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.

Comments

Science Disagrees...

[moehoward]

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.

Re:Science Disagrees...

[DogDude]

Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict.

How do you know? Did you read articles that I didn't?

Re:Science Disagrees...

[MightyYar]

Dude, a jury found OJ not guilty. Don't sweat it.

For what it's worth, most studies on Roundup were concerned with the level of exposure that consumers encounter. This is a bit different - these are agricultural workers with much heavier and different types of exposure. the typical consumer probably isn't breathing the stuff day in and day out.

Re:Science Disagrees...

[AvitarX]

The bigger problem (as far as keeping people and corporations on best behavior) is that something can kill thousands, but still be almost impossible to prove.

If round up increased one's risk of cancer by 50%, it'd still be nearly impossible to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that any given case of cancer was caused by it (in fact, even if it was responsible for 30% of all cancer, it most likely wouldn't be responsible for any given case).

It's hard to prove a specific case of cancer was caused by anything since it can kind of happen anyway.

Re:Science Disagrees...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict.

How do you know? Did you read articles that I didn't?

Just the one linked here, but it does in fact say exactly that.

It says the jury only examined and considered evidence regarding the companies business practices, and the judge even called that out.
The jury did not mention anything regarding the scientific studies about if it causes cancer.

The same article even finishes by including the outcome of some of those studies.

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.

and

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and other regulators have found that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans. But the World Health Organization's cancer arm in 2015 reached a different conclusion, classifying glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."

Had the jury known of and mentioned that very last part from the world health organization, chances are good no one would be discussing this phase of the trial at all.

Even with the "probably" qualifier used, that being mentioned would have put the requirement to scientifically prove there was no chance or that study was flawed or something.
As it is they don't really need to do any real work to counter anything.
If that fact is brought up on appeal, then a whole new trial will need to be held to counter their counter, and basically is more or less starting from square one minus all the time and money and effort wasted to get there.

I have to agree with GP. The jury was required to show scientific evidence, and clearly if some dip reporters can find it, it can't be that difficult of a task!
Getting to the right answer by completely wrong and improper means won't help matters and gives Bayer far more wiggle room in court than they should have been given.

Re:Science Disagrees...

[bobbied]

... and "electoral colleges" to decide election results.

How should the states vote for the president of their union? Should the federal senators and house representatives vote between the candidates? Should the governors of the states vote? Don't tell me the citizens should vote, because then there's not much reason for having individual states in a federated union.

IF you ditch the electoral college, then you are right, the states really don't matter. Sadly that's NOT how this system was supposed to work, the states are a unique part of the division of power, or they used to be.

IMHO we are rapidly departing from our founding principles to our peril because folks somehow think states don't mater or the division of power between the states and the people isn't being respected. Someday, we will look back and realize the genius of our founders, but most folks don't understand how the system was designed because we've not taught basic civics for more than a generation now.

Re:Science Disagrees...

[skoskav]

This is the evaluation by IARC that opened up for the lawsuits:

IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015:

The herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
[...]
For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.

That IARC evaluation was subsequently criticized, and other high-profile papers and agencies were unable to reach the same conclusions:

A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Journal of Toxicology and Health, 2015:

It appears that IARC has overreached in its conclusion by failing to consider the vast body of literature supporting the notion that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. Besides, IARC has failed to place potential hazard into a context of actual risk. When the conditions of glyphosate use in Egypt is rationally analyzed, it appears that exposure of the public to glyphosate is order of magnitudes far below the zero-risk dose.

The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate - BfR, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, 2015:

In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 2016:

Bias and confounding may account for observed associations. Meta-analysis is constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric, while the overall body of literature is methodologically limited and findings are not strong or consistent. Thus, a causal relationship has not been established between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of LHC.

EPA Releases Draft Risk Assessments for Glyphosate, Environmental Protection Agency, 2017:

The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The Agency’s assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. The Agency’s scientific findings are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by a number of other countries as well as the 2017 National Institute of Health Agricultural Health Survey.

Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC, Archives of Toxicology, 2017:

Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is p

Re: Science Disagrees...

[ceoyoyo]

Well, Monsanto used to be the largest manufacturer of PCBs in the US, a fair amount of which apparently got dumped into some rivers. They paid out $700 million to some people in Alabama as a settlement. Something along the same lines in Wales. They were also involved in making agent orange for the US to use in Vietnam, and then denied a connection between exposure and US veterans' medical problems. They settled that one too. They've also admitted to illegal bribery and accounting fraud.

Re: Science Disagrees...

[Solandri]

like supposedly suing completely innocent farmers

You can read the Canada Supreme Court decision that Monsato won over Percy Schmeiser (first link in the references). It was pretty obvious that he was innocent. The Court even reduced his fine to $1 (a fact scrubbed from the wiki page, probably by Monsanto-paid editors) because they determined that he didn't benefit in any way from planting the RoundUp Ready seeds (he never sprayed RoundUp on his crops).

The Court only decided in favor of Monsanto because they did have a patent, and they determined Schmeiser violated that patent by planting seeds with the patented gene. And even that determination is suspect because the Court bought Monsanto's argument that there was no way for plants to develop resistance to RoundUp on their own. So Schmeiser "ought to have known" that the canola plants he found in the gutters by his field that survived spraying with RoundUp were from Monsanto's patented seeds. This argument was later disproven when weeds were found which had developed resistance to RoundUp on their own, meaning Schmeiser was right when he argued that he believed the Canola in his gutters had developed resistance on their own.

Was it a jury of scientists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what a jury of Jerry Springer-watching automatons find about scientific subjects.

Re:Science says "moehard" is a dumb faggot

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Somebody on the linked /. story made a good point

[rsilvergun]

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.

I should add

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Maybe it's the articles I happen to read, but .

[bobbied]

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.

Juries are stupid

[mpercy]

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.

Re:Science says "moehard" is a dumb faggot

[Trogre]

"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).

Re:Put your hand out, let's experiment on you fagg

[black3d]

"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.