death and then quietly "settle" behind closed doors (for much less, plus a shut-up sign-here "agreement").

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you are so full of shit that you have no other responses than threats of violence.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the politics comes into play. A court FINDS that the chemicals used DO cause cancer.

You have to be careful with language. At best you could say Roundup may cause cancer, since it has a ton of users without cancer. I'm a little uncomfortable with the sky high fine, unless you could prove will-full suppression of that knowledge or something. Basically if those in charge of a corporation wilfully suppress knowledge that their products harm people then they need to go to jail. As it is now, they likely make a ton of money either way, and never face the consequences.

Re:The only problem

[ShanghaiBill]

Is that roundup doesn't cause cancer.

We don't know that. Glyphosate / Roundup causes tumors in test animals at high dosage. It has not been shown to correlate with cancer in humans, but not many studies have been done, and Monsanto has lobbied the EPA to "reinterpret" some of the results.

Given the ambiguous data, $289M seems excessive, and will likely be reduced on appeal, where judges will decide, and there will be no sympathetic jury.

Eating food grown in fields treated with glyphosate is unlikely to be a problem. But if you work directly with glyphosate, you should take reasonable precautions. Wear gloves, long sleeves, long pants. Carry a bottle of soapy water so you can rinse quickly if it spills on your skin.

The best solution is to transition to robotic weed control. Robots can use image recognition and targeted piezoelectric applicators to spray glyphosate directly onto the weed leaves, while spraying very little on the crop or on the ground. This can reduce herbicide use by 95%.

Re:The only problem

[Dutch Gun]

Is that roundup doesn't cause cancer.

Nonsense. Everything causes cancer in California.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> A court FINDS that the chemicals used DO cause cancer.

Usually it's a judge (who is not a scientist) and a jury (who are not scientists) convinced by the histrionics of the attorneys at the trial who DECIDE these things. People like this used to burn witches and lynch people. Leave science to scientists.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a bad idea. I doubt Monsanto is gleefully selling stuff that kills people, but just to be safe, yea, let the bots do the work.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, of course it does, how else does it kill weeds?

The fine should have been 150% of all sales by Monsanto for the years that the victim used the carcinogenic herbicide. Not profits, all sales.
Also, 150% of everything the executives were paid during those same years has to be payed to the victim, by the executives themselves.
Every victim, gets 150% of all sales, all executive pay and value of benefits received. So 1000 victims? That's a hell of a lot of money out of Monsanto's coffers.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck monsanto, just have the bots pull the fucking weeds.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

a Californian jury

That's all you need to know. In six months it'll be overturned on appeal.

Re:The only problem

[Chewbacon]

The plaintiff will be long dead by then.

Re:The only problem

[markdavis]

>"Given the ambiguous data, $289M seems excessive"

That is a huge understatement. There is no proof Roundup caused his cancer at all, or any human cancer for that matter. Just remember where this circus is- California.... where EVERYONE is a victim and EVERYTHING causes cancer, including coffee and, somehow, Christmas tree lights.

https://www.popsci.com/califor...
https://www.businessinsider.co...

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well drop some nukes on California. They're all gonna die of cancer anyway. What's a little radiation?

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Weeds grow back. They can also reseed themselves even if you wipe out the roots. A good herbicide can destroy plant + seed + root in one shot.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, obviously Monsanto has nothing to hide...

https://truthout.org/articles/secret-documents-expose-monsantos-war-on-cancer-scientists/

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, they didn't threaten the AC, they suggested the world would be better off if they kept their inane comments to themselves. Actually rather non-violent to suggest their computer should be smashed verses all the other, actually violent, ways they could have suggested to stop their trolling.

Re:The only problem

[ShanghaiBill]

Fuck monsanto, just have the bots pull the fucking weeds.

That would be much slower and require a far most sophisticated mechanism.

A piezoelectric sprayer is what your inkjet printer uses. They are cheap, reliable, and fast.

A 95% reduction that works and is affordable, is much better than a 100% solution that is never deployed.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why go to all the trouble of suppressing and paying for false flag studies?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not with this smoking gun
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

BS.

Classic tobacco science.
i.e., big business purchasing obfuscation and positive results for their product
See:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide

> Far from settling the matter, eight of the 15 experts expressed significant concerns about the EPA’s benign view of glyphosate, and three more expressed concerns about the data.
> The EPA paper had a whack-a-mole quality to it.
> Many of the reasons cited in the paper contradicted the agency’s own carcinogenicity guidelines, multiple panelists pointed out.
> The EPA’s report on the peer review, posted on March 16, raises obfuscation to a high bureaucratic art.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You should ask seralini the same question

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

He's trying to distract from the fact that monsanto products cause cancer and the company pays massive amounts to hide that fact, including manipulating science and suing institutions wherever they can. Shanghai bill is a faggot.

Re:The only problem

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually Wikipedia disagrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The court found nothing. A jury proclaimed. A jury of random Californian's, i.e. a bunch of the craziest nutters in the whole US who yell "CANCER!!1" at clouds.

Re:The only problem

[umghhh]

Amount of informational garbage being spread by monsanto and by their opponents is as some may say huuuuuge. This does not allow for a reason and fact based discussion. That is the only safe conclusion that one can reach here. Sadly the one side may pay for its way and we cannot be sure if it does not affect scientific results as well if the process has not severely been affected by their money in a negative way. The other side use emotions to switch of brains as it could not fight straight for decades. The result is that we have no possibility to find out. I stopped trusting most of what I read on this in media. I also stopped paying for media altogether a year ago. Why should I pay for this garbage? This has serious consequences for me as I live in the dark but also for the society at large . Not because I am so important but because there are plenty of people that feel misinformed and have no trust and the numbers grow it seems. Mostly this means 'the other side' of the dispute is not to be trusted which means no agreement can be reached. We will continue this path I am sure. Till things stop to work as the truth is - no industrial production of food will do without technology including chemicals affecting our health negatively if used in a wrong way and sometimes we made mistakes and chemicals we use just kill us slowly. If we take this and bann all chemicals there will be not enough food for everybody. Maybe that is good because there are too many people around anyway?

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists claimed DDT is safe to spray on kids
Ditto agent orange
Ditto morning sickness pills
Ditto burning people at stake since they knew the Earth is flat

Scientists are good/useful but they operate best at theoretical level and need to be super super super careful before proceeding to anything beyond that, and that is not happening all the time

Re: The only problem

[cyber-vandal]

It was more likely a sober cost benefit analysis between settling court cases and making it safer.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The NY Times knows about as much as scientific research as any other media outlet, so is irrelevent without fully discosed sources. They did not fully disclose the sources nor the content of the unsealed emails. First page of the WHO IARC summary:

"For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma."

This post rated 5 has demonstrated that the -1 post is correct.

If we're going to hate on Monsanto, which we should, then lets do it for the right reasons. The shady business practicses and monopolistic cornering of agriculture need to die a death. That won't happen when people keep yelling at clouds.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

An even better solution us to grow ORGANIC food, the way it has been done for thousands of years. Monsanto is evil, forcing farmers to pay for corn pollenated with its gmo corn from neighboring fields. But of course, the corn is immune to Roundup. Screw Monsanto, eat organically!

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Slashdot troll who attacks California rather than defend Monsanto.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it, that all US blather turns into a political argument? No one but 'the man' has anything to gain, from using the ancient tactic of 'divide and conquer'. US citizens? ARE COMPLETELY CONQUERED, have a BOOT ON THEIR NECK, because all they do is argue amongst themselves, with the elite laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

The elite that have caused even the simplest of discussions between US citizens, to turn into ANGER, RESENTMENT, and a complete lack of stalemate for effecting any change.

Take this for example. One person suggests a way to reduce damage caused by chemicals, and another suggests a slightly more technically complex method. There are differences of opinion, and suddenly it's US VERSUS THEM!. There is no "us" and "them". You're all virtually identical politically. You have tiny, tiny, tiny political differences.

If aliens came to this planet, and examined the political differences between US conservatives and liberals, and then examined the political differences between that and political beliefs / systems used in the rest of the world? Differences between US citizens wouldn't even remotely register.

Stop fighting against each other, it's absolutely absurd and you guys are all taken for FOOLS by being thrown at each others throats by those that prefer it. There is so much common ground between US parties, but all of that common ground, common ground that could be used for real, honest, political change? Is being discarded, so that nothing effective ever occurs, thereby handing victory to your real enemy.

All said?

You know what I'd suggest here?

First you take the "quick and fast" method. That means, you implement robotic spraying. Now, humans are "much much safer".

The next method is you move forward on automated root removal, etc.

If the premise is true, if it is true that spraying is simple, and de-rooting is more difficult, then you've handled both problems in a better fashion. And you don't legislate for EITHER method, you legislate for "must be handled by automated means", so that it's just 'robotic', and improvements to the system are determined by private corporations that can best meet those goals.

All political conflict? Gone. All humans spraying? Gone.

You guys need to get your act together, and remove ALL political funding from corporate sources from the system. I don't care what any court has said in the past, I don't care what the current laws are, I don't care. Pass another amendment. Do whatever you need to do.

But ensure that ALL political funding is limited PER person (say $1000 / election), and that ONLY registered voters can contribute, and that campaign advertising is severely limited per election, and on and on. Other countries have been doing it for decades, yes it CAN be done, it CAN be done effectively, it's ALREADY being done successfully.

Ensure that only PEOPLE, CITIZENS can donate to the political process, and BAM! 99.99% of your political problems are going to VANISH.

Anyone advocating for anything but that sort of funding, THAT is the enemy.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In other, shocking news, chemical designed to kill organic material may be hazardous. Regular users claim to be unaware.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just spray hot water on the weeds?

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto and others have gleefully sold products that can kill their customers. They are chemical companies. They sell concentrated products, a poison is often determined by the dose. Used incorrectly, anything can be deadly.

I don't know the details on Roundup or this case. Just saying everything they sell can, in fact, kill you.

Re:The only problem

[Ihlosi]

This can reduce herbicide use by 95%.

Why use herbicides at all in a robotic weed removal application? Just have the bot zap the undesired plants with lasers or something.

Re:The only problem

[DarkOx]

I agree with you that switching to robot mechanical weed control is probably going to be the safest long term answer. We still need to solve pest control though and the robots are a long way from being able to do that.

I think the though that this judgement shows that there are some types of civil cases where a jury just isnt appropriate. We probably need a constitutional amendment; restricting jury trials in civil cases where the proximate cause of the alleged damage isn't expected to be 100% certain.

Did round up cause this guys cancer or was he always cancern prone? We will never know and we probably can't ever know not in his lifetime.

All the information seems to suggest that round up is cancer causing in the way just about everything that isn't water is carcinogenic, maybe even water, if you spend every day of your life slathering your self in some chemical sure it probably increases your cancer risk.

Re: The only problem

[Billly Gates]

Roundup is approved for organic vegetables in the US and Canada. My exwife's immune system can't handle American bread as a result of her immune system going haywire. She can eat European bread fan just fine.

Thanks Monsanto

Re:The only problem

[drinkypoo]

just have the bots pull the fucking weeds.

That would be much slower and require a far most sophisticated mechanism.

Both ideas are dumb. The best approach is to simply cut the weeds, before they produce seed heads. Let them lie where they fall, because they will serve as mulch. Not only does it not require chemicals but it provides a benefit. Cutting stuff is relatively easy and you could reasonably put multiple cutting tools on the same bot so that it doesn't go out of service if one does fail.

Re:The only problem

[F.Ultra]

Nothing on your list is true in the sense that you are trying to make.

*Eggs are bad for you came from a time before the whole picture was known and scientists knew that high cholesterol was bad for you and that eggs in particular contained high amounts of cholesterol. So not warning about egg consumption then would have been negligent. Later research showed that there is no link between digested cholesterol and blood level cholesterol and thus it turned out that eggs was fine. So no this have not been switching between yes and no every other week (it happened only once) and it was not due to partisan sponsoring but the very fact that the more we know, the more we actually know.

*Vaccines have never been labelled as 100% safe. That there are side effects for every working medical substance have been know for hundreds of years and there is no scientist or doctor that even once would believe that something is 100% safe.

*Fluoridation of drinking water in the therapeutic levels that is done to increase dental health have never been proven to be harmful. The case where it was proven to be harmful was from a place in China where the water had been contaminated with high levels of fluoride. As always the dose makes the poison and there is a big whooping difference between contamination and a therapeutic dose.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So you self identify as a weed now?

Re:The only problem

[Cinnamon Beige]

FTFA: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Let's start with the simple one! NYT is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It also has a bit of a history of being a lousy place to get your science news.

The IARC thing is two pages and doesn't include a single reference, citation, or smidgen of data. I'd not be able to use it as a citation for anything other than for it being considered a probable carcinogen by the IARC--it's remarkably free of statistics, and citations which is actually rather concerning, especially given how cancer actually works & why we have had the admission that most cancers are caused by...well...failing to die.

If you're trying to support a claim of 'causes cancer,' there's no substitute for quality peer-reviewed research when it comes to supporting the claims, especially since there's been some rather long-term problems with the quality of the research and how it gets interpreted.

The IARC paper places Roundup in group 2A, which it defines as:

Group 2A means that the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (called chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out. This category is also used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and strong data on how the agent causes cancer.

The translation for those not familiar with cancer research: "We need money for more research." You don't really get funding if you are wanting to show that something probably doesn't cause cancer...which is not something I'm comfortable with, so I pretty quickly figured out I want nothing to do with this field of research if I could help it.

Re:The only problem

[Rick Schumann]

Sad but true, but the EU banning glyphosate has some weight in this matter, too, and perhaps Bayer, being an EU company, buying out Monsanto will have some effect on this, they might stop making/selling glyphosate.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also worth noting that some people started having strange health problems with things like wheat back when Monsanto started really ramping up Roundup use back in the 80's.

Re:The only problem

[wisnoskij]

Carry a bottle of soapy water so you can rinse quickly if it spills on your skin.

Roundup is a soap. So you should be able to skip adding the soap to the water.

Re: The only problem

[sound vision]

I'm sure Monsanto has lots of money to fund a study aiming to prove that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer. I'd go so far as to say it's their duty to fund research on these things, since they are voluntarily choosing to manufacture and market them.

The big question then becomes how to decouple the researchers from the funders to eliminate bias. The easiest, actually the only way I could think of, is for these companies to be mandated to provide the funding to a third party who then administers it. I think, since they are currently in court regarding this, it would be appropriate for the order to come from the court.
Ideally, we'd have a proactive system to address this, but a court-ordered, reactive approach might get us to the same end: figuring out if the stuff causes cancer. But there are broader problems that won't be addressed without a proactive regulatory framework going forward: Restoring trust in the research community. Restoring trust in science in general. The entirety of Monsanto's assets and discoveries pale in comparison to that.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Robotic weed sprayers would use less product, I could see Monsanto bean counters objecting to that.

Re: The only problem

[c6gunner]

I'm sure Monsanto has lots of money to fund a study aiming to prove that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

You can never prove that something doesn't cause cancer. That's not how science works. All you can do is try to prove that it DOES cause cancer, and repeatedly fail. Which is what has happened every time anyone has tested it.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. Cheers.

Re: The only problem

[c6gunner]

Scientists claimed DDT is safe to spray on kids

It is. DDT was banned because it was linked to a decline in bird populations, not because of harm to humans.

Ditto agent orange

Why would you spray agent orange on children? It's an herbicide. Unless your kids name is Herb, you're just wasting money.

Anyway, agent orange on it's own isn't harmful to humans. The issue with the batches used was that they were contaminated with TCDD. And it was those eeeeevil scientists who discovered and pointed out the contamination issue.

Ditto morning sickness pills

Again, not sure why you're giving these to kids. Additionally, I'm not sure what you think the problem here is.

Ditto burning people at stake since they knew the Earth is flat

If you think that scientists were burning people at the stake, or claiming that the world is flat, you are one seriously deluded individual.

Scientists are good/useful but they operate best at theoretical level and need to be super super super careful before proceeding to anything beyond that, and that is not happening all the time

Whereas you operate at the "I'm just gonna make shit up" level, and think that this somehow makes you better than scientists.

Re:The only problem

[Dutch Gun]

I guess humor causes cancer in California as well.

Re:The only problem

[e432776]

you might find this approach interesting: abrasive weeding. Lower tech than bots pulling weeds, but promising. Of course, there are questions: weed root removal, crop damage, etc..

Re: The only problem

[c6gunner]

The EU has not banned glyphosate. In fact they just relicensed it last November for another 5 years

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That might work in your garden. It is not practical on a million acres of farm fields. If you want to use 18th century agriculture be my guest, but be prepared to use 18th century everything else. Have fun with you abacus

Re:The only problem

[ShanghaiBill]

The best approach is to simply cut the weeds

Many weeds will regrow from the root.

Glyphosate kills the entire plant.

Re: The only problem

[ShanghaiBill]

Roundup is approved for organic vegetables in the US and Canada.

No it isn't.

Re:The only problem

[ShanghaiBill]

Robotic weed sprayers would use less product, I could see Monsanto bean counters objecting to that.

They can object all they want, but Monsanto doesn't get a veto. Nobody needs their permission to build and market a robot.

Also, the Roundup patent is expired, and it is now a low margin generic product.

Re:The only problem

[eionmac]

"This can reduce herbicide use by 95%."
That is almost commercial death to Monsanto profits.

Re: The only problem

[jedidiah]

If your wife can't eat American bread, it's much more likely due to bromates that are banned in Europe versus Roundup that's only recently been given the could shoulder.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto is Cancer
The World according to Monsanto:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfNdej5hoVA

Re:The only problem

[HiThere]

If the scientists were being paid by a disinterested party, then you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately there's a very large amount of "science" that is twisted into confirming whatever the party that's paying for it wants to prove. And any findings that dispute that somehow never get published.

Now once upon a time University Science Departments were reliable. They were dirt poor, but they were reliable. (They usually depended on donations by the alumni.) But after various alterations in funding, patent law, etc. this is no longer true. So where are you going to find these "scientists paid by a disinterested party"? (Usually these published results aren't actually fraudulent, it's just that only the results that confirm what the funders want get published.)

Direct fraud is a separate matter, and has been a problem in science from the beginning. That's one reason why replication has always been considered essential.

Re:The only problem

[HiThere]

Sorry, but I've got to disagree a bit.
The evidence against dietary cholesterol was always extremely weak. It got picked up the way fad diets are always picked up, but there was enough surface plausibility that it became official, even overcoming the Dairy lobby.

Fluoridation of drinking water at the levels done to increase dental health has the problem of making the teeth slightly more brittle. This is clearly harmful, even though the main effect, reducing carries, is beneficial. And it's been shown to discolor the teeth in many places that have naturally high levels of fluoride in the water. I'm not sure that it makes the other bones more brittle, but that's certainly a plausible inference.

Re:The only problem

[HiThere]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source on *anything*, much less on anything controversial, or where someone has a monetary interest.

Wikipedia is useful, but it's sure not reliable. Documents by experts in a field are routinely rejected, and documents substantiated by some web page somewhere accepted.

Re: The only problem

[HiThere]

Well, California does have it's problems, and Monsanto(Bayer) is indefensible.

Re:The only problem

[HiThere]

That may be correct, but it's also true that medical diagnosis has gotten a lot more refined, and things that once weren't noticed now are.

OTOH, this would explain the people I've encountered who have said that they can't eat bread in the US, but when they visit France they have no problem..

Re:The only problem

[drinkypoo]

Many weeds will regrow from the root.

That's why you use a robot. It doesn't get upset if it has to cut the weed again.

Glyphosate kills the entire plant.

It also persists in anaerobic soil conditions created by mechanical tilling and harvesting. It's simply not acceptable.

Re: The only problem

[Cinnamon Beige]

I'm sure Monsanto has lots of money to fund a study aiming to prove that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

You can never prove that something doesn't cause cancer. That's not how science works. All you can do is try to prove that it DOES cause cancer, and repeatedly fail. Which is what has happened every time anyone has tested it.

Except you're not likely to manage better than 'maybe' since you get cancer pretty much by failing to die of something else--all cancers are ultimately caused by errors in DNA copying not being caught and cleared out. The systems that handle this are actually very, very good, with very low error rates, but...well, try enough times and you will have cancerous cells managing to survive long enough to be detected, especially as we get better at detection.

So, given that pretty much 'is not dead' is a confounding factor, you're going to always have some of your sample get cancer. What you actually need is to be able to show that it causes no increase in cancer rates in the group, which requires the law of large numbers and good luck getting that put together.

Personally, I suspect that with something like glyphosate, you might also have a certain amount of the risks be due to applying on the theory that "If a little is good, LOTS is BETTER!" This also has hit on cancer research--there are some food safety studies that, when you calculate the dose/weight ratio, you end up getting something utterly absurd such as it having been the equivalent of a human eating a bathtub of the substance...daily. Given that anything in sufficient amounts is deadly...

Re:The only problem

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Cancer is a disease. A disease is a chronic condition that degrades the organism.

Does Monsanto's existence net improve lives? Yes.

That is all.

I await my downmod now by those who wish to silence those who do not share their worldview.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, "before the whole picture was known" - that's now, that is.

We still don't know "the whole picture". Maybe we never will. And yet, at each stage, we (laypeople) have, historically, assumed that the scientists know what they're talking about, because they know more than us, right?

Now the idea is spreading that scientists still don't, in fact, know everything they opine about. (And scientists don't do themselves any favors by expressing opinions about things way outside their expertise.)

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> I await my downmod now by those who wish to silence those who do not share their worldview.

-1 flamebait for taunting.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is. -1 for trolling

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The target levels for flourides added to drinking water is typically less than the natural levels of flourides in many areas. They're actually looking to lower the recommend level because of flourinated toothpaste being in common enough use. What next, vaccines are bad, lets bring back Polio!

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So agent orange, morning sickness pills, and burning people at the stake cause health problems for the same reasons? You cannot cite those as evidence of anything unless they cause health problems through the same mechanisms. Otherwise you are just using a logical fallacy to try and prove a point.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one thing farmers are known for being loaded down with disposable income to buy and maintain army of high-tech weed pulling robots. I'm sure there are no other considerations.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a reliable source on anything? So you've read every article and determined every single one is inaccurate? Are you interviewing every expert who has tried to edit an article? Just because you don't like Wikipedia doesn't make it inaccurate. If you are going to make claims, at least be accurate considering that is what you are bitching about to begin with. You cannot discount a source just because it's wikipedia. Whether one article is accurate doesn't have a bearing on whether a completely different one is accurate.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is [safe to spray on kids]. DDT was banned because it was linked to a decline in bird populations, not because of harm to humans.

You're correct that it was banned because of its environmental effects rather than human health effects.

You're not correct that it is safe to spray on kids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Human_health

Re: The only problem

[pots]

Which is what has happened every time anyone has tested it.

The parent's link above says otherwise. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, from studies of exposures, and convincing evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals. The World Health Organization rates glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical EU protectionist behavior. If you can't innovate legislate.

I missed the announcement that California had left the USA and been admitted to the EU. Is it in the EU as its own country, or has it been subsumed by France on the basis of having good vineyards and nice beaches too? Will Californians now need to learn French?

Re:The only problem

[F.Ultra]

Yes the link was extremely weak and I'm even unsure if Science ever said that eggs where bad, this all seams to be from Medical Doctors in the 1970:ies that made the logical conclusion that eggs should increase the blood cholesterol levels. It was first when Science was applied that it was found out that this was not the cause.

But none of these little details matter, the AC parent tried to paint a picture that Science can not be trusted due to Science changing opinions every two seconds which I think that you will agree on simply is not true.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's frickin' lasers, and the problem is getting the sharks into the fields.

Re:The only problem

[angel'o'sphere]

That is why you read the article, decide for your self and/or follow the references.
Can't be so hard.

Re:The only problem

[HiThere]

I didn't say all the articles were wrong, I said they weren't reliable. Some of the actually seem correct, and about a large number I have no real opinion. But that's a bit different from thinking them reliable. Reliable means I would trust them without referring to external sources to verify them.

Re: The only problem

[c6gunner]

"Safe" is relative. Water is safe to spray on your kids, but that doesn't mean that water can't kill you. Salt and vinegar are both potentially harmful, but you feed them to your children.

The research on DDT suggest some possible risk but there's no conclusive evidence of harm at normal exposure levels, and the benefits generally far outweigh the risks. Like with nay other substance it's best to use it only when needed, and take proper safety precautions, but I would have no qualms about spraying it on children when needed.

Re: The only problem

[c6gunner]

There is not convincing evidence of carcinogenic effects in animals. They're simply wrong about that, and, as such, have obviously misclassified it.

That said, group 2a also involves "shift work" as a possible carcinogen. I would love to see what kind of shift work their laboratory animals were doing.

Re: The only problem

[catprog]

Scientists claimed DDT is safe to spray on kids

It is. DDT was banned because it was linked to a decline in bird populations, not because of harm to humans.

Also one of the tests they do know before using DDT is too see if the mosquitoes are immune to it.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans"

This is not the same as saying that it is an innocuous or near innocuous product. As an example, once upon a time there was "limited evidence" that smoking cigarettes caused cancer.

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"morning sickness pills" you mean the ones called Thalidomide?

Re: The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Roundup is approved for organic vegetables in the US and Canada. My exwife's immune system can't handle American bread as a result of her immune system going haywire. She can eat European bread fan just fine.

Thanks Monsanto

Do you still fuck your exwife?

If you are forced to pay alimony, you should! Alimony is "she got used to a particular lifestyle". Yeah, well, so did you. So she should legally be required to give you a regular fuck.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an example of utilitarian thinking - the greatest good of the greatest number. But what if you are one of those whose existence is snuffed out by Monsanto? Would you still have the same thought? This is where utilitarian thinking falls down.
You might want to read up on the alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
Hope that helps

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

A court FINDS that the chemicals used DO cause cancer

That doesn't make it correct. The finding was sadly by a jury of non-experts. This should not be allowed w/o proof that it occurred.

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Say you get rid of them. Now what? What is your plan for replacing them?

Re:The only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that Monsanto had to prove that they don't cause cancer, not the other way round.

Looks like Big Agri has somehow managed to reverse the burden of proof. Sweet.

Groundskeeper Johnny

[mentil]

groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson,

I bet his case was rock-solid.

Re:Groundskeeper Johnny

[Anonymous Coward]

smells like something is cooking

Re:Groundskeeper Johnny

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet his case was The Rock-solid.

Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is an outside janitor. No way he goona get that from them. Court will bring it down to what he is worth, maybe 100 Gs, if his heirs are lucky. Maybe if this was Steve Jobs, sucking on a chili dog outside the Tasty-freeze that was laced with Roundup! then yes.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[arbiter1]

290million is way beyond legal compensation. The appeal will bring it down to maybe a mill at most but would like to see what basis was used to claim it caused his cancer and if it even is valid to prove it was reason and not something else.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprised if Johnson and Johnson can get slammed for a dollar amount in that ballpark for a lady using baby powder up her twat. It's just a tad off label, right?

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[ArchieBunker]

The payout wasn't to compensate the victim. It was to punish the company who suppressed information that the product was dangerous.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[thesupraman]

Then why is it awarded to this one victim of a widely distributed herbicide?
The courts should have awarded it to medical care, cancer research, etc - or do they think they can award this to ever cancer sufferer who used roundup?

Re: Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

The courts should have awarded it to medical care, cancer research, etc - or do they think they can award this to ever cancer sufferer who used roundup?

It's the court. They can do whatever they want within existing legislation. That includes ordering a company pay out of 289 million to a victim for killing him while covering up information that could have saved his life.

If an individual person did the exact same thing instead of a group of people behind a corporate veil, they would be convicted of murder and spend the rest of their life in prison.

Real justice would be liquidating the company and putting all board members and executives in prison.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you thick headed or something? It was awarded to this one victim because he was the one who filed the lawsuit. I'm pretty sure his lawyer presented medical evidence. I could go on or you could at least read the fucking article.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[ArchieBunker]

I swear the autism level here is worse than 4chan.

Re: Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

And getting worse by the day.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

but he never proved it actually caused cancer. All he did is prove that roundup might have contributed to his cancer.

You just hate monsanto, bro

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFS:

a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers

That's all that matters.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably residual asbestos in the baby powder that caused the cancer. There was an asbestos issue with talcum 30-40 years ago.

Re:Ain't gonna pay out

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, people like you could really afford to troll somewhere else. -1 trolling

odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't it first be scientifically, or at least statistically proven, that glyphosate can cause cancer and then proven, that Monsanto knew about this, but still gave no warnings?

Re:odd result

[ShanghaiBill]

Shouldn't it first be scientifically, or at least statistically proven, that glyphosate can cause cancer

No. The courts should be accessible to everyone, even janitors. Nobody should have to wait for permission from scientists before seeking justice. It is not the janitor's fault that no conclusive research has been done, so why should he be denied his day in court?

Re:odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't it first be scientifically, or at least statistically proven, that glyphosate can cause cancer and then proven, that Monsanto knew about this, but still gave no warnings?

If it was anyone but Monsanto, yes. But it is monsanto, so no.

Fuck Monsanto - the only justice they deserve is to be shut down.

Re:odd result

[thesupraman]

Great!
I claim ShanghaiBill causes brain cancer from reading the shite he posts! who wants to join me in a class action?

After all, we dont need proof, our 'day in court' is all that matters (that and the massive lottery payout)

Re:odd result

[gravewax]

You are talking about the US and specifically California. Science and reality has no place in the courtroom.

Re: odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

Except itâ(TM)s not
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html

Re:odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to murder him!

Re:odd result

[overnight_failure]

What tosh. Accessibility has nothing to do with whether the case has merit.

But it's more worrying that you believe facts should not be required in a court of law.

Re:odd result

[DNS-and-BIND]

You'll find that society looks very negatively on deplorables like the janitor, and even worse at science deniers.

Re:odd result

[thegarbz]

Nobody should have to wait for permission from scientists before seeking justice. It is not the janitor's fault that no conclusive research has been done, so why should he be denied his day in court?

He should be free to go to court as much as he wants. He should also be free to be sent back home with nothing but lawyers fees.

Now be prepared I'm going to sue you for my black eye. What do you mean that it wasn't proven that you caused it? Clearly irrelevant. I want justice and you should pay for my black eye which I claim you caused.

Re: odd result

[Billly Gates]

It has been scientifically proven through Monsantos own documents which is how they lost in court.

The EU has already banned it and here is a citation: https://www.scientificamerican...

Re:odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

Trumpism?

Re:odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

Glyphosate isn't the only thing in Roundup. Roundup also contains chemicals that enable it to penetrate the outer leaf barrier that may be worse than Glyphosate but they are a trade secret. These other chemicals have not been tested separately and could conceivably make it into another herbicidal formulation even if Roundup was banned.

Re:odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto maker of agent orange & pcbs has now married it's soulmate Bayer maker of heroin, mustard gas, zyklon-b, and AIDS tainted Factor VIII

Re: odd result

[c6gunner]

It has been scientifically proven through Monsantos own documents which is how they lost in court.

No, it hasn't.

The EU has already banned it

No, it hasn't. Last november the EU renewed the glyphosate license for 5 more years. You're just making shit up.

and here is a citation: https://www.scientificamerican...

That "citation" is a crappy article about some idiots who - when they couldn't prove that glyphosate itself was dangerous - instead tested one of the additives. That additive is essentially soap.

That's right, these utter morons put soap on a bunch of cells in a Petri dish and then yelled "OMG this shit kills cells in a Petri dish!"

Yes, we know that soap kills cells in a Petri dish. We've known that for a long, long time. It tells us absolutely nothing about the safety of glyphosate, or of roundup.

Re:odd result

[Anonymous Coward]

  Nobody should have to wait for permission from scientists before seeking justice. It is not the janitor's fault that no conclusive research has been done, so why should he be denied his day in court?

I don't know.. maybe because justice is supposed to be based on facts, not emotions? It's certainly possible that Roundup causes cancer. I sure as hell don't trust corporations to provide me with an honest opinion. But I also don't trust victims either. In the early 1990s the courts ruled against silicone breast implant makers, claiming that they caused all kinds of weird auto-immune diseases (based on about zero science). Not long after there were several studies (One from Mayo) that indicated that silicone breast implants DON'T cause these diseases, though they did occasionally rupture. It didn't matter of course, since the damage had already been done by the courts, various media outlets, and a nervous-nelly public that's ready to suck up any "X chemical cause Y harm". For gods sake, that idiot in CA went after freaking coffee! It also didn't really help that certain people didn't really approve of breast implants in the first place.

It's a weird world we live in. In the 60 and 70s we lived in a very toxic world. Lead paint, asbestos, DDT, Agent Orange, PCBs, and a litany of other toxic crap was just everywhere. Companies used to just dump crap into a dump on their property. Where I live in MN there were several superfund sites with high levels of contamination from organizations doing exactly this. My own drinking water was contaminated with waste from the US Army Ammunition plant.

There was a lot of lying by corporations to cover this stuff up. The science was relatively clear though, and we banned lead, DDT, PCBs, etc. It's a much cleaner world now as a result. But those early victories, and lying corporations of real problems have just lead to more and more fears about "chemicals".

Not all this crap is as toxic as it's made out to be. Is roundup toxic? I've used it myself, but I treat it like it's potentially a problem. Personally if I were exposed to herbicides all the time, I'd take precautions because... who knows? Maybe the studies are wrong. But to award someone who got cancer millions of dollars based on zero science is just wrong, and sets a bad precedence.

Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purpuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop spreading disinformation everywhere. The problem isn't glyphosate, the problem is everything else that's put into Roundup. Monsanto goes around saying glyphosate is safe and waves a bunch of valid studies in your face. They are correct. Other people go around saying roundup is dangerous and wave a bunch of valid studies in your face. They too are correct. Then everyone fights and bitches at each other. Too bad people are arguing over two different things.

Basically A is claiming the sky is blue therefore the sky is blue. B is claiming the grass is green therefore the sky is green. So A ends up laughing at B every time A goes to the bank.

Stop saying glyphosate/roundup. Stop saying "glyphosate" or "containing glyphosate". The glyphosate doesn't matter and is only a distraction from the real issue. Stop being easily manipulated sheep, you don't even notice how many people are fucking you. Words matter so use the correct ones and pay attention to the ones other people use.

Ranked

[Kunedog]

Second-highest paid actor and now second-highest paid De?wayne Johnson.

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[Anonymous Coward]

Upon careful examination, I've discovered that the parent does not include any ad hominem attacks. This is no way to win an argument on the modern web!
The post also needs more false analogy, circular reasoning, and slippery slope conclusions!

Keep trying. You'll learn one day!

/s

Re:The Jury

[CharlesAKAChuck]

That's easy-it was in California. EVERYTHING in California causes cancer. EVERYTHING. Therefore, if someone says RoundUp gave them cancer, then in California it's an automatic win, because EVERYTHING in California causes cancer.

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should name which specific chemical you're referring to, instead of saying 'everything else'. What else is in Roundup?
According to this source:
ethoxylated tallowamine (surfactant)
Related organic acids of glyphosate
Excess isopropylamine (chemical used to turn the glyphosate into a more stable salt form)

Furthermore, it was found by a toxicologist 30 years ago that Roundup's surfactant was contaminated with small amounts of 1,4-Dioxane, which is known to be carcinogenic in animals. However, it's less than clearly carcinogenic to humans. Furthermore, this is a frequent contaminant of chemicals ubiquitous in toothpaste and shampoo, which is arguably a larger problem than incidental Roundup exposure. Does roundup even still contain this contaminant? They may have improved their processes in the past 30 years, or use a different surfactant. There are other glyphosate formulations that use different surfactants/salt forms, so the only common ingredient would be glyphosate.

Re:The Jury

[Anonymous Coward]

How many chemists were on the jury, as opposed to half a dozen mailmen and kindergarten teachers like there always seems to be?

Re:The Jury

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!!!!

A chemist would certainly be disqualified before ever being allowed on the jury.

Only the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.

California says coffee causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

California says coffee causes cancer. Did they ask Mr. Johnson if he ever drank coffee?

What about if he breathed the smog-filled air, which is known to cause cancer?

Jury trials in medical related cases are hilarious. Which is why they have an appeals process.

Talcum powder $72 million

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way, that using talcum powder on your tush doesn't cause ovarian cancer:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/02/24/johnson-johnson-lawsuit-baby-powder-talcum-ovarian-cancer-link/80845030/

They get these fake scientists to testify and the jury uses that fake evidence.

Monsanto

[tquasar]

Remember Roundup Ready seeds? Engineered to produce crops that would survive direct application of the herbicide. Farmers were coerced to use Roundup and also buy seed instead of saving or banking seed from a previous season. Adjacent fields were affected by Roundup and pollen that drifted on the wind. https://www.sourcewatch.org/in... .

Re:Monsanto

[quenda]

There are plenty of bad things than Monsanto have done. And I'd like to see reform on GM patents.

But your story is a myth. Only a small number of farmers were sued, and Monsanto won each case because those few farmers had deliberately (re)used Monsanto seed without paying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

also terminator seeds are not on the market because people like him freaked out over it, but that doesn't stop them from claiming they are

Re:Monsanto

[angel'o'sphere]

Since the midâ'1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won

145 is not a small number, and considering that none of them actually did anything wrong it was only a killing spray of Monstanto.

Re:Monsanto

[Megol]

none of them actually did anything wrong

Citation needed. Actually it's not needed as your "none" makes the statement false, more than one farmer have been proven to deliberately plant seeds protected by a Monsanto patent without the right to do so.

Re:Monsanto

[Mashiki]

145 isn't small? Where the hell do you live? There's more then 1800 farmers in just the county I live in, and the average farm is around 150 acres in size and this is a tiny county compared to say Durham or Niagara counties, that's not even touching the areas in the green belt.

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck, he planted seeds! LOCK HIM UP!

Re:Monsanto

[angel'o'sphere]

Yeah, 145 is not small ... we are talking here about people, I think that is quite an amount.

This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[raymorris]

Exactly. Apparently this guy was constantly working with 50 pound bags of the stuff every day or whatever. Breathing in the dust all time, having it on his skin dissolved in sweat all the time, etc. That's very different from the tiny amount of residue a typical person might be exposed to.

Sunlight increases cancer risk (and has health benefits), the human body naturally produces formaldehyde, a carcinogen. All the other things make your exposure and my exposure to Roundup statistical noise, insignificant compared to other things. The plaintiff here had a million times as much exposure than average people do, it seems. That could very well make a difference.

Re:This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[ShanghaiBill]

Roundup is a liquid, not a powder, and the applicators are designed to produce droplets, not an atomized mist that can be inhaled. If he was breathing it, he was doing something wrong.

Re:This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[wisnoskij]

The article I readed stated he got completely drenched in the stuff twice. I think we can assume he was doing something wrong.

Re:This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[Anonymous Coward]

| The article I readed stated he got completely drenched in the stuff twice. I think we can assume he was doing something wrong.

And this makes Monsanto culpable? If I drench myself in gasoline and set fire to myself, do I get to blame big oil?

Re:This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

Re:This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[MerlTurkin]

BINGO!

Re:This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[jedidiah]

Roundup has been a common farm chemical since before many of you were born. If the cause+effect is really that legitimate here, then there should be a lot more farmers in this guy's position.

Re:This guy was covered in it, breathing it, daily

[HiThere]

Are there? Would they be the farmers, or the hired laborers? Would the hired laborers be able to either trace the blame or hire a lawyer or document what has happened?

Your basic point is correct, that if this is true one wold expect there to be a lot of victims. I'm just not convinced that they'd know why they got sick or be able to prove it, or even afford to do anything about it even if both of the preceding conditions were met.

FWIW, I'm not convinced that he is correctly attributing the cause of his cancer, but if he is correct I wouldn't expect many others to have done so.

Sooner or later...

[hyades1]

I wonder how long it will be before we get that "perfect storm" team. Let's say, for the sake of argument, a guy with Special Forces training, a phishing expert, and somebody with a lot of money. Let's say all of them are suffering from terminal diseases everybody, including Monsanto's team of lawyers, know were caused by Monsanto products. And when they meet up at some kind of "accept your mortality" workshop, they decide no cost is too high, if the end result is the Monsanto board of directors kicking away their lives at the end of a rope.

Sooner or later, as the environment steadily degrades, we're going to get to the point where the people who made it happen, or their descendants, are going to be held accountable. No doubt there's a fun-filled action adventure movie to be made out of such a story...or maybe a few headlines.

Re:Sooner or later...

[c]

if the end result is the Monsanto board of directors kicking away their lives at the end of a rope.

Honestly, I'm mildly surprised that people aren't already hunting down HMO execs and pharma bros in the streets of the United States. When you have a confluence of easy access to firearms, desperate and angry victims, a culture that appears to accept violence as a solution to personal grievances, and assholes like Shkreli, you kinda expect a few people would connect the dots.

Re:Sooner or later...

[Miles_O'Toole]

Well said, my friend!

Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Roundup is highly toxic ans Monsanto has covered thia up for years. Duck the bastards.

neonicotinoid = round up

[Archfeld]

Did not Bayer just acquire Monsanto for 66 Billion ? That amount should just about cover the damages that are going to be discovered. This cover up is going to make Mesothelioma look like a common cold. Bayer knew long ago that Round-Up was malignant and caused a wide variety of issues, up to and including Colony Collapse Disorder, or the disappearing Bee issue felt around the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:neonicotinoid = round up

[mentil]

From what I can quickly find online, glyphosate doesn't seem to be a neonicotinoid. Citation that it is?
I don't contest that there are other health concerns with glyphosate.

Re:neonicotinoid = round up

[gawdonblue]

Are you suggesting this is yet another instance of US courts finding foreign companies guilty and subjecting them to outrageous amounts in damages, as a form of anti-competitive tariff? Sounds reasonable.

Re:California also says...

[Anonymous Coward]

electronics that contain even traces of lead which the user never comes in contact with cause cancer. California also says that pumping gasoline at the gas station causes cancer.

Sadly, California is not alone in this (it has copied various European precedents on a bunch of this stuff) and other states too happily follow California into this madness.

Doubt this verdict and award will stand through the appeals process, given the lack of actual proof that this particular person got cancer from this particular product while he was exposed to so many other carcinogens and so many other people who used this particular product did not get cancer. I'm not some cold-hearted person who does not understand the distress of the "victim" - my dad recently died of a nasty cancer and I do not know what caused it, but I'm certainly not lashing-out at society looking for something...anything... to blame without regard to the stats.

Re:California also says...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember buying a sound card at Frys and it came with a piece of paper saying it caused cancer.

Re:California also says...

[Anonymous Coward]

The note was written with a pencil containing actual lead.

No, he was careful enough, you were lying.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was said HAS A LINK TO CANCER. And that is 100% accurate. And the link is strong enough to say it DOES cause cancer. Any single one may not be o caused, but when it comes to cancer this is NOT the standard and by demanding that we pussy foot around truth and reality is how YOU are lying your arse off.

Re: No, he was careful enough, you were lying.

[c6gunner]

The link is the same link you find between water and cancer: some people who use it also happen to get cancer. Idiots think that this is somehow significant.

Re: No, he was careful enough, you were lying.

[djinn6]

False comparison. Nobody can to do a controlled trial with water, but they can for glyphosate. If the glyphosate group had higher incidence of cancer than the control group, then it's valid to say there's a potential link between the two.

Re: No, he was careful enough, you were lying.

[c6gunner]

It would be valid, yes. But since no such link has been demonstrated, my comparison is entirely valid.

Yet another lying shithead.

[Anonymous Coward]

No the court and jury listen to the experts brought by the attorneys. THOSE PEOPLE ARE SCIENTISTS YOU LYING SHITWAD. Either you're convinced that the attorneys for Monsato are incompetent idiots or their scientists were.

Re: Yet another lying shithead.

[Anonymous Coward]

And OJ was innocent

Re: Yet another lying shithead.

[Anonymous Coward]

And Trump is a traitor.

Odd. It already has.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that information was presented to the jury via the lawyers and this was why they came to the result they did. Why would YOU come to such a conclusion? Because you're venal and a liar? Well, don't project that onto others because you didn't read the fucking article.

Citation not needed. Innocent until proven guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how shills need PROOF that Roundup causes cancer and decry "insane Californians" ignoring "science" yet here you are, the same fuckwitted moron, proclaiming the farmers guilty without any proof or evidence.

By which you mean "Don't aree with me!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're a fucking nutcase who doesn't like reality and the only way to can clink on to the belief you're not a retarded idiot is by projecting your problems onto others.

Glycophosphate probably doesn't cause cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Monsanto, but this probably isn't one of them. Glycophosphate isn't new, it has been used in tremendous quantity all over the US for more than half a century. If it was even a mild carcinogen, the response particularly in the farming community would be expected to be clear, but no such link has been seen. Research has been done to show it to be carcinogenic and it has all come up inconclusive.

You have to understand that the biological mechanism glycophosphate stops is specific to photosynthesizing plants. I best heard a biologist sum it up this way: "Be very careful around insecticides, because you fundamentally aren't that different from an insect. But herbacides aren't usually a concern."

I'm not involved in this industry in any way, but my parents farm so I've done some looking into these thing for their benefit (I have a strong science background so have a pretty good basis to form a lay understanding). This business of letting a bunch of random people just declare that they think something is/isn't dangerous is insane. They have no basis for understanding, they sit in a box while one side tries to catch up the last 30 years of science they missed while the other shows pictures of cancer to them. It's the same absurdity as having people with zero coding experience rule on the nuances of software design. It has to stop, we need a legal pathway like the patent courts where educated experts make these decisions. Cancer is increasingly a cause of death as we extend our lives, and anyone that gets cancer looks for a reason why... nobody fundamentally likes accepting that statistics but them in the ass. This will get out of control right quick if it isn't stopped.

Re:Glycophosphate probably doesn't cause cancer

[dgatwood]

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Monsanto, but this probably isn't one of them. Glycophosphate isn't new, it has been used in tremendous quantity all over the US for more than half a century.

It was introduced in 1974, but its popularity really took off in the 1980s. Interestingly, cancer incidence in the United States has been on a steady climb in the U.S. since about 1980. That increased incidence could entirely be a side effect of better detection, or Monsanto could be responsible for one of the biggest public health crises in our nation's history, or anything in between.

Round up use

[Anonymous Coward]

I use roundup and dont have cancer. Still want some money though.

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd probably do well with a car analogy this one.

the stuff is poison, so is monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

a poster child for evil, monsanto kills people, and the environment, in order to make excess wealth for the overly affluent. What a great system, people should be so proud of what they've accomplished here on this planet. (that we're busy terminally exploiting)

Roundup is glyphosphate + surfactants + other ingr

[lenski]

From some reading I did two years ago, Monsanto is Very Careful to state that _glyphosphate_ has been tested for toxicity in harvested agricultural products and has at most a very weak link to cancer in some test animals.

That said, the other ingredients in the Roundup product which are intended to optimize its effects are a closely held secret, and (as of my reading two years ago) no entity, scientific or government regulatory agency has been able to study their health effects properly.

So _glyphosphate_ is reported by its manufacturer to be safe for its intended application, and leave the question about Roundup unanswered. Given the known behavior patterns of corporate managers throughout history, they are probably telling half the truth and making sure it's impossible to know the whole truth, whatever it may be.

Re: Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Pur

[Billly Gates]

Here is a citation that shows glyphosates are toxic and should go NOWHERE NEAR are food: https://www.scientificamerican...

Our wonderful civil court system at work

[Applehu Akbar]

Even vague and generalized research implications of cancer for a product that every homeowner uses successfully on his lawn are worth a huge amount of money, while Nicholas White, the New Yorker who, riding an elevator to work on a Friday evening, was stuck there for an entire weekend, got nothing but his legal expenses back after a 4-year struggle.

https://www.reddit.com/r/video...

If only it had been a Monsanto elevator.

Thanks. I wonder if it's similar

[raymorris]

Thanks. I didn't know if it was mixed with water after sale in commercial / large applications. You can tell I'm not a farmer.

You mention "the applicators are designed to". I use some stuff that is sprayed and then the droplets harden. I the end up sorting them by size. to spraying process produces mostly droplets in the size range it's designed to, and fewer that are much larger or much smaller. I'm also reminded of the sprayer on the end of my garden hose, which mostly produces a stream of very large drops, and also produces a mist around the sprayer which cools me off on a hot day. I wonder if the sprayer he used was similar - producing MOSTLY drops in the size range it designed to favor.

Re:Thanks. I wonder if it's similar

[ShanghaiBill]

I'm also reminded of the sprayer on the end of my garden hose, which mostly produces a stream of very large drops, and also produces a mist around the sprayer which cools me off on a hot day..

In addition to glyphosate, Roundup also contains surfactants that inhibit misting. A garden hose is typically about 40 PSI. Roundup sprayers are much lower pressure.

Insecticide sprayers use very high pressure and tiny nozzles, because they need the mist to reach the underside of the leaves, where bugs are more likely to be. But with herbicides, that is unnecessary, and misting is just wasteful, as well as potentially harmful.

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah, sure thing. No possible way those 'studies' could be falsified, or cherrypicked, and no way they could be supressing studies that don't support their narrative, because after all it's only a measly BILLIONS OF DOLLARS that are at stake for them, why would they POSSIBLY BE LYING!? Because Monsanto is just such a wonderful advocate for humanity!

Also, yeah sure the entire EU is smoking crack and that's why they've banned glyphosate.

How much is Monsanto paying you to astroturf, by the way? Where do I apply? I could use some extra income.</sarcasm>

There are CHEAPER and SAFER and EFFECTIVE Chems!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in a bad situation right now where my township is coming after me for my weeds, on a rather steep hill with rocky terrain that makes weedwacking difficult. Darn things grow 10 inches in 3 days. I have to keep them below 3 inches.

I hate the idea of using these chemicals where my kids play. I trust 'em even less than tobacco companies.

So I did my research. A $15 pump sprayer from Harbor Freight. 5% Vinegar at $2.48 a gallon from Walmart. Add in a couple squirts of Dawn Dishwashing Soap (per gallon). Spray in the morning, get sunlight into the mix. The combination is a powerful natural defoliant. Fairly safe for humans. We eat off plates washed with Dawn. The Vinegar is consider a food item. Yet it kills every plant it touches dead & brown in 3 or 4 hours. Doesn't get the roots. Plants still grow back, so you need to spray again. (Although I'm told mixing in a little salt, as in NaCl, and nothing will grow there again.) Best of all, it's completely safe for kids & pets.

Something to think about...

Re: Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Pur

[sound vision]

I'm paying attention to your words but there is no content in them. You tell us we are ignoring the real issue and conveniently never go over what that issue is.

More smoke and mirrors than Justin Timberlake collaborating with Snoop Dogg.

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[Anonymous Coward]

The other things in glyphosate are all on a list approved for use by the EPA as safe and are just as highly regulated as glyphosate. In any case, it is unlikely that the person in question was ever exposed to glyphosate in any significant way unless he was bathing in it.

This lawsuit is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole thing is just a bunch of lawyers trying to get rich. There is plenty of evidence that glyphosate is safe and no credible evidence that it causes cancer. The studies used to show it as carcinogenic have all been discredited by third parties. I will not defend the competence of the EPA, but that is not Monsanto's fault and it is worthwhile to note that the European safety organizations are also saying it is safe, and they hate Monsanto. I am sorry that this man got cancer, but it happens to lots of people including those born long before modern pesticides.

From what I've read....

[MerlTurkin]

This guy basically covered himself in the stuff regularly. You HAVE to read the labels and wear appropriate gear. Sounds to me like it was mostly his own fault. I do feel bad for the man but common sense needs to be used. MILLIONS of people use this stuff with no issues at all.

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[squiggleslash]

How much is Monsanto paying you to astroturf, by the way? Where do I apply? I could use some extra income.

Did you even read the GP?

He's explicitlysaying that Round-up is cancerous, it's just it's not the active ingredient, glyphosate, that's causing the cancer:

The problem isn't glyphosate, the problem is everything else that's put into Roundup (...)Other people go around saying roundup is dangerous and wave a bunch of valid studies in your face. They too are correct

The first sentence I quote BTW is the second sentence of the OP. The first is just a call not to spread disinformation, and the rest of the comment implies that this is because it lets Monsanto off the hook to concentrate on the non-cancerous part of Round-up and ignore that it's Round-up, not the active ingredient, that's the problem here.

Re:EVERYTHING in California causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, this was Benicia which is just around the corner from Richmond which is the home of Oil Refineries and other Toxic Industries and has been for years.
It is ridiculous to say what causes something 20 years later.

Re: Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Pur

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia vs Scientific American?

Glyphosates are toxic.

They'll never pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm a cynic. They will spend ten times or a hundred times that amount on appeals in order to overturn the verdict. This is the way corporations' operate. They cannot let the judgement stand, they cannot every admit liability.

I feel bad for the guy who is dying of cancer. He really should work on enjoying what little time he has left. Being in court against a corporation is not a good way to do that.

So THAT is how I can get the mosquitoes

[raymorris]

> Insecticide sprayers use very high pressure and tiny nozzles, because they need the mist to reach the underside of the leaves, where bugs are more likely to be.

Interesting. Makes sense. I read that the mosquitoes are probably hanging out on the bottom of the leaves in my hedges, but I wasn't sure how to get a good spray there. A high-pressure mist makes sense.

Even Oxygen

[onyxruby]

I once bought a canister of oxygen for doing some plumbing work. While hooking it up I noticed warning label stating that the contents were known to cause cancer in the state of California. If oxygen can cause cancer, than anything can cause cancer.

Re:The Jury

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy-it was in California. EVERYTHING in California causes cancer. EVERYTHING. Therefore, if someone says RoundUp gave them cancer, then in California it's an automatic win, because EVERYTHING in California causes cancer.

Is that why so many people move to CA from shithole states?

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't glyphosate, the problem is everything else that's put into Roundup.

This is certainly possible. But how do we know? I don't know of any study that says this stuff is dangerous. That doesn't mean it's not.. but what are we going on here? Some people got cancer and also used Roundup? Given the popularity of Roundup, it'd be incredibly surprising if it weren't true.

Follow the science not Monsanto Shills

[Martin S.]

The British Medical Journal, the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/jour...

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he wins, and I hope he wins ALL of the 289 million.

Set the precedent for the next 5000 plaintiffs.

289 million x 5000 = one trillion four hundred forty-five billion.

I really want to see this happen.

You had me until...

[Anonymous Coward]

...are food.

How are we supposed to trust the word of someone who does not know the difference between are and our?

Re:Bullshit, Horrible Reporting Everywhere On Purp

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you're trustworthy and know exactly what you are talking about, but you're going to need to provide sources for your claim. You cannot for instance say "it's the other chemicals in Roundup" if you have not identified those chemicals in your statement and provided the studies backing those claims up. It's already preposterous that no one else but you has noticed it's a different chemical. Your sheep comment comes off as paranoid conspiracy theory crap so there's an extra burden of proof needed.

You can drink a whole quart of it...

[Layzej]

glyphosate is likely not something you're going to want as a seasoning on your food but...

On the contrary. According to Monsanto spokesperson Patrick Moore, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...>"You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you"

Possibly claims like this didn't help them in the lawsuit.

Re:You can drink a whole quart of it...

[will_die]

If you look at Dr. T. Colin Campbell The China Study fame, famous among the "eating meat is murder" crowd he also feed glyphosate to cancer prone mice and if you read his results those had a less chance of dying then his non-glyphosate mice.

Re:You can drink a whole quart of it...

[Layzej]

Bottom's up I guess, but not for me. "I'm not stupid" as Patrick Moore says when offered a glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:The Jury

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy-it was in California. EVERYTHING in California causes cancer. EVERYTHING. Therefore, if someone says RoundUp gave them cancer, then in California it's an automatic win, because EVERYTHING in California causes cancer.

Ever heard of a category of fallacies called "sweeping statements"?