Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
FTFA: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson,
I bet his case was rock-solid.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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").
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%.
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.
The payout wasn't to compensate the victim. It was to punish the company who suppressed information that the product was dangerous.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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?
Yeah, obviously Monsanto has nothing to hide...
https://truthout.org/articles/secret-documents-expose-monsantos-war-on-cancer-scientists/
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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.