Slashdot Mirror
Jury Finds Bayer's Roundup Weedkiller Caused Man's Cancer (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Shares in Germany's Bayer's fell more than 12 percent on Wednesday after a second U.S. jury ruled its Roundup weed killer caused cancer. Tuesday's unanimous jury decision in San Francisco federal court was not a finding of Bayer's liability for the cancer of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman. Liability and damages will be decided by the same jury in a second trial phase beginning on Wednesday. Bayer, which denies allegations that glyphosate or Roundup cause cancer, said it was disappointed with the jury's initial decision. Bayer acquired Monsanto, the longtime maker of Roundup, for $63 billion last year. The case was only the second of some 11,200 Roundup lawsuits to go to trial in the United States. Another California man was awarded $289 million in August after a state court jury found Roundup caused his cancer. That award was later reduced to $78 million and is on appeal.
Bayer had claimed that jury was overly influenced by plaintiffs' lawyers allegations of corporate misconduct and did not focus on the science. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called such evidence "a distraction" from the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. He split the Hardeman case into two phases: one to decide causation, the other to determine Bayer's potential liability and damages. Under Chhabria's order, the second phase would only take place if the jury found Roundup to be a substantial factor in causing Hardeman's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The jury found that it was on Tuesday.
Bayer had claimed that jury was overly influenced by plaintiffs' lawyers allegations of corporate misconduct and did not focus on the science. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called such evidence "a distraction" from the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. He split the Hardeman case into two phases: one to decide causation, the other to determine Bayer's potential liability and damages. Under Chhabria's order, the second phase would only take place if the jury found Roundup to be a substantial factor in causing Hardeman's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The jury found that it was on Tuesday.
Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict. This is insane. We have "votes" on climate change, and a "jury of your peers" to decide on medical and biological science.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Asking for a fried
I don't care what a jury of Jerry Springer-watching automatons find about scientific subjects.
Bayer acquired Monsanto, the longtime maker of Roundup, for $63 billion last year.
Oops. The Germans probably reviewed the science behind the case, determined there is no way Monsanto is liable and proceeded with the acquisition.
Welcome to the US legal system bitches!
It's obviously poisonous, so drinking large quantities of it is potentially harmful. But the long-term effects of everything from roundup to coffee and wine also cause or cure cancer, there is just not enough data.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Post the scientific study that proves it or GTFO.
You mean to tell me nobody wanted to turn the 11,200 separate lawsuits into a class action so that they each can get a coupon for $5 off their next gallon of Roundup?
Profanity is a weak mind expressing itself.
An invalid and overused addage. It merely exposes weak vocabulary or, alternatively, the selection of "lesser words" in order to apeal to an audience with diminished vocaublary. It does not indicate the absence of intellect or comprehension are they are not mutually exclusive.
Today's breast implants are not yesterday's breast implants. Thanks in part to the motivation of manufacturers to develop safer implants in order to avoid ruinous lawsuits. When there are no consequences, like say for companies with customer facing units that are online which suddenly expose user credentials and personal information - then the lack of consequences guarantees no one gives a shit and data breaches keep happening. The day there's a billion dollar lawsuit against one of these large firms because of a data breach, you bet your ass that security will suddenly be taken seriously.
It's not just about evidence of culpability, but also about the insane payouts. GP is 100% right that these are ultimately paid for by the rest of us. Our legal system here might be a bit stingy in that it only awards claims for actual material damages like medical bills or loss of income, with tiny amounts (5 figures perhaps) for "mental anguish" (not having a jury decide such things helps a lot). We do not have anything like punitive damages either; any fines are paid to the state. Now if someone suffered from another one's fault, especially in cases of negligence, carelessness or wilful wrongdoing, I think a reasonable amount of punitive damages ought to be awarded. But $289 million or even $78 million to any single individual is completely insane.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The lawyers will make out well, they are the only winners.
Corporatism != Free Market
Hurr durr go drink some vaccines and don't get teh autism's!!!!
Bayer, which denies allegations that glyphosate or Roundup cause cancer
I've never seen a quote from Monsanto/Bayer that claims Roundup as a whole does not cause cancer. It's always phrased in some lawyer-weaselly way to only cover some of the ingredients in Roundup, e.g this quote from the BBC article
Bayer continues "to believe firmly that science confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer".
It always sets of my BS detector that it leaves a loop hole for one of the solvents or even the glyphosate when combined with one of the solvents to cause cancer.
" GP is 100% right that these are ultimately paid for by the rest of us " = Monsanto does not get my money. I do not use ANY of their products or derivatives. If you paid them, you deserve their cancers.
The fact that it's very, very, very difficult to prove cancers are caused by specific exposures and to sue to get compensation results in the large payouts, because the company responsible has KNOWN they are and CONTINUED this.
Trolls gonna troll.
The IARC review notes that there have been limited human trials looking for a link to cancer in humans. Several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found a significant link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
Other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
There is "evidence" that water is toxic. We should F'ING BAN THAT CRAP. THOUSANDS of people are KILLED by water every year! FACT.
What the actual science says:
ONE international organization (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) concluded that glyphosate *MAY* be a carcinogen, while several others, including the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), have determined that it is *UNLIKELY* to be a carcinogen.
So you can take your snowflake and shove it.
Post the scientific study that proves it or GTFO.
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
The IARC review notes that there have been limited human trials looking for a link to cancer in humans. Several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found a significant link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
Other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
The IARC review notes that there have been limited human trials looking for a link to cancer in humans. Several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found a significant link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
Other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
How much would we need to pay you to endure years of treatments almost as toxic as the disease with no certainty that you won't die of the disease anyway, or ironically, die of the treatment for the disease? All the whiole, massive medical bills come in and you rarely feel good enough that you can do anything for 8 hours, much less work?
And, by the way, you have about a 50-50 shot at living 10 years from today.
Now, ask how many bazillion dollars Monsanto made by gambling with YOUR life.
.
Wrong. Slashdot is the world leader of Glyphosate and I don't have cancer yet.
The IARC review notes that there have been limited human trials looking for a link to cancer in humans. Several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found a significant link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
Other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
Roundup is a probable carcinogen now directly linked to provably causing non-Hodg lymphomas. You're a moron denialist, not a scientist, not even a reader.
roundup has other things besides glysophate in it, and it's likely those are the cancer causing compounds. e.g. Bayer is using glysophate as a red herring to get out of paying.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The IARC review notes that there have been limited human trials looking for a link to cancer in humans. Several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found a significant link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
Other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
there's a nice big paper trail where the big wigs were aware of risks and ignored them. That's probably the biggest issue. e.g. the paper trail doesn't being with "There are risks, we need to research them" and then end with "We researched them and they are safe". It begins with "There are risks, we need to bury them" and ends there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's what you get for allowing a Nazi company to continue to exist. The company and the money they stole during the holocaust should have been liquidated and given to victims, instead they kept it and created cancer poison.
An invalid and overused addage. It merely exposes weak vocabulary or, alternatively, the selection of "lesser words" in order to apeal to an audience with diminished vocaublary. It does not indicate the absence of intellect or comprehension are they are not mutually exclusive.
No, but it sure does SUGGEST a woeful lack of vocabulary, which is a indicator of intelligence. It tells me that the individual is struggling to express themselves in a constructive and persuasive way. They are frustrated and angry.
In my book, cussing is an indication that the person has lost the debate but is too emotionally invested in the subject to admit what everybody else knows, that they are unable to argue their point.
At the least they should be on the hook for those medical bills and covering my expected income, to be continued to be paid to my family when I am dead, as any reasonable court would award. That alone can run in the millions already. But as for mental anguish? A million seems fair, sure I'd take more but if a judge awarded me $1M on top of damages, I wouldn't feel hard done by. Sure, my life would still be ruined, but that's just life. It happens. These gambles take place several times a day, because while people, governments and companies do take pains to prevent mishaps, no one is willing to pay the price for 100% certainty.
Now what if Monsanto knew? If they willfully ignored alarming reports, tried to suppress those reports, bought politicians to ignore the warnings, and so on? I'd still be in the same situation, I'd still take the million... but at the same time demand some seriously hard time for all those involved at Monsanto. The proper punishment isn't to pay more to the victims while the execs go free.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Because let's face it, pretty much anything that is misused can be harmful.
Might as well all go back to our caves now.
Today's breast implants are not yesterday's breast implants. Thanks in part to the motivation of manufacturers to develop safer implants in order to avoid ruinous lawsuits.
The implants sometimes ruptured, and I'm sure they've improved that. But even when they ruptured there's no evidence they caused auto-immune disorders. The point is that the juries and the public got this horribly, horribly wrong.
The day there's a billion dollar lawsuit against one of these large firms because of a data breach, you bet your ass that security will suddenly be taken seriously.
It'll likely never happen. Juries award billion dollar lawsuits based on emotions, not facts or harm. Who get really emotional about your SS# being released? Even if peoples photo albums got leaked, will juries really get emotional about some baby pictures, or a few peoples nudie photos getting released? People get emotional about physical harm, not these sorts of embarrassments. Fire, Death, etc.
That's not to say that Equifax doesn't deserve to go out of business. I'm certain they caused billions of dollars of harm. But try explaining this sort of abstract harm to a jury, and you might start to understand why data breaches aren't likely to attract mega-million dollar lawsuit victories.
As the sainted Homer Simpson long ago observed, "Facts Schmacts. Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
If a big company with a long history of malfeasance says it's true it's true. That's Science, bitches! With a big S!
(small-s science is a completely different thing but it's not at all fashionable any more)
That stuff keeps decimating bees worldwide, this is literally a crime against humanity!
But a few humans die, now it's serious?
Roundup is a herbicide, it kills specific kinds of plants, how's it killing bees?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
True, it could be lack of intelligence, or it could be lack of AGE. In other words, on the web it's hard to tell an angry swearing child from an angry swearing idiot. Both write and talk in a similar manner.
Remember everybody, that AC you're spending so much time trying to educate....it might be a kid! And you can't teach logical reasoning to a kid with a few lines typed into slashdot. It takes years, formal education, and some motivation on the part of the learner.
I'm not a Monsanto/Bayer customer or stockholder, so I'm pretty sure I will not be paying any of their fines or penalties.
It's not just about evidence of culpability, but also about the insane payouts. GP is 100% right that these are ultimately paid for by the rest of us.
If Monsanto's expenses are ultimately paid by the rest of us, the solution is clearly to distribute 100% of Monsanto's profit.
HArd time for the execs isn't currently on the table. Actual losses, mental anguish, and punative damages are the only options on the table here.
Don't forget extensive legal fees, experts, research, the lawfirm taking significant risks of time and money for all of that, etc.
In civilized countries, we have medical insurance and welfare for people too sick to work.
It would be those institutions that would go after Mondanto for medical bills.
If you buy food that comes from a farm, you will be paying for it. Doubly-indirectly, but you'll be paying.
You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
Bayer continues "to believe firmly that science confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer".
It always sets of my BS detector that it leaves a loop hole for one of the solvents or even the glyphosate when combined with one of the solvents to cause cancer.
That seems pretty iron clad and not weasel worded to me. Roundup is a glyphosate based herbicide. The scientific evidence says it doesn't cause cancer. Or more accurately, doesn't cause in increase in cancer risk, even at moderate exposure levels well above what most people experience.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That's how it should be, but that's not the world the plaintiff lives in.
Targets enzyme in plants, turns out some bacteria also use that enzyme, biodome bacteria living in the intestines of bees.
I'm pretty certain they didn't get 12 toxicologists and other PhD/MD-level people who are active in drug design and development. I would be greatly surprised if they allow any of them past the initial review. if they discussed business practices, the phase of the moon or anything other than tox or metabolite studies there's little chance the decision will survive a scientific review. However, we're not talking about peer-reviewed journals here so whether it's BS or not might not be relevant.
I don't know about "likely," as that seems a bit premature to say. From what I could sleuth, the focus seems to surround the surfactant used in Roundup, for which I could only find a single paper showing evidence for toxicity in petri dishes:
A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription., Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2005:
Many things will kill unprotected cells in vitro. I don't suppose you know of any other papers, or even in vivo studies?
they payouts are likely to be so huge that some of the money will make it to the plantiff here. On the other hand much of that money will be spent on medical bills and, well, they guy is probably going to die. It's kind of a lose-lose.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Juries are often filled with anti-corporate types who want to stick it to the man regardless of reality.
Might Roundup be carcinogenic? Sure. Did a guy who used it in his lawncare regime get exposed enough to *cause* his *particular* cancer? I hugely doubt it.
I mean, unless he filled his pool with it an swam around in it for a few days...the level of exposure with proper use is pretty much zero.
In my book, plenty of people need to be told that they're fucking retarded because plenty of people are fucking retarded.
People who avoid calling it like it is because they don't want to be seen as offensive, crass, or whatever else are also fucking retarded.
People who buy a thesaurus and lookup needlessly ridiculous words to use in an attempt to make themselves sound more intelligent are also fucking retarded.
The IARC review notes that there have been limited human trials looking for a link to cancer in humans. Several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found a significant link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
Other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
"no apparent risk to consumers was identified"
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5263
"The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity."
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
"the Agency reevaluated the human carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, which
included a weight-of-evidence evaluation of data from animal toxicity, genotoxicity, and
epidemiological studies. This evaluation was presented to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) and was subsequently updated based on their
review. The Agency concluded that glyphosate should be classified as “not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.”
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0068&contentType=pdf
...are not qualified to make this decision.
I see what you said but I still disagree with your "finding of fact" based on this. The jury found it compelling that Roundup causes cancer, as it would be required for it to cause this plaintiff's cancer. QED. Roundup causes cancer.
When a court comes to a verdict we're supposed to respect it on the merits, not pretend its tenet and conclusion doesn't apply. Roundup plays "A significant role" in cancers, says the jury - and not just one jury either.
To pretend it's a single one-off is to not understand either the science nor the legal ramifications of this ruling. I admit I do not know your motivations in saying that, but regardless it is not fulsome of the facts.
The jury found Roundup causes cancer. Unless this plaintiff was using it differently than others, which they weren't, it would not be a limited finding to their single cases.
"not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. "
In other words, don't drink the stuff, and it's less carcinogenic than sunlight, diesel, or your computer screen.
You really are doing more harm than good by trying to get glyphosate banned. It will be replaced by something more toxic and probably patent encumbered.
Don't like Monsanto? Fine, no one will blame you for that, just buy your glyphosate from another source (they only own the Roundup trademark).
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
The IARC review notes that there have been limited human trials looking for a link to cancer in humans. Several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found a significant link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
Other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
Technically, the inert ingredients would not be a glyphosate-based herbicide. If they were, they would not be considered inert ingredients.
Table 2 of the NIH meta study shows that significant exposure (more than 2 days per year) is associated with twice the incidence of NHL. You posted the wrong paper.
So, the EFSA, WHO, FDA, and other bodies conclude that there's no identified risk to humans, based on all available data, and you think that means the (Independent, by the way) (Straight, by the way, though that's also irrelevant) (Middle-aged adult) is unable to parse and comprehend written language, due to having already noted that the IARC determined it "may" be carcinogenic but failing to describe the exact details of 2A classification? :-/
The recent headline-making re-analysis of studies went to great efforts to group poor-quality studies into the mix, and select criteria very carefully, to BARELY get to the point of statistical significance for NHL risk, showing pretty clearly that they must have set out with a given conclusion in mind and massaged the data brutally to make it fit that conclusion, instead of actually letting the data speak for itself. These are like the idiots who have "proven" WiFi causes cancer...
While there are all sorts of reasons to support your post title the claim about bees doesn't stack up. I paid for (rather my employer paid) and read the actual journal article (and yes, I am a scientist) concerning bees and its conclusion in the results is glyphosate doesn't harm bees. What they found was that bees that ate glyphosate and insecticide did worse than bees that ate just insecticide alone, but as the design wasn't adequate to establish significance this was just an observation.
I'm actually a bit concerned about misdirection by the corporates here, while you are posting about something that sounds bad but doesn't stack up the conversation is steered away from what is a real concern, for example, WTF exactly are the additives in Ranger pro and what are their properties?
The animals studies which led the IARC to that conclusion were incredibly bad, and I believe have all been retracted. They made a bad call but refuse to back down; there's a reason no other scientific organization has followed suit.
The farmer study you're referring to (if it's the same one I'm thinking of; who knows since you've provided no references) found that:
"glyphosate was not statistically significantly associated with cancer at any site. However, among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users (RRÃââ=Ãââ2.44, 95% CIÃââ=Ãââ0.94 to 6.32, Ptrend = .11), though this association was not statistically significant. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m...
Emphasis mine.
This directly contradicts the scaremongering nonsense you're trying to credit them with.
Mod parent up. This is a very important point. The active ingredients of pesticides are highly regulated, with mandatory toxicity studies. However the other ingredients, including adjuvants and surfactants are not regulated at all, at least here in Canada. So we have no idea how toxic or safe some of these additional chemicals are, which is deeply worrisome, especially the unknown effect on wildlife. Many of these surfactants and adjuvants are required to make the pesticides work better, but aren't included in the jugs; they are added to the tank separately. Most are probably harmless, consisting of soaps and at least one I use is derived from soybean oil. When new formulations of old chemicals come out, I'm not sure how much work has to be done to re-register the chemical.
The few times I used it, wore a disposable suit, latex gloves and made sure wind was at my back.
If I don't wear prescribed protective equipment of any kind when dealing with large quantities of a known biocide, and wind up quite literally SOAKING IN IT on a regular basis, I might get cancer or other ill effects?
I AM AMAZE!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Hasn't it been obvious that Monsanto was a tainted brand for decades? The only thing protecting Monsanto's dirty practises was the bias of US ownership.
This is a rather comprehensive answer to a specialist question, which a layman is not likely to know
therefore can you declare an expertise in this area?
and are you affiliated to any organization with any links to this case, or any producer or consumer of Roundup, or anything else?
I'm fine even if you work directly for Monsanto's PR dept. so long as that is made clear (not saying you are, just getting clarity.)
As for the rest of the slashdot crowd this is the first thought that should enter your head if you see posts like these, but you never seem to ask.
Given the increasing level of payouts based on dubious liability, are jurors thinking "If I ramp this one up, when I come to claim tap water made me older I'll be able to retire and buy the biggest yacht in the world"?
In other words, don't drink the stuff,
On the contrary, according to industry lobbyist Patrick Moore, "you can drink a whole quart of it an it won't hurt you."
I am neither an expert nor paid by any biotech company like Bayer/Monsanto. I work full time as a software developer, but I do find controversial science topics intriguing, and I have some background in scientific skepticism and fact checking.
On the topic of Roundup/Glyphosate carcinogenesis, its relatively easy to google for reliable sources. In this case, even the Wikipedia articles on its safety have a comprehensive list of citations. And I just copied some of the relevant findings from the papers' abstract.
"Drink a glass" is a common argument from those unable to to comprehend the difference between a carcinogen and a toxin.
Cyanide isn't carcinogenic. But you wouldn't drink a glass of it because it's extremely toxic. You avoid drinking a glass of glyphosate because its toxic at that dosage. That fact is not evidence for it being carcinogenic, whatosever.
So then they goal-post shift to "it's toxic therefore it's dangerous". But 90% of the stuff we consume is toxic if consumed at a quantity in which it's toxic to humans. Water is toxic if you drink too much of it. It causes acute water toxicity. The key is that we consume goods at levels they're not toxic in humans. "The dose makes the poison".
So then they move the goalposts again to "any amount of a toxic chemical is bad", illustrating their complete misunderstanding of chemistry or toxicity. No, it's not. Bananas contain potassium. Potassium is required by the body for many chemical processes. But if you drink a glass of it, you'll die. If you get none of it at all, you'll die. Same goes for copper. Same goes for magnesium. Etc. Required to live. Only dangerous if you consume too much. Arsenic and formaldehyde are found in plenty of foods - but they're not toxic at the levels we consume them. Hell, cyanide is produced in plenty of plants we eat. But it's not toxic at the levels we consume it. Trace amounts of glyphosate found on food are thousands of times below the threshold of toxicity in humans - it's non bio-accumulating, so unless you're eating several thousands cabbages in one sitting, you can never consume glyphosate in toxic quantities from food.
Yeah - there's plenty of evidence glyphosate is toxic at high doses, just like almost every pesticide used in organic food production. Which is why you need to wear safety gear if you're handling it directly. But the fact it's toxic is not evidence its carcinogenic at all, and when the summation of IARC findings that it "may" cause one type of cancer is "because people blamed it for their cancer", you just have to look at the number of folk who think vaccines cause autism to understand that science is never determined by popularity. Policy may be. Science is not.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Admit You Accepted Money To Post That
https://www.sciencealert.com/s...
You lose, fucktard.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Propositional logic not your strong point, huh?
Roundup is a member of the set of glyphosate-based herbicides.
Bayer says they believe science confirms that [the set of] glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer.
If anything they made a stronger statement instead of the weaker one you implied.
Same poster here - thank you!
Look at you getting so worked up. Don't worry, you'll be the first to die. In the words of Nikita Kruschev, "We will bury you!" You are anti-american garbage and you will be held to account. I've changed sides. I am now in full support of those who seek to kill the fags and lesbians and foreign invaders like the muslims and hindus. You are the enemy. We will kill you and piss on your grave. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We will take over this government and we will put down the feminazi's (I used to hate that phrase, but, now I see the wisdom of it, I was blind, but, now I see) and the foreign invaders and those who seek to weaken this nation by undermining the males of the nation. Fuck you! You are garbage. Less than worthless. Anyone who reads this, understand this, I say this with complete truth that you will no longer be tolerated if you align yourself with the feminazi, lgbtq, foreignist garbage. Real Americans will oppose you and you will be put down. That is all!
— the pathetic living punchline that calls itself gerald butler
Lol, yes I was waiting for someone to link to that!
That guy is a moron.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
100% corporatist talking point. All corporations set all prices to maximize revenue. Raise prices too high, consumers will move to competitors. If Bayer could raise prices without driving away their customers, they wouldn't wait for a judgement as an excuse to do so. Judgements which have so far been pocket change to them.
It is extremely telling that you can only come to your conclusions by excluding over 90% of the research that contradicts your belief :P