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...
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/
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.
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.