6 ms·

> the product is studied extensively by researchers Which researchers and funded by whom? This is the line Monsanto brings out every time. It turns out their c

> the product is studied extensively by researchers Which researchers and funded by whom? This is the line Monsanto brings out every time. It turns out their corrupt research couldn't convince a court, who decided glyphosate was to blame for cancer, to the tune of $300M c.f. Johnson v. Monsanto Co. And it's not just roundworms https://sites.psu.edu/soilmicrobiology/projects/glyphosate-impacts-soil-microbes/ https://sites.psu.edu/soilmicrobiology/projects/glyphosate-i... This chemical is bad news and the only reason it's legal is regulatory capture by Monsanto/Bayer.

ekianjo 4y ago
you know that this judgment was very controversial or you believe everything is just 1 and zeroes in life?
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Seriously, WTF is wrong with people... we repeatedly polluted whole world with harmful substances like lead that killed god knows how many people and damaged in some way everybody else with this kind of logic, yet people have the balls to come up with "innocent until proven guilty by 100 peer reviews" mantra for... MONSANTO I don't believe, unlike many, that they are comically evil guys. Just playing a god for profit with stuff they probably understand only in lower 90 percentile range, especially second, third etc. order effects. And probably too over-invested in direction company took decades ago, so nobody looking at bonuses as drive will change its direction dramatically.
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    Choosing to blindly believe one side over blindly believing the other side is a dubious approach to these things. I care about environmental issues, and have no love for many aspects of Monsanto’s business and history, but your emotional appeal is extremely unconvincing. > for Monsanto GP isn’t making their comment “for Monsanto”, but for the sake of seeking the truth on this specific issue. You will continue to be shocked until you change your perspective on how we ought to evaluate nuanced issues. Especially when those issues have to do with global food production.
    - soperj 4y ago
      > sake of seeking the truth on this specific issue I don't disagree with you, I also don't think we should be using the product when the truth is as clouded as it is. So ban it until the truth comes out.
      - gruez 4y ago
        >So ban it until the truth comes out. Okay but given that we have endless studies already, it seems like "until the truth comes out" really means "until my preferred conclusion comes out".
        soperj 4y ago
        My preferred conclusion would be that it's actually safe, since we're using a massive amount of it already and we're all exposed.
        drekk 4y ago
        It took decades to prove conclusively that cigarettes cause cancer in humans. Similarly to tobacco companies Monsanto is subsidizing research that just happens to find no harms with RoundUp. I'm sure it's fine though, no big deal that trace amounts can be found in urine samples from 80% of Americans. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-g https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-g...
        gruez 4y ago
        >It took decades to prove conclusively that cigarettes cause cancer in humans. Glyphosate has been around for almost 5 decades. Wikipedia says "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity"[1]. If you think this is not "conclusively" enough, how much longer/more evidence do you need? Is this a standard that we should apply to everything[2], or just chemicals made my evil multinational corporations? Maybe we should delay rolling out cell phones for a few decades just to be sure that they don't cause brain cancer? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  I have to take it at face value to a degree otherwise Monsanto can fire cannons of money at scientists and yell “the science isn’t settled!” until the end of humanity even if roundup really did cause cancer. At the same time I think there is a limit to how bad roundup can be to have fought off criticism in EVERY country and remain on the market.
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    Have you ever sat on a jury? Seen how that particular sausage is made?
    - faeriechangling 4y ago
      I keep getting called for jury selection and it keeps getting called off. People have been talking shit about jurors for 2 millennia, one of the oldest plays in history was dedicated to talking about how awful jurors were, and yet they stick around. I still value them merely on the basis of their relative resistance to corrupt influences compared to scientific institutions.
voakbasda 4y ago
The courts ignored the science. The law has little to do with truth or justice.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  c.f. also the talcum powder lawsuits against J&J.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Majority of research claimed that J&J talkum powder is safe?
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      Basically, the best studies show no link e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2758452?mod=article_inline https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27584... The American Cancer Association doesn't list talc at all when talking about risk factors for ovarian cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-research.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-resea... J&J is winning most of the cases in court, or having large verdicts overturned on appeal, but there are supposedly something like 38,000 cases out there and each one has an outside chance to end up being like the one they lost in Wisconsin state court which initially awarded over $4.69bn to 22 plaintiffs (reduced to $2.11bn on appeal).
      - scotty79 4y ago
        Do you think it really is a risk factor for ovarian cancer?
- user3939382 4y ago
  You have no evidence of that. More likely the plaintiff had their own scientific experts who were more persuasive, that's how all technical matters are adjudicated in courts.
gruez 4y ago
>It turns out their corrupt research couldn't convince a court, who decided glyphosate was to blame for cancer, to the tune of $300M c.f. Johnson v. Monsanto Co. What makes you think a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better qualified to make conclusions on the available evidence than scientists?
- user3939382 4y ago
  Because the jury are listening to experts from both sides of the case, and those experts are qualified to draw conclusions. Also "scientists" are not uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, as your comment seems to suggest.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Because the jury are listening to experts from both sides of the case, and those experts are qualified to draw conclusions. That doesn't answer the question. What makes you think that a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better able to determine the truth from 2 conflicting teams of experts, than a team of experts versed in the relevant field? >Also "scientists" are not uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, as your comment seems to suggest. They seem to be uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, according to wikipedia. >The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. [...] there's more but I'm not going to quote the whole paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
    - user3939382 4y ago
      It wasn’t “just” a jury in the first place, Monsanto appealed and also lost.
    - indiv0 4y ago
      Not going to quote the whole paragraph? The paragraph that goes on to say that there's an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other issues? > The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment toxicology review in 2013 found that with regard to positive correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing".[11] A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[12] In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[8][13][14][15] In contrast, the European Food Safety Authority concluded in November 2015 that "the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans", later clarifying that while carcinogenic glyphosate-containing formulations may exist, studies "that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect."[16][17] In 2017, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as causing serious eye damage and as toxic to aquatic life, but did not find evidence implicating it as a carcinogen, a mutagen, toxic to reproduction, nor toxic to specific organs.[18] Personally I trust a jury of 6-12 laypeople or the *European Chemicals Agency* over a company with a vested interest in keeping their product on the market.

ekianjo 4y ago

you know that this judgment was very controversial or you believe everything is just 1 and zeroes in life?

saiya-jin 4y ago
Seriously, WTF is wrong with people... we repeatedly polluted whole world with harmful substances like lead that killed god knows how many people and damaged in some way everybody else with this kind of logic, yet people have the balls to come up with "innocent until proven guilty by 100 peer reviews" mantra for... MONSANTO I don't believe, unlike many, that they are comically evil guys. Just playing a god for profit with stuff they probably understand only in lower 90 percentile range, especially second, third etc. order effects. And probably too over-invested in direction company took decades ago, so nobody looking at bonuses as drive will change its direction dramatically.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  Choosing to blindly believe one side over blindly believing the other side is a dubious approach to these things. I care about environmental issues, and have no love for many aspects of Monsanto’s business and history, but your emotional appeal is extremely unconvincing. > for Monsanto GP isn’t making their comment “for Monsanto”, but for the sake of seeking the truth on this specific issue. You will continue to be shocked until you change your perspective on how we ought to evaluate nuanced issues. Especially when those issues have to do with global food production.
  - soperj 4y ago
    > sake of seeking the truth on this specific issue I don't disagree with you, I also don't think we should be using the product when the truth is as clouded as it is. So ban it until the truth comes out.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >So ban it until the truth comes out. Okay but given that we have endless studies already, it seems like "until the truth comes out" really means "until my preferred conclusion comes out".
      - soperj 4y ago
        My preferred conclusion would be that it's actually safe, since we're using a massive amount of it already and we're all exposed.
      - drekk 4y ago
        It took decades to prove conclusively that cigarettes cause cancer in humans. Similarly to tobacco companies Monsanto is subsidizing research that just happens to find no harms with RoundUp. I'm sure it's fine though, no big deal that trace amounts can be found in urine samples from 80% of Americans. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-g https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-g...
        gruez 4y ago
        >It took decades to prove conclusively that cigarettes cause cancer in humans. Glyphosate has been around for almost 5 decades. Wikipedia says "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity"[1]. If you think this is not "conclusively" enough, how much longer/more evidence do you need? Is this a standard that we should apply to everything[2], or just chemicals made my evil multinational corporations? Maybe we should delay rolling out cell phones for a few decades just to be sure that they don't cause brain cancer? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
faeriechangling 4y ago
I have to take it at face value to a degree otherwise Monsanto can fire cannons of money at scientists and yell “the science isn’t settled!” until the end of humanity even if roundup really did cause cancer. At the same time I think there is a limit to how bad roundup can be to have fought off criticism in EVERY country and remain on the market.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  Have you ever sat on a jury? Seen how that particular sausage is made?
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    I keep getting called for jury selection and it keeps getting called off. People have been talking shit about jurors for 2 millennia, one of the oldest plays in history was dedicated to talking about how awful jurors were, and yet they stick around. I still value them merely on the basis of their relative resistance to corrupt influences compared to scientific institutions.

voakbasda 4y ago

The courts ignored the science. The law has little to do with truth or justice.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
c.f. also the talcum powder lawsuits against J&J.
- scotty79 4y ago
  Majority of research claimed that J&J talkum powder is safe?
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Basically, the best studies show no link e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2758452?mod=article_inline https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27584... The American Cancer Association doesn't list talc at all when talking about risk factors for ovarian cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-research.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-resea... J&J is winning most of the cases in court, or having large verdicts overturned on appeal, but there are supposedly something like 38,000 cases out there and each one has an outside chance to end up being like the one they lost in Wisconsin state court which initially awarded over $4.69bn to 22 plaintiffs (reduced to $2.11bn on appeal).
    - scotty79 4y ago
      Do you think it really is a risk factor for ovarian cancer?
user3939382 4y ago
You have no evidence of that. More likely the plaintiff had their own scientific experts who were more persuasive, that's how all technical matters are adjudicated in courts.

gruez 4y ago

>It turns out their corrupt research couldn't convince a court, who decided glyphosate was to blame for cancer, to the tune of $300M c.f. Johnson v. Monsanto Co. What makes you think a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better qualified to make conclusions on the available evidence than scientists?

user3939382 4y ago
Because the jury are listening to experts from both sides of the case, and those experts are qualified to draw conclusions. Also "scientists" are not uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, as your comment seems to suggest.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Because the jury are listening to experts from both sides of the case, and those experts are qualified to draw conclusions. That doesn't answer the question. What makes you think that a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better able to determine the truth from 2 conflicting teams of experts, than a team of experts versed in the relevant field? >Also "scientists" are not uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, as your comment seems to suggest. They seem to be uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, according to wikipedia. >The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. [...] there's more but I'm not going to quote the whole paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
  - user3939382 4y ago
    It wasn’t “just” a jury in the first place, Monsanto appealed and also lost.
  - indiv0 4y ago
    Not going to quote the whole paragraph? The paragraph that goes on to say that there's an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other issues? > The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment toxicology review in 2013 found that with regard to positive correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing".[11] A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[12] In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[8][13][14][15] In contrast, the European Food Safety Authority concluded in November 2015 that "the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans", later clarifying that while carcinogenic glyphosate-containing formulations may exist, studies "that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect."[16][17] In 2017, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as causing serious eye damage and as toxic to aquatic life, but did not find evidence implicating it as a carcinogen, a mutagen, toxic to reproduction, nor toxic to specific organs.[18] Personally I trust a jury of 6-12 laypeople or the *European Chemicals Agency* over a company with a vested interest in keeping their product on the market.