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
I don't care what a jury of Jerry Springer-watching automatons find about scientific subjects.
I'm sure they would...but cancer cases normally can't qualify b/c lack common facts.
So, the fallback strategy is to try a handful (4-10) of test cases to establish a going rate, then use those data points to settle the rest.
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
I happened to be in Home Depot the other day buying weed killer and a gallon of professional Roundup was $169. That is extremely expensive. They must be proud of that stuff. It must be like Agent Orange at that price.
It's funny that you mention Agent Orange. Monsanto was the company that set their autoclave temperatures too high during production which caused the high dioxin levels. They knew this, but they could make a batch of it in 45 minutes by doing so. Obviously this was much more profitable than it taking the normal 12 hours when made correctly.
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.
Trolls gonna troll.
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...
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/
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/
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...
And you do know that the IARC report where proven to be completely false do you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think you misread my comments. I'm not a denialist. I agree with the science you cited.
What I said was that the jury did not determine that Roundup causes cancer. Rather, they determined that Roundup caused the plaintiff's cancer.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Wow, a youtube video. Well I'm totally convinced.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
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.
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.
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/
You go on ahead. I still have some /. articles to finish reading.
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.
"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.
"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
Perhaps you want to check who or what the IARC actually is: https://www.iarc.fr/featured-n...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Based only on the news stories I have read, my take is that the jury was presented with these facts:
- Roundup causes cancer
- the plaintiff used roundup for 3 decades
- the plaintiff got cancer
What the jury had to decide was whether Roundup was responsible for the plaintiff's cancer, not whether Roundup causes cancer. Lots of things cause cancer. Was it Roundup in this case? Or was the cancer caused by something else? Both the plaintiff and the defendant made their cases, and the jury decided.
This decision was a legal one, not a scientific one -- a decision that opened the door to the next part of the trial, which was Bayer's liability.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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!!!
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
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.
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.