11 ms·

Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

101 points by mbustamanter 4y ago

brightball 4y ago
Expanded summary from the description: > For years, Monsanto declared that their product Roundup, the world's most widely used weed killer, was safe. But that all changed in 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed data from scientific studies and concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is probably carcinogenic. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disagreed, other regulatory agencies got involved, and scientists clamored to understand the link between glyphosate and cancer. > Toxic Exposure tells the true story of numerous patients who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a form of cancer, after using Roundup and their ensuing trials against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer, one of the largest agrochemical companies in the world). Written by Chadi Nabhan, MD, MBA, a cancer specialist, this is the only book written by an expert physician witness who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto. > Dr. Nabhan takes the reader behind the scenes of these pivotal trials, explaining key features of the cases, including how Monsanto downplayed the IARC's scientific conclusions, may have worked to change how the EPA classified glyphosate, and conducted extensive PR campaigns designed to minimize the public's perception of the negative health effects of its product. He also provides details about the other expert witnesses who reviewed the evidence, analyzed the science, and stood up to this agricultural behemoth in the courtroom. > Dr. Nabhan tells the inside story of corporate influence, courtroom drama, legal discourse, monumental verdicts, and the ensuing media frenzy surrounding this massive uncovering of the truth and the years of scientific and legal work that led up to it.
- adrr 4y ago
  For comparison, hot beverages(eg: Coffee), red meat and working the night shift are also probable carcinogens. Known carcinogens include alcohol, fried food, bbq/grilling.
  - hammock 4y ago
    deleted
    - adrr 4y ago
      What does this have to do with the discussion? Hackernews is suppose to be about constructive debate.
      - hammock 4y ago
        Maybe I am missing the constructive nature of your comment, can you clarify? Are you proposing coffee is as cancerous as Roundup? Constructively, have you seen this video? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-drink-roundup.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-dr...
        adrr 4y ago
        Roundup hasn't been shown to be carcinogen in any animal model testing and only one observational study has shown an up lift in a cancer. Hence the designation of potential. Hot beverages significantly increases risk of Esophageal cancer in multiple observational studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/
        ch4s3 4y ago
        That seems like a ridiculous gotcha type exchange. I can be both true that glyphosate is safer than alternative herbicides and something you shouldn't drink.
        hammock 4y ago
        The guy, unprompted, said "you can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you." If that is a gotcha, it's self-inflicted
        4y ago
- coin 4y ago
  > who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto In other words, he's paid litigation consultant. Of course his book is going to be in alignment with those that pay him.
Jolliness7501 4y ago
Dear HN admins, please close this firehose of bullshit. Thank you!
- smolder 4y ago
  Dear reader, you should elaborate on what you view as a firehose of bullshit.
  - Jolliness7501 4y ago
    Sure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...
    - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
      As a counterpoint, here's a relevant part of an interview with the lawyer who won 2 billion dollars in damages from Monsanto addressing skeptics of the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s
      - kuhewa 4y ago
        Since we all know a jury is the best way to arbitrate scientific fact
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        Guessing you didn't watch to where he said "We tried to get scientists on the jury. That's how we won".
        kuhewa 4y ago
dreen 4y ago
The damage is still being done. I am a non-producing farmer in EEU. I know for a fact many local farmers still use Roundup on crops, even though its illegal. There are no checks done when they sell the grain. All the bees in the area have already died.
- pkphilip 4y ago
  Why is this comment being downvoted?
  - arminiusreturns 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - hammock 4y ago
      >I quit a good job in the agriculture business once I found out the idiot "daddys money got squandered" business owner got his new injection in cash in a backroom deal w/ Monsanto. Curious about this. Did Monsanto give the farmer an advance or something, in return for agreeing to use/switch to their seed?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - user3939382 4y ago
      > pernicious and devious sockpuppetry cough persona management disinfo campaigns Yeah I've gotten super weird responses when I discuss them on forums where randos are like verbatim repeating their PR talking points, and with a bizarre level of passion. Of course I don't have the information to prove/disprove these things and, insofar as I also see it on HN, these accusations are against the rules, so I don't say anything but it's highly suspicious to say the least.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
29athrowaway 4y ago
Glyphosate weakens plant roots in the long term.
- hd95489 4y ago
  There is no long term farming is seasonal
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Pity the buffer zones surrounding the fields.
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    https://youtu.be/XDyI10Z8aH0 https://youtu.be/XDyI10Z8aH0
- jxramos 4y ago
  interesting, do those treated crops get knocked over in strong winds compared to untreated crops or something like that?
  - hosh 4y ago
    Root systems are not necessarily just about being able to hold soil or not getting knocked over. I don’t know what the parent comment meant by that, but I do know the root zone is vital for plants. Plants do not directly mine minerals. Instead, they produce complex sugars which they exchange with bacteria and fungi, who in turn, trade minerals that the plant needs. Some plants with also trade nutrients with each other (usually within the same species). It’s in this way that soil itself is alive, whereas dirt is dead. Glysophates messes with soil in such a way that farmers attempt to compensate with fertilizer as an input. It becomes a degenerate process. Our current commercial agricultural has been slowly killing our soil.
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      Granting that is perfectly true for arguments sake, roundup also enables widescale no-till agriculture which is huge for soil conservation
overreg 4y ago
"Organizations such as the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the European Commission, Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[30] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The final assessment of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2017 was that "glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans".[31] The EPA has evaluated the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate multiple times since 1986. In 1986, glyphosate was initially classified as Group C: "Possible Human Carcinogen", but later recommended as Group D: "Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity" due to lack of statistical significance in previously examined rat tumor studies. In 1991, it was classified as Group E: "Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans", and in 2015 and 2017, "Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans".[32][33]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)
- smilliken 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - overreg 4y ago
    I normally browse only but decided to inform any unfamiliar readers about the scientific evidence on this topic
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kazinator 4y ago
    So what? What, not who. The referenced Wikipedia page, which you can easily find without help from a green HN account, wasn't created minutes ago.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    Please don’t do that. There are plenty of good reasons to speak anonymously.
- 4y ago
dr_faustus 4y ago
Next up: "The will say anything for money: The true story of how expert witnesses made up all kinds of bullshit over the years and got paid handsomely for it." Expert witnesses caused all sorts of suffering by giving misleading or plainly false testimony and forced the first lyme disease vaccine of the market (https://time.com/6073576/lyme-disease-vaccine/ https://time.com/6073576/lyme-disease-vaccine/). Just one example.
- giantg2 4y ago
  The article is paywalled. The lyme vaccine went off the market due to a lack of adoption as well as factors related to it's utility (80% effectiveness seems high, but can provide false confidence and doesn't negate any of the normal prophylactic steps. But it can lead to difficulty in diagnostics given they test for antibody levels). Sure, the law suit didn't help anything, but it wasn't the main reason. Expert witnesses on many cases can provide opposing opinions and interpretations of the case. It's up to the court and jury to decide. There are a number of errors even in the more rigorous criminal courts where an incorrect judgement has been rendered. This speaks more about the flaws in the system around determining truth or believability than can be attributed to any one party.
cashsterling 4y ago
Just FYI... Monsanto is now owned by Bayer. So the Monsanto arm of the company now has even larger international regulatory influence via the Bayer parent.
- singularity2001 4y ago
  Bayer : pesticides since 1942 Forgive me if that humor is too dark, so is the topic of roundup and corporate manipulation of scientific studies
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    The "Monsanto" trademark was too toxic to keep using after the merger, so they've continued using this other trademark, which is somehow apparently less toxic.
    - weberer 4y ago
      Well yeah. When I see Bayer, I think aspirin.
      - chuchana 4y ago
        You might have heard of their classic cough medecine, too: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Drug_store_sign_for_products_Heroin_and_Aspirin_before_US_Heroin_ban_1924.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Drug_sto... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_He...
        jessaustin 4y ago
        The original Purdue Pharma!
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Monsanto is where it belongs. One direct successor of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben (Hrr Hrr Hrr)
algoatecorn 4y ago
Sure is lovely when a bunch of non-experts decide to chime in on a nuanced subject. Imagine a bunch of plant biologists congregated on a discussion board to make sweeping claims about SaaS or whatever your area of expertise is. Hilarious. Even appealing to literature is limited by your knowledge background. Spend a few years in the field and you will realize that some studies are good and some are bad. Some indicate negative effects under incomparable conditions. Some are good. Some are just plain kooky.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  > Spend a few years in the field and you will realize that some studies are good and some are bad. On this topic, I highly recommend Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. It's a brilliant read.
- Demonsult 4y ago
  When experts do chime in, they're blasted as shills. Have fun finding someone who is truly an expert yet has no connection to the industry that uses the technology.
  - algoatecorn 4y ago
    It's tricky because you can be well informed without being biased. In the case of glyphosate, it just so happens that being well informed comes off as shilling because the genpop conjecture is void of nuance
- lispisok 4y ago
  You just described so many HN threads.
jvans 4y ago
This story is a broken record that just repeats over and over again in different forms and industries. It follows the general form of: 1. Develop some profitable product 2. years later people report horrible effects 3. Big co denies and stalls for years/decades 4. Hundreds of thousands /millions of people are negatively effected 5. Science eventually overwhelms any counter argument and product in taken off market 6. Go back to step 1 with different product Some other examples: 1. Big tobacco 2. Teflon(PFOAs) [1] 3. Generic drugs [2] 4. Regular drugs [3] 5. Leaded gasoline [4] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Poisoned-Corporate-Lawyers-Twenty-Year/dp/1501172816/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=PFOA+book&qid=1675874812&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Poisoned-Corporate-Lawyers-T... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Bottle-Lies-Inside-Story-Generic/dp/006233879X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ZP7JB5UCAAKR&keywords=bottle+of+lies&qid=1675874920&sprefix=bo%2Caps%2C1009&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Bottle-Lies-Inside-Story-Generic/dp/0... [3]https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8963867/Green.html?sequence=2&isAllowed=y https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8963867/Green.ht... [4] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-invented-180961368/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  One of the fascinating aspects that allows this to continue is that legal liability for a destructive product is essentially voided when a company is sold (look at the arguments Dow chemical made in Bhopal). This has created a system where nations effectively allow corporate actors to transfer the harm they cause onto the government and also let's companies skimp on doing effective due diligence when seeking a merger. It's an extremely fascinating case of regulatory capture, and I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities.
  - jvans 4y ago
    > I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities Yup, it is astounding how much harm a handful of greedy people can do without ever being held financially or criminally accountable. As long as the harm is sufficiently spread out and stochastic they are in the clear
wonderwonder 4y ago
I don't know anything about this but this topic (environmental law) is something my wife really enjoys. I was going to order the ebook for her but pricing it the same as the hard cover makes no sense. $30 for an ebook is prohibitively expensive.
anenefan 4y ago
As the end user, I know the formulation of roundup has changed over the years, in particular the wetter and other additional ingredients used along with the active ingredient. "Probably" is a weasel word and does not belong when claiming to have made decisions based on hard science, especially since at least one type of wetter used and mixed in with the final roundup product is (sources I've read) carcinogenic ... sadly the same stuff is used in ... some beauty products ... so no surprise that isn't being waved around. On the list of herbicides used in my parts, looking at break down products and the LD50 rates, life time in soil, Glyphosate is nowhere near the top of concerning herbicides used. If coincidences is considered acceptable, I've noted the sharp decline in bandicoot population where part of their diet is earthworms and one of the more popular weed killers finding wide use the last few years, has a secondary breakdown product which in high enough concentrations lethal to earthworms. Disclaimer: I've worked on farms spraying various herbicides on and off for near 30 years. I've always been suspicious of what's been recommended as safe ever since witnessing first hand the genetic damage old 245T formulations (used in our parts N.Q. Aust for ring barking trees) could inflict. This means I usually like to know just how bad something is if I'm using it, use sparingly if there are flags, and personally I won't use half the herbicides used that are considered safe, but roundup I consider moderately safe for the environment since the target weed doesn't need to be saturated to the point of run off for it to work and the work on testing it in the 1950s and 60s prior to Monsanto didn't raise any flags.

101 points by mbustamanter 4y ago

Expanded summary from the description: > For years, Monsanto declared that their product Roundup, the world's most widely used weed killer, was safe. But that all changed in 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed data from scientific studies and concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is probably carcinogenic. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disagreed, other regulatory agencies got involved, and scientists clamored to understand the link between glyphosate and cancer. > Toxic Exposure tells the true story of numerous patients who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a form of cancer, after using Roundup and their ensuing trials against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer, one of the largest agrochemical companies in the world). Written by Chadi Nabhan, MD, MBA, a cancer specialist, this is the only book written by an expert physician witness who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto. > Dr. Nabhan takes the reader behind the scenes of these pivotal trials, explaining key features of the cases, including how Monsanto downplayed the IARC's scientific conclusions, may have worked to change how the EPA classified glyphosate, and conducted extensive PR campaigns designed to minimize the public's perception of the negative health effects of its product. He also provides details about the other expert witnesses who reviewed the evidence, analyzed the science, and stood up to this agricultural behemoth in the courtroom. > Dr. Nabhan tells the inside story of corporate influence, courtroom drama, legal discourse, monumental verdicts, and the ensuing media frenzy surrounding this massive uncovering of the truth and the years of scientific and legal work that led up to it.

adrr 4y ago
For comparison, hot beverages(eg: Coffee), red meat and working the night shift are also probable carcinogens. Known carcinogens include alcohol, fried food, bbq/grilling.
- hammock 4y ago
  deleted
  - adrr 4y ago
    What does this have to do with the discussion? Hackernews is suppose to be about constructive debate.
    - hammock 4y ago
      Maybe I am missing the constructive nature of your comment, can you clarify? Are you proposing coffee is as cancerous as Roundup? Constructively, have you seen this video? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-drink-roundup.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-dr...
      - adrr 4y ago
        Roundup hasn't been shown to be carcinogen in any animal model testing and only one observational study has shown an up lift in a cancer. Hence the designation of potential. Hot beverages significantly increases risk of Esophageal cancer in multiple observational studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        That seems like a ridiculous gotcha type exchange. I can be both true that glyphosate is safer than alternative herbicides and something you shouldn't drink.
        hammock 4y ago
        The guy, unprompted, said "you can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you." If that is a gotcha, it's self-inflicted
        4y ago
coin 4y ago
> who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto In other words, he's paid litigation consultant. Of course his book is going to be in alignment with those that pay him.

Jolliness7501 4y ago

Dear HN admins, please close this firehose of bullshit. Thank you!

smolder 4y ago
Dear reader, you should elaborate on what you view as a firehose of bullshit.
- Jolliness7501 4y ago
  Sure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    As a counterpoint, here's a relevant part of an interview with the lawyer who won 2 billion dollars in damages from Monsanto addressing skeptics of the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      Since we all know a jury is the best way to arbitrate scientific fact
      - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        Guessing you didn't watch to where he said "We tried to get scientists on the jury. That's how we won".
        kuhewa 4y ago

dreen 4y ago

The damage is still being done. I am a non-producing farmer in EEU. I know for a fact many local farmers still use Roundup on crops, even though its illegal. There are no checks done when they sell the grain. All the bees in the area have already died.

pkphilip 4y ago
Why is this comment being downvoted?
- arminiusreturns 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - hammock 4y ago
    >I quit a good job in the agriculture business once I found out the idiot "daddys money got squandered" business owner got his new injection in cash in a backroom deal w/ Monsanto. Curious about this. Did Monsanto give the farmer an advance or something, in return for agreeing to use/switch to their seed?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - user3939382 4y ago
    > pernicious and devious sockpuppetry cough persona management disinfo campaigns Yeah I've gotten super weird responses when I discuss them on forums where randos are like verbatim repeating their PR talking points, and with a bizarre level of passion. Of course I don't have the information to prove/disprove these things and, insofar as I also see it on HN, these accusations are against the rules, so I don't say anything but it's highly suspicious to say the least.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

29athrowaway 4y ago

Glyphosate weakens plant roots in the long term.

hd95489 4y ago
There is no long term farming is seasonal
- peteradio 4y ago
  Pity the buffer zones surrounding the fields.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  https://youtu.be/XDyI10Z8aH0 https://youtu.be/XDyI10Z8aH0
jxramos 4y ago
interesting, do those treated crops get knocked over in strong winds compared to untreated crops or something like that?
- hosh 4y ago
  Root systems are not necessarily just about being able to hold soil or not getting knocked over. I don’t know what the parent comment meant by that, but I do know the root zone is vital for plants. Plants do not directly mine minerals. Instead, they produce complex sugars which they exchange with bacteria and fungi, who in turn, trade minerals that the plant needs. Some plants with also trade nutrients with each other (usually within the same species). It’s in this way that soil itself is alive, whereas dirt is dead. Glysophates messes with soil in such a way that farmers attempt to compensate with fertilizer as an input. It becomes a degenerate process. Our current commercial agricultural has been slowly killing our soil.
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    Granting that is perfectly true for arguments sake, roundup also enables widescale no-till agriculture which is huge for soil conservation

overreg 4y ago

"Organizations such as the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the European Commission, Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[30] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The final assessment of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2017 was that "glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans".[31] The EPA has evaluated the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate multiple times since 1986. In 1986, glyphosate was initially classified as Group C: "Possible Human Carcinogen", but later recommended as Group D: "Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity" due to lack of statistical significance in previously examined rat tumor studies. In 1991, it was classified as Group E: "Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans", and in 2015 and 2017, "Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans".[32][33]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)

smilliken 4y ago
[flagged]
- overreg 4y ago
  I normally browse only but decided to inform any unfamiliar readers about the scientific evidence on this topic
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kazinator 4y ago
  So what? What, not who. The referenced Wikipedia page, which you can easily find without help from a green HN account, wasn't created minutes ago.
- omginternets 4y ago
  Please don’t do that. There are plenty of good reasons to speak anonymously.
4y ago

dr_faustus 4y ago

Next up: "The will say anything for money: The true story of how expert witnesses made up all kinds of bullshit over the years and got paid handsomely for it." Expert witnesses caused all sorts of suffering by giving misleading or plainly false testimony and forced the first lyme disease vaccine of the market (https://time.com/6073576/lyme-disease-vaccine/ https://time.com/6073576/lyme-disease-vaccine/). Just one example.

giantg2 4y ago
The article is paywalled. The lyme vaccine went off the market due to a lack of adoption as well as factors related to it's utility (80% effectiveness seems high, but can provide false confidence and doesn't negate any of the normal prophylactic steps. But it can lead to difficulty in diagnostics given they test for antibody levels). Sure, the law suit didn't help anything, but it wasn't the main reason. Expert witnesses on many cases can provide opposing opinions and interpretations of the case. It's up to the court and jury to decide. There are a number of errors even in the more rigorous criminal courts where an incorrect judgement has been rendered. This speaks more about the flaws in the system around determining truth or believability than can be attributed to any one party.

cashsterling 4y ago

Just FYI... Monsanto is now owned by Bayer. So the Monsanto arm of the company now has even larger international regulatory influence via the Bayer parent.

singularity2001 4y ago
Bayer : pesticides since 1942 Forgive me if that humor is too dark, so is the topic of roundup and corporate manipulation of scientific studies
- jessaustin 4y ago
  The "Monsanto" trademark was too toxic to keep using after the merger, so they've continued using this other trademark, which is somehow apparently less toxic.
  - weberer 4y ago
    Well yeah. When I see Bayer, I think aspirin.
    - chuchana 4y ago
      You might have heard of their classic cough medecine, too: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Drug_store_sign_for_products_Heroin_and_Aspirin_before_US_Heroin_ban_1924.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Drug_sto... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_He...
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        The original Purdue Pharma!

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

Monsanto is where it belongs. One direct successor of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben (Hrr Hrr Hrr)

algoatecorn 4y ago

Sure is lovely when a bunch of non-experts decide to chime in on a nuanced subject. Imagine a bunch of plant biologists congregated on a discussion board to make sweeping claims about SaaS or whatever your area of expertise is. Hilarious. Even appealing to literature is limited by your knowledge background. Spend a few years in the field and you will realize that some studies are good and some are bad. Some indicate negative effects under incomparable conditions. Some are good. Some are just plain kooky.

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
> Spend a few years in the field and you will realize that some studies are good and some are bad. On this topic, I highly recommend Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. It's a brilliant read.
Demonsult 4y ago
When experts do chime in, they're blasted as shills. Have fun finding someone who is truly an expert yet has no connection to the industry that uses the technology.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  It's tricky because you can be well informed without being biased. In the case of glyphosate, it just so happens that being well informed comes off as shilling because the genpop conjecture is void of nuance
lispisok 4y ago
You just described so many HN threads.

jvans 4y ago

This story is a broken record that just repeats over and over again in different forms and industries. It follows the general form of: 1. Develop some profitable product 2. years later people report horrible effects 3. Big co denies and stalls for years/decades 4. Hundreds of thousands /millions of people are negatively effected 5. Science eventually overwhelms any counter argument and product in taken off market 6. Go back to step 1 with different product Some other examples: 1. Big tobacco 2. Teflon(PFOAs) [1] 3. Generic drugs [2] 4. Regular drugs [3] 5. Leaded gasoline [4] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Poisoned-Corporate-Lawyers-Twenty-Year/dp/1501172816/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=PFOA+book&qid=1675874812&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Poisoned-Corporate-Lawyers-T... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Bottle-Lies-Inside-Story-Generic/dp/006233879X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ZP7JB5UCAAKR&keywords=bottle+of+lies&qid=1675874920&sprefix=bo%2Caps%2C1009&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Bottle-Lies-Inside-Story-Generic/dp/0... [3]https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8963867/Green.html?sequence=2&isAllowed=y https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8963867/Green.ht... [4] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-invented-180961368/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
One of the fascinating aspects that allows this to continue is that legal liability for a destructive product is essentially voided when a company is sold (look at the arguments Dow chemical made in Bhopal). This has created a system where nations effectively allow corporate actors to transfer the harm they cause onto the government and also let's companies skimp on doing effective due diligence when seeking a merger. It's an extremely fascinating case of regulatory capture, and I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities.
- jvans 4y ago
  > I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities Yup, it is astounding how much harm a handful of greedy people can do without ever being held financially or criminally accountable. As long as the harm is sufficiently spread out and stochastic they are in the clear

wonderwonder 4y ago

I don't know anything about this but this topic (environmental law) is something my wife really enjoys. I was going to order the ebook for her but pricing it the same as the hard cover makes no sense. $30 for an ebook is prohibitively expensive.

anenefan 4y ago

As the end user, I know the formulation of roundup has changed over the years, in particular the wetter and other additional ingredients used along with the active ingredient. "Probably" is a weasel word and does not belong when claiming to have made decisions based on hard science, especially since at least one type of wetter used and mixed in with the final roundup product is (sources I've read) carcinogenic ... sadly the same stuff is used in ... some beauty products ... so no surprise that isn't being waved around. On the list of herbicides used in my parts, looking at break down products and the LD50 rates, life time in soil, Glyphosate is nowhere near the top of concerning herbicides used. If coincidences is considered acceptable, I've noted the sharp decline in bandicoot population where part of their diet is earthworms and one of the more popular weed killers finding wide use the last few years, has a secondary breakdown product which in high enough concentrations lethal to earthworms. Disclaimer: I've worked on farms spraying various herbicides on and off for near 30 years. I've always been suspicious of what's been recommended as safe ever since witnessing first hand the genetic damage old 245T formulations (used in our parts N.Q. Aust for ring barking trees) could inflict. This means I usually like to know just how bad something is if I'm using it, use sparingly if there are flags, and personally I won't use half the herbicides used that are considered safe, but roundup I consider moderately safe for the environment since the target weed doesn't need to be saturated to the point of run off for it to work and the work on testing it in the 1950s and 60s prior to Monsanto didn't raise any flags.