4 ms·

The judgment was based on failure to warn of risk, not negligence in design. On causation, as far as I can tell, the 2015 finding of epidemiological evidence f

by w10-1 3y ago

The judgment was based on failure to warn of risk, not negligence in design. On causation, as far as I can tell, the 2015 finding of epidemiological evidence for a 41% increase in non-hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) was rebutted by non-affiliated researchers, but paid experts are continuing to publish, and claim others have recently found a mechanism. But AFAIK there's no epidemiological or mechanistic proof, now or at the time they made warnings. (I would assume a failure to warn requires some proof they knew of the risk?) In this case, 57 is barely on the young side of the affected population, but decades of exposure is hard to overlook. Warnings are something of a fiction. Detailed legalese is regularly ignored, and if it's unclear any commercial gardener avoids glyphosate even today after all the scary news. But the hugely differential impact is a legitimate environmental justice concern, and the lawsuits might be the tip of the iceberg. It would be best if Monsanto/Bayer negotiated a pool to pay affected people and more importantly to do outreach and monitoring for those who might be affected. The incentives are all wrong here: huge 100X punitive damages based on failure to warn when there's no proven risk just make any rational decision-makers dig in if not suppress research. It'd be better for companies to pitch in for investigations and treatment over the lifecycle of the product, in exchange for protection from legal lotteries.

fyokdrigd 3y ago
> unclear any commercial gardener avoids glyphosate even today you fell for the spin dr work. roundup have tons of that, but it's not what 1) might cause cancer or 2) what is defended in their patents. well, it might cause cancer too. but not what was always argued against roundup.
dehrmann 3y ago
I'm surprised these judgements are happening. The science isn't really nailed down.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  “The science,” is such a cringe term
  - kbelder 3y ago
    Replace it with 'The scientific evidence' then.
- dathinab 3y ago
  see no judgment happend when Monsanto was US owned but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that) but whats happening there in this case(es) really doesn't look like a proper state of law acting but like some geo political nonsense
  - josefx 3y ago
    > but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) During the same trials it came up that Monsanto at least believed that it had enough contacts to undermine any study it did not like. That probably also influenced what kind of studies the court accepted. You can hardly limit evidence to peer reviewed studies when the defendant outright said that they had full control over which studies would make it that far.
    - dathinab 3y ago
      Using non peer reviewed studies means using studies which have not yet been properly error checked! It's like making decision based on draft laws which have not yet been passed i.e. it fundamentally undermines the justice systems claim to be based on facts, because creating a study which uses various form of "subtle accidental mistakes" to twist the truth is very viable (and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews, but if there isn't even a peer review you have free rain to manipulate). I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer without prove it's okay to use some intermediate test results and pretend they are final to get a fake claim to base a decision one, that's just so wrong. And surprise the parts which where mostly used as a reference for the ruling where found to be quite faulty (in ways which look to me a lot like someone tried to forcefully come to the result that it is causing cancer). > to undermine any study it did not like you still need to use facts to do so, if any study showing that it causes cancer can be undermined using facts then maybe it's a strong indication that there is no good way to proof it to be harmful (with current methods) If the US believes there is enough suspicion for it being harmful to make it okay for judges to conjure facts where there are non then they should just ban it through a congress decision. This might not be fact based but at least it's based on a proper political due process.

by w10-1 3y ago

fyokdrigd 3y ago

> unclear any commercial gardener avoids glyphosate even today you fell for the spin dr work. roundup have tons of that, but it's not what 1) might cause cancer or 2) what is defended in their patents. well, it might cause cancer too. but not what was always argued against roundup.

dehrmann 3y ago

I'm surprised these judgements are happening. The science isn't really nailed down.

edgyquant 3y ago
“The science,” is such a cringe term
- kbelder 3y ago
  Replace it with 'The scientific evidence' then.
dathinab 3y ago
see no judgment happend when Monsanto was US owned but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that) but whats happening there in this case(es) really doesn't look like a proper state of law acting but like some geo political nonsense
- josefx 3y ago
  > but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) During the same trials it came up that Monsanto at least believed that it had enough contacts to undermine any study it did not like. That probably also influenced what kind of studies the court accepted. You can hardly limit evidence to peer reviewed studies when the defendant outright said that they had full control over which studies would make it that far.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    Using non peer reviewed studies means using studies which have not yet been properly error checked! It's like making decision based on draft laws which have not yet been passed i.e. it fundamentally undermines the justice systems claim to be based on facts, because creating a study which uses various form of "subtle accidental mistakes" to twist the truth is very viable (and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews, but if there isn't even a peer review you have free rain to manipulate). I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer without prove it's okay to use some intermediate test results and pretend they are final to get a fake claim to base a decision one, that's just so wrong. And surprise the parts which where mostly used as a reference for the ruling where found to be quite faulty (in ways which look to me a lot like someone tried to forcefully come to the result that it is causing cancer). > to undermine any study it did not like you still need to use facts to do so, if any study showing that it causes cancer can be undermined using facts then maybe it's a strong indication that there is no good way to proof it to be harmful (with current methods) If the US believes there is enough suspicion for it being harmful to make it okay for judges to conjure facts where there are non then they should just ban it through a congress decision. This might not be fact based but at least it's based on a proper political due process.