5 ms·

>has not been established Then why are lawsuits that claim those links have been established winning regularly in courts now?

by sauwan 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago
Beats me. I think Impossible is right when they say: “Proven to be carcinogenic” is a ridiculous claim, refuted by multiple government agencies, including EFSA, Germany, Canada, and the World Health Organization (WHO), who determined that glyphosate exposure in the human diet is unlikely a carcinogenic risk. No regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic to humans at current exposure levels.
- sauwan 7y ago
  Well, I'm certainly not an expert on this, but my understanding was that WHO had identified it as probably a carcinogen. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolu... Other studies show the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421... Now, admittedly, I don't have a strong background to stand on here, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And I would agree with the overall thrust of Impossible's claims here that this is likely far too low a level to be worried about. But I'm not sure I buy it that there are no connections, particularly for high levels that are breathed in during farming.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    My understanding --- this is from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong --- is that IARC published a report classifying glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen (joining a long list of common substances that occur in food both naturally and as a result of processing), but that the broader WHO did not back this assessment up. Reuters also ran a story based on an earlier draft of the IARC report showing that evidence against the carcinogenicity of glyphosate had been excised from the final report. Importantly, the IARC report was also a survey of previous studies of glyphosate, and the organizations that conducted those studies, like the Agricultural Health Study, disagreed with IARC. My impression --- again, corrections welcome --- is that glyphosate has been intensively studied, both epidemiologically and in lab studies, and that none of those studies has conclusively linked glyphosate to cancer, even in rodent models, and even at unrealistically high doses. To your original question: again, it's also important to remember that glyphosate-based pesticides aren't, like, pure aqueous solutions of glyphosate; there's lots of other stuff in there, as there are in all chemical herbicides, and if there's a lymphoma link to Roundup, who knows what the actual causative agent is? The evidence points away from glyphosate being it.
    - sauwan 7y ago
      Ok, that's fair. My original question was legitimately not a rhetorical question (although that appears to be how it's been taken). I assume Monsonto has some of the best legal representation out there, so I assumed if they couldn't defend it, the case must be fairly compelling. I'll put my skeptical hat back on. Appreciate the feedback.
    - sridca 7y ago
      No one cares about the truth. XYZ is identified as a potential carcinogen? It is mostly used to attack a dietary group involving XYZ than to actually cure cancer. You see this liberally happening with red meat, despite questionable evidence towards it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 It is all rather amusing, actually.
zymhan 7y ago
Because you don't actually need to prove causation to win a civil court case. Causation vs correlation is key in science, but is not the standard used in judging civil litigation.
- sauwan 7y ago
  Are you all shills? OF COURSE you need to prove causation to win a civil court case. Yes, the burden of proof is less than that of criminal trials (greater than 50% chance vs beyond a reasonable doubt), but correlation does not win in civil courts unless the defense is consists of the 6th grade debate team. Are you seriously suggesting that Monsonto's lawyers are that inept?
bluGill 7y ago
Courts do not require established science to win. They just require deep pockets on the side of the loser. Glyphosate is made by big companies that have money, so if a lawyer can convince a jury they are responsible the lawyer gets a lot of money.
atomical 7y ago
Because people who buy products from “Moms Across America” are on the jury. You've never met someone that believes essential oils cure shit?
randomdata 7y ago
The original Roundup case among those lawsuits was careful to avoid going after glyphosate, but rather made the case that other additives found in the Roundup brand were the cause. Which cases are now targeting glyphosate rather than Roundup?
JamesBarney 7y ago
Convincing 12 random jurors of something isn't necessarily the same thing as convincing scientific experts.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
intopieces 7y ago
Because those lawsuits were determined by a jury of non scientists.
Tomte 7y ago
Why the are winning _now_? Great question. The answer seems to be "because Monsanto is now owned by a foreign company". Before that those claims weren't really winning in the courts.

>has not been established Then why are lawsuits that claim those links have been established winning regularly in courts now?

by sauwan 7y ago

>has not been established Then why are lawsuits that claim those links have been established winning regularly in courts now?

tptacek 7y ago

Beats me. I think Impossible is right when they say: “Proven to be carcinogenic” is a ridiculous claim, refuted by multiple government agencies, including EFSA, Germany, Canada, and the World Health Organization (WHO), who determined that glyphosate exposure in the human diet is unlikely a carcinogenic risk. No regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic to humans at current exposure levels.

sauwan 7y ago
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on this, but my understanding was that WHO had identified it as probably a carcinogen. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolu... Other studies show the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421... Now, admittedly, I don't have a strong background to stand on here, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And I would agree with the overall thrust of Impossible's claims here that this is likely far too low a level to be worried about. But I'm not sure I buy it that there are no connections, particularly for high levels that are breathed in during farming.
- tptacek 7y ago
  My understanding --- this is from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong --- is that IARC published a report classifying glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen (joining a long list of common substances that occur in food both naturally and as a result of processing), but that the broader WHO did not back this assessment up. Reuters also ran a story based on an earlier draft of the IARC report showing that evidence against the carcinogenicity of glyphosate had been excised from the final report. Importantly, the IARC report was also a survey of previous studies of glyphosate, and the organizations that conducted those studies, like the Agricultural Health Study, disagreed with IARC. My impression --- again, corrections welcome --- is that glyphosate has been intensively studied, both epidemiologically and in lab studies, and that none of those studies has conclusively linked glyphosate to cancer, even in rodent models, and even at unrealistically high doses. To your original question: again, it's also important to remember that glyphosate-based pesticides aren't, like, pure aqueous solutions of glyphosate; there's lots of other stuff in there, as there are in all chemical herbicides, and if there's a lymphoma link to Roundup, who knows what the actual causative agent is? The evidence points away from glyphosate being it.
  - sauwan 7y ago
    Ok, that's fair. My original question was legitimately not a rhetorical question (although that appears to be how it's been taken). I assume Monsonto has some of the best legal representation out there, so I assumed if they couldn't defend it, the case must be fairly compelling. I'll put my skeptical hat back on. Appreciate the feedback.
  - sridca 7y ago
    No one cares about the truth. XYZ is identified as a potential carcinogen? It is mostly used to attack a dietary group involving XYZ than to actually cure cancer. You see this liberally happening with red meat, despite questionable evidence towards it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 It is all rather amusing, actually.

zymhan 7y ago

Because you don't actually need to prove causation to win a civil court case. Causation vs correlation is key in science, but is not the standard used in judging civil litigation.

sauwan 7y ago
Are you all shills? OF COURSE you need to prove causation to win a civil court case. Yes, the burden of proof is less than that of criminal trials (greater than 50% chance vs beyond a reasonable doubt), but correlation does not win in civil courts unless the defense is consists of the 6th grade debate team. Are you seriously suggesting that Monsonto's lawyers are that inept?

bluGill 7y ago

Courts do not require established science to win. They just require deep pockets on the side of the loser. Glyphosate is made by big companies that have money, so if a lawyer can convince a jury they are responsible the lawyer gets a lot of money.

atomical 7y ago

Because people who buy products from “Moms Across America” are on the jury. You've never met someone that believes essential oils cure shit?

randomdata 7y ago

The original Roundup case among those lawsuits was careful to avoid going after glyphosate, but rather made the case that other additives found in the Roundup brand were the cause. Which cases are now targeting glyphosate rather than Roundup?

JamesBarney 7y ago

Convincing 12 random jurors of something isn't necessarily the same thing as convincing scientific experts.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

intopieces 7y ago

Because those lawsuits were determined by a jury of non scientists.

Tomte 7y ago

Why the are winning _now_? Great question. The answer seems to be "because Monsanto is now owned by a foreign company". Before that those claims weren't really winning in the courts.