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...
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/
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
Targets enzyme in plants, turns out some bacteria also use that enzyme, biodome bacteria living in the intestines of bees.
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.
"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
"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
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.
"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