6 ms·

I'm a little disgusted with these lawsuits. The preponderance of scientific evidence is on the side of Monsanto (gag): Roundup isn't carcinogenic. The one study

by krapht 7y ago

I'm a little disgusted with these lawsuits. The preponderance of scientific evidence is on the side of Monsanto (gag): Roundup isn't carcinogenic. The one study that is significant to these cases from the IARC has numerous statistical flaws. From the coverage that I've seen, most of these cases have been won on the back of numerous emails and texts from Monsanto trying to delay and suppress the release of potentially negative studies until after their legal cases are resolved. So I guess Monsanto are jerks but also these cases are flawed science.

tptacek 7y ago
Glyphosate isn't carcinogenic. Roundup is more than just glyphosate, though.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  I thought the IARC conclusion was that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic? This whole case was built on that, no?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The evidence IARC is relying on is extremely thin. I'm not commenting on the case, so much as making the observation that glyphosate can be fine (it most likely is) without the Roundup product itself being safe.
- ionised 7y ago
  > Glyphosate isn't carcinogenic. Opinion is divided on that assertion. Even Monsanto seems unsure. Why else would they suppress so much unfavourable research and employ all those social media shills?
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    I don't care much for opinion. Science does not seem too divided on the matter. But humans are emotional creatures, and Monsanto understands that it does not really matter what the science says, it only matters who gets the better media spin. You can bet they are really wishing right now that they had gotten a better handle on the PR.
    - ionised 7y ago
      'Science' certainly is divided on the matter, (and I'd say most of it does not paint glyphosate in a great light) which is why Monsanto tries to suppress the science it doesn't like, hires trolls to brigade social media and engages in obfuscation and obstruction.
wtallis 7y ago
> So I guess Monsanto are jerks but also these cases are flawed science. It seems like the question here should be whether this outcome provides justice, not whether it represents the best scientific conclusion available. Shouldn't Monsanto be punished in some fashion for unethically trying to suppress evidence and mislead the public, even if it eventually turns out that Roundup is not as dangerous as it was suspected/feared to be? A jury verdict like this is certainly not the best imaginable way to discipline corporations for such wrongdoings, but if this is what's achievable with our current legal system, then it seems to be at least somewhat justified.
- Faark 7y ago
  The only question in front of a court is whether they broke the law. If they did something unethical but we don't have a law against it... well, fight for a new law. If you want justice based on your morals & feelings, then you can just drop the pretense of "rule of law" / a legal system and let the mob or powerful rule as they whish. But I doubt such a system will turn out in my favor.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > "The jury found Roundup had been defectively designed, that the company failed to warn of the herbicide’s cancer risk and that the company acted negligently. " There's certainly reason to question the jury's determination about defective design, since that's a relatively scientific question. But that wasn't the only question before the jury. The issue of negligence with regards to the disclosing risks to the public seems to be reasonably relevant to Monsanto's misconduct; this certainly isn't a mob lynching a corporation without regard for rule of law, and on the surface it doesn't even appear to be a particularly ridiculous stretch of the law.
ertyuip 7y ago
I would suggest Bayer/Monsanto like any big company can quash scientific studies if they appear deleterious to their future income streams, first came to light with the tobbacco industry. Perhaps thats why so few studies exist that show glyphosate in its true light, but instead portray's it as a panacea when any inteligent person knows panacea's in the world do not exist, so there must be harmful effects. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/contracts-give-coca-cola-power-to-quash-health-research-study-suggests https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/contracts-give-coca-cola...
- ionised 7y ago
  It's a badly-kept secret that Monsanto suppressed various studies on glyphosate to hide unfavourable results.
freeopinion 7y ago
Monsanto can and has spent millions to provide scientific results that back their position. Mansanto can and has spent millions to block scientific research that contradicts their position. The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply cannot be trusted. There is no study that Mansanto can't buy. There is no study than mom and pop can buy. So, we look them in the eyes and we see scumbag villain vs simple folk. We see scumbag villain pumping out lakes of chemicals and crushing people and my what big teeth you have. And you've made how many billions on these chemicals? And how much is the poor little grandma asking for? It's a no-brainer. Dig some millions out of your sofa cushions and pay the poor family. It's not scientific. It's emotional. And lots of normal people get pretty emotional about the big bad wolf. Still, they didn't shoot the wolf. It's still alive and able to eat some other grandma. It just had to pay for a grandma it may not have eaten at all.
- IanCal 7y ago
  > There is no study that Mansanto can't buy Are you saying that there's no study they couldn't create or that there's no study funded by another group they couldn't change? One of those is an exceptionally strong accusation (the other is still quite strong, but a different scale)
- Karunamon 7y ago
  The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply cannot be trusted. I don't think this is an argument you want to be making, as it would legitimize most forms of quackery.
  - freeopinion 7y ago
    Name one study that sides with Monsanto that wasn't paid for by Monsanto. Now name a study that was paid for by Monsanto that puts them in a bad light. Now look at the final draft after the scientists were done and see if it hasn't been flipped on its head. You can pile up a hundred studies that cheer for Monsanto, and one that goes against them and I will choose the 1 if they were all paid for by Monsanto. If you think there are multi-national gazillion dollar companies out there willing to go to almost any lengths to build their empire, you might be susceptible to many forms of quackery. Or you could be entirely reasonable.

by krapht 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago

Glyphosate isn't carcinogenic. Roundup is more than just glyphosate, though.

rootusrootus 7y ago
I thought the IARC conclusion was that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic? This whole case was built on that, no?
- tptacek 7y ago
  The evidence IARC is relying on is extremely thin. I'm not commenting on the case, so much as making the observation that glyphosate can be fine (it most likely is) without the Roundup product itself being safe.
ionised 7y ago
> Glyphosate isn't carcinogenic. Opinion is divided on that assertion. Even Monsanto seems unsure. Why else would they suppress so much unfavourable research and employ all those social media shills?
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  I don't care much for opinion. Science does not seem too divided on the matter. But humans are emotional creatures, and Monsanto understands that it does not really matter what the science says, it only matters who gets the better media spin. You can bet they are really wishing right now that they had gotten a better handle on the PR.
  - ionised 7y ago
    'Science' certainly is divided on the matter, (and I'd say most of it does not paint glyphosate in a great light) which is why Monsanto tries to suppress the science it doesn't like, hires trolls to brigade social media and engages in obfuscation and obstruction.

wtallis 7y ago

> So I guess Monsanto are jerks but also these cases are flawed science. It seems like the question here should be whether this outcome provides justice, not whether it represents the best scientific conclusion available. Shouldn't Monsanto be punished in some fashion for unethically trying to suppress evidence and mislead the public, even if it eventually turns out that Roundup is not as dangerous as it was suspected/feared to be? A jury verdict like this is certainly not the best imaginable way to discipline corporations for such wrongdoings, but if this is what's achievable with our current legal system, then it seems to be at least somewhat justified.

Faark 7y ago
The only question in front of a court is whether they broke the law. If they did something unethical but we don't have a law against it... well, fight for a new law. If you want justice based on your morals & feelings, then you can just drop the pretense of "rule of law" / a legal system and let the mob or powerful rule as they whish. But I doubt such a system will turn out in my favor.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > "The jury found Roundup had been defectively designed, that the company failed to warn of the herbicide’s cancer risk and that the company acted negligently. " There's certainly reason to question the jury's determination about defective design, since that's a relatively scientific question. But that wasn't the only question before the jury. The issue of negligence with regards to the disclosing risks to the public seems to be reasonably relevant to Monsanto's misconduct; this certainly isn't a mob lynching a corporation without regard for rule of law, and on the surface it doesn't even appear to be a particularly ridiculous stretch of the law.

ertyuip 7y ago

I would suggest Bayer/Monsanto like any big company can quash scientific studies if they appear deleterious to their future income streams, first came to light with the tobbacco industry. Perhaps thats why so few studies exist that show glyphosate in its true light, but instead portray's it as a panacea when any inteligent person knows panacea's in the world do not exist, so there must be harmful effects. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/contracts-give-coca-cola-power-to-quash-health-research-study-suggests https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/contracts-give-coca-cola...

ionised 7y ago
It's a badly-kept secret that Monsanto suppressed various studies on glyphosate to hide unfavourable results.

freeopinion 7y ago

Monsanto can and has spent millions to provide scientific results that back their position. Mansanto can and has spent millions to block scientific research that contradicts their position. The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply cannot be trusted. There is no study that Mansanto can't buy. There is no study than mom and pop can buy. So, we look them in the eyes and we see scumbag villain vs simple folk. We see scumbag villain pumping out lakes of chemicals and crushing people and my what big teeth you have. And you've made how many billions on these chemicals? And how much is the poor little grandma asking for? It's a no-brainer. Dig some millions out of your sofa cushions and pay the poor family. It's not scientific. It's emotional. And lots of normal people get pretty emotional about the big bad wolf. Still, they didn't shoot the wolf. It's still alive and able to eat some other grandma. It just had to pay for a grandma it may not have eaten at all.

IanCal 7y ago
> There is no study that Mansanto can't buy Are you saying that there's no study they couldn't create or that there's no study funded by another group they couldn't change? One of those is an exceptionally strong accusation (the other is still quite strong, but a different scale)
Karunamon 7y ago
The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply cannot be trusted. I don't think this is an argument you want to be making, as it would legitimize most forms of quackery.
- freeopinion 7y ago
  Name one study that sides with Monsanto that wasn't paid for by Monsanto. Now name a study that was paid for by Monsanto that puts them in a bad light. Now look at the final draft after the scientists were done and see if it hasn't been flipped on its head. You can pile up a hundred studies that cheer for Monsanto, and one that goes against them and I will choose the 1 if they were all paid for by Monsanto. If you think there are multi-national gazillion dollar companies out there willing to go to almost any lengths to build their empire, you might be susceptible to many forms of quackery. Or you could be entirely reasonable.