Monsanto Sued

[JohnG]

Jurors give $289 million to a man they say got cancer from Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller

LINK


This is interesting. The mainstream science seemed to indicate it was pretty safe. I don't think Monsanto are any better/worse than any other large publicly traded corporation, but the one particular study that used 1000's of farmers who used glysophate over a long period of time and didn't see any spike in cancer rates seemed like a pretty convincing study. Too lazy to look it up now.

I find it odd to come to this decision knowing they can't trace his cancer to the weed-killer. I know California is pretty harsh about this stuff. Proposition 65

Whaddya think?

 

[bilby]

Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

Asking a jury a scientific question is batshit crazy nutso insane.

 

[JohnG]

Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

Asking a jury a scientific question is batshit crazy nutso insane.

Maybe they will forced to switch to an "organic" pesticide like copper sulphate [/sarc]

 

[whollygoats]

Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

Asking a jury a scientific question is batshit crazy nutso insane.

And trusting the entirely unsupported assertion of an unknown asshat on an obscure online forum is totally righteous....

 

[Underseer]

Jurors give $289 million to a man they say got cancer from Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller

LINK


This is interesting. The mainstream science seemed to indicate it was pretty safe. I don't think Monsanto are any better/worse than any other large publicly traded corporation, but the one particular study that used 1000's of farmers who used glysophate over a long period of time and didn't see any spike in cancer rates seemed like a pretty convincing study. Too lazy to look it up now.

I find it odd to come to this decision knowing they can't trace his cancer to the weed-killer. I know California is pretty harsh about this stuff. Proposition 65

Whaddya think?

The only scientifically verified negative effect of glyphosate is that weeds will evolve a resistance to glyphosate because of its use.

Any other health claim about glyphosate is just anti-science hysteria, and the source of most of this are alternative medicine snake oil salesmen and/or people looking to sell books.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Asking a jury a scientific question is batshit crazy nutso insane.

Exactly. We need a better system for handling this sort of claim.

 

[bilby]

Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

Asking a jury a scientific question is batshit crazy nutso insane.

And trusting the entirely unsupported assertion of an unknown asshat on an obscure online forum is totally righteous....

I am not asking you to trust me. My first claim is well substantiated, and should already be known to anyone with an interest in the subject; If you really want some citations, just ask.

My second is bleeding bloody obvious and should be known to anyone with the slightest capability for reasoned thought.

A commitment to the motto of the Royal Society is commendable, but like anything, can be crazy if taken to extremes.

 

[Jobar]

"We will appeal this decision and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective and safe tool for farmers and others," Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said.
But Litzenburg said an appeal would be costly for Monsanto, since the company would have to pay interest on the damages while the case is being appealed. That's about $25 million a year, he said.

I expect Monsanto will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, given the number of damage suits over Roundup that are pending.

I have used Roundup myself for more years than Johnson, the plaintiff in the Cal. case, did. If the stuff were seriously carcinogenic, the people who work manufacturing it, and the large-scale farmers who put it out by the thousands of gallons a year, would be showing clear statistical evidence; they are not.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not sure why people are so certain here that glyphosate has been proven not to cause cancer. It seems that what the studies suggest is that is probably does under some conditions, albeit probably not through normal dietary intake. This lawsuit was about a man who worked with the herbicide and had a couple of incidents of severe exposure to Roundup. There is apparently evidence that it is "genotoxic", and that can lead to cancer.

See Factcheck.org's Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer?

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer agency of WHO located in Lyon, France, did classify glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The agency based its decision on “limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans” and “sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in experimental animals.” IARC also took into account “strong evidence” that “glyphosate or glyphosate-based formulations” can be “genotoxic,” which means it can damage genes. This damage may then lead to cancer.

But in May 2016, a group of pesticide residue experts at WHO and the United Nations also concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” through their diets. These researchers noted that there’s conflicting evidence on whether glyphosate leads to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph nodes, in workers who handled the herbicide. They also pointed out that the “overall weight of evidence indicates” glyphosate isn’t genotoxic in mammals at doses and routes “relevant to human dietary exposure.”

An FAQ page on WHO’s website clarifies why the IARC’s and the pesticide residue experts’ conclusions aren’t contradictory.

The 2015 IARC conclusion aimed to identify any potential cancer hazard glyphosate may pose to humans at some level of exposure, WHO explains. But in 2016, the pesticide residue experts at WHO and the U.N. assessed the actual cancer risk the herbicide poses to consumers at a specific level of exposure, namely the level commonly found in foods.

There is more to the argument than this excerpt, so I recommend that those interested in the controversy read the source.

 

[bilby]

I'm not sure why people are so certain here that glyphosate has been proven not to cause cancer. It seems that what the studies suggest is that is probably does under some conditions, albeit probably not through normal dietary intake. This lawsuit was about a man who worked with the herbicide and had a couple of incidents of severe exposure to Roundup. There is apparently evidence that it is "genotoxic", and that can lead to cancer.

See Factcheck.org's Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer?

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer agency of WHO located in Lyon, France, did classify glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The agency based its decision on “limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans” and “sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in experimental animals.” IARC also took into account “strong evidence” that “glyphosate or glyphosate-based formulations” can be “genotoxic,” which means it can damage genes. This damage may then lead to cancer.

But in May 2016, a group of pesticide residue experts at WHO and the United Nations also concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” through their diets. These researchers noted that there’s conflicting evidence on whether glyphosate leads to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph nodes, in workers who handled the herbicide. They also pointed out that the “overall weight of evidence indicates” glyphosate isn’t genotoxic in mammals at doses and routes “relevant to human dietary exposure.”

An FAQ page on WHO’s website clarifies why the IARC’s and the pesticide residue experts’ conclusions aren’t contradictory.

The 2015 IARC conclusion aimed to identify any potential cancer hazard glyphosate may pose to humans at some level of exposure, WHO explains. But in 2016, the pesticide residue experts at WHO and the U.N. assessed the actual cancer risk the herbicide poses to consumers at a specific level of exposure, namely the level commonly found in foods.

There is more to the argument than this excerpt, so I recommend that those interested in the controversy read the source.

According to IARC, almost everything is a 'probable' carcinogen.

That they were not prepared to stick their necks out and go with the concensus that it isn't a carcinogen is completely unremarkable.

It remains certain that no cancer has ever been linked to glyphosate by any serious study.

Regardless of which, a jury is completely unqualified to make any assessment of matters of science.

Facts exist. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. If it was, the evidence would be overwhelming - it's been very widely used for a very long time. Where are all the corpses?

I recommend that those who imagine that there's a 'controversy' about this well established science read a whole bunch of sources, rather than cherry-picking.

 

[Copernicus]

According to IARC, almost everything is a 'probable' carcinogen.

Not true, but there are carcinogens in nature that they list, because they look at all sources of cancer. For example, UV exposure causes skin cancer, so they list it. A company like Monsanto will spin this to "poison the well" on their manmade product getting listed as a potential carcinogen. Nobody can stop people from getting skin cancer from too much exposure to the sun, but that is not the same as being exposed to risk from a manmade product.

That they were not prepared to stick their necks out and go with the concensus that it isn't a carcinogen is completely unremarkable.

You are ignoring the fact that they did nothing of the sort. They did not contradict studies that looked at dietary intake, but this was not a case of dietary exposure to Roundup.

It remains certain that no cancer has ever been linked to glyphosate by any serious study.

This is just plain false. There are studies that have yielded conflicting results, according to the article that I posted. You are ignoring the fact that not all studies are equal in terms of what factors they take into account, levels of exposure, and conditions under which the exposure occurs. There are a lot of different studies, and the results and conclusions are mixed.

Regardless of which, a jury is completely unqualified to make any assessment of matters of science.

Who is "qualified"? The scientists who concluded that glyphosate was not a carcinogen or those that concluded it was? Juries are only required to arrive at a conclusion based on what a "reasonable person" would infer from the evidence presented in court. If you can think of a superior way to resolve legal questions regarding liability in such cases, then please inform us. The jury system is obviously not perfect, but what would be a better system for resolving these disputes?

Facts exist. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. If it was, the evidence would be overwhelming - it's been very widely used for a very long time. Where are all the corpses?

Well now, there are quite a few human corpses out there that have died from cancer. The question is how many of them would have become corpses if the living bodies had never been exposed to glyphosate. Your bald assertion that glyphosate was not a carcinogen is hardly more convincing than the jury's conclusion that it was. Why should your opinion be taken over the opinions of jurors that had been exposed to Monsanto's defense lawyers? You never even heard the arguments or saw the evidence.

I recommend that those who imagine that there's a 'controversy' about this well established science read a whole bunch of sources, rather than cherry-picking.

I suppose that your advice would also apply to you. I don't get the impression here that you are some kind of expert on this subject. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that you are just another person here with an opinion. Those are not in short supply here, and we welcome your company.

 

[Juma]

Not true, but there are carcinogens in nature that they list, because they look at all sources of cancer. For example, UV exposure causes skin cancer, so they list it. A company like Monsanto will spin this to "poison the well" on their manmade product getting listed as a potential carcinogen. Nobody can stop people from getting skin cancer from too much exposure to the sun, but that is not the same as being exposed to risk from a manmade product.



You are ignoring the fact that they did nothing of the sort. They did not contradict studies that looked at dietary intake, but this was not a case of dietary exposure to Roundup.

It remains certain that no cancer has ever been linked to glyphosate by any serious study.

This is just plain false. There are studies that have yielded conflicting results, according to the article that I posted. You are ignoring the fact that not all studies are equal in terms of what factors they take into account, levels of exposure, and conditions under which the exposure occurs. There are a lot of different studies, and the results and conclusions are mixed.

Regardless of which, a jury is completely unqualified to make any assessment of matters of science.

Who is "qualified"? The scientists who concluded that glyphosate was not a carcinogen or those that concluded it was? Juries are only required to arrive at a conclusion based on what a "reasonable person" would infer from the evidence presented in court. If you can think of a superior way to resolve legal questions regarding liability in such cases, then please inform us. The jury system is obviously not perfect, but what would be a better system for resolving these disputes?

Facts exist. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. If it was, the evidence would be overwhelming - it's been very widely used for a very long time. Where are all the corpses?

Well now, there are quite a few human corpses out there that have died from cancer. The question is how many of them would have become corpses if the living bodies had never been exposed to glyphosate. Your bald assertion that glyphosate was not a carcinogen is hardly more convincing than the jury's conclusion that it was. Why should your opinion be taken over the opinions of jurors that had been exposed to Monsanto's defense lawyers? You never even heard the arguments or saw the evidence.

I recommend that those who imagine that there's a 'controversy' about this well established science read a whole bunch of sources, rather than cherry-picking.

I suppose that your advice would also apply to you. I don't get the impression here that you are some kind of expert on this subject. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that you are just another person here with an opinion. Those are not in short supply here, and we welcome your company.

To make a rational analysis of the scientific studies you must have some training in scientific method and statistics. I jury would never be able to do it. In a case like this the side with that fit the prejudice of the jury and have most persuasive attorneys wins. The reason monsanto lost this was because the jury believed they had faked scientific reports. It was not a verdict grounded in science.

 

[bilby]

Not true, but there are carcinogens in nature that they list, because they look at all sources of cancer. For example, UV exposure causes skin cancer, so they list it. A company like Monsanto will spin this to "poison the well" on their manmade product getting listed as a potential carcinogen. Nobody can stop people from getting skin cancer from too much exposure to the sun, but that is not the same as being exposed to risk from a manmade product.



You are ignoring the fact that they did nothing of the sort. They did not contradict studies that looked at dietary intake, but this was not a case of dietary exposure to Roundup.

It remains certain that no cancer has ever been linked to glyphosate by any serious study.

This is just plain false. There are studies that have yielded conflicting results, according to the article that I posted. You are ignoring the fact that not all studies are equal in terms of what factors they take into account, levels of exposure, and conditions under which the exposure occurs. There are a lot of different studies, and the results and conclusions are mixed.

Regardless of which, a jury is completely unqualified to make any assessment of matters of science.

Who is "qualified"? The scientists who concluded that glyphosate was not a carcinogen or those that concluded it was? Juries are only required to arrive at a conclusion based on what a "reasonable person" would infer from the evidence presented in court. If you can think of a superior way to resolve legal questions regarding liability in such cases, then please inform us. The jury system is obviously not perfect, but what would be a better system for resolving these disputes?

Facts exist. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. If it was, the evidence would be overwhelming - it's been very widely used for a very long time. Where are all the corpses?

Well now, there are quite a few human corpses out there that have died from cancer. The question is how many of them would have become corpses if the living bodies had never been exposed to glyphosate. Your bald assertion that glyphosate was not a carcinogen is hardly more convincing than the jury's conclusion that it was. Why should your opinion be taken over the opinions of jurors that had been exposed to Monsanto's defense lawyers? You never even heard the arguments or saw the evidence.

I recommend that those who imagine that there's a 'controversy' about this well established science read a whole bunch of sources, rather than cherry-picking.

I suppose that your advice would also apply to you. I don't get the impression here that you are some kind of expert on this subject. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that you are just another person here with an opinion. Those are not in short supply here, and we welcome your company.

Well I studied Molecular Biology at uni, but haven't worked in the field for nearly thiry years now. I am not qualified to carry out the studies myself, but I like to flatter myself that I am able to understand and assess studies done by others.

Not only is there no credible evidence for carcinogenicity here; There is no credible theoretical basis for this particular molecule to be an effective carcinogen. It's not a mutagen, or a methylating agent; Its level of uptake in animals is minimal.

The only basis for even suggesting that this substance might be a carcinogen appear to be animosity towards Monsanto - a corporation that for no obvious reason has become the symbolic target of the anti-science movement.

This is one of those cases where a balanced and non-committal position is actively harmful. And the anti-science activists know but don't care, for ideological reasons.

Glyphosate is FAR safer than any alternative herbicide. The campaign to have it banned is a fucking disgrace, in much the same vein as the anti-vaccination movement. Glyphosate causes cancer in exactly the same way, and to the same degree as vaccines cause autism. That is, not at all.

Fuck public opinion, and fuck juries. Reality remains real regardless of their stupidities.

Expert questions require experts to answer them. People who haven't bothered to learn the science have no right to any opinion on questions of fact.

Juries and referenda are for questions of opinion. If your opinion is that the world is flat, that God told you to gas the Jews, that vaccines cause autism, or that Glyphosate caues cancer, then you can and should be ignored for the crackpot you are, unless you have overwhelming and compelling evidence to back your claims.

 

[Copernicus]

Bilby, there are qualified scientists on both sides of this issue who have actually studied the research in detail and come down on opposite sides of the issue. You were never in the courtroom. You heard no testimony from the experts presented by either side. You haven't really given any argument here other than that you have some expert background that would have allowed you to assess the research, had you read it and participated in the community of scientists debating the issues. I'm certainly not going to trust your "expert" opinion over that of experts who disagree with you and may have much better knowledge of the full range of research on the subject.

What I do believe is that the jury probably made its best effort to assess the evidence presented to it as fairly as laypersons are able to do that. Your arguments to us are not going to be more persuasive than those presented to the jury by the best experts that Monsanto could send into the courtroom to convince a jury. It may well be that they found the defense testimony unconvincing for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that we have sufficient reason to believe that on the basis of news stories and opinion pieces out there. I'm not convinced from what I've read that the jury reached the wrong conclusion on this one.

 

[bilby]

Bilby, there are qualified scientists on both sides of this issue who have actually studied the research in detail and come down on opposite sides of the issue. You were never in the courtroom. You heard no testimony from the experts presented by either side. You haven't really given any argument here other than that you have some expert background that would have allowed you to assess the research, had you read it and participated in the community of scientists debating the issues. I'm certainly not going to trust your "expert" opinion over that of experts who disagree with you and may have much better knowledge of the full range of research on the subject.

What I do believe is that the jury probably made its best effort to assess the evidence presented to it as fairly as laypersons are able to do that. Your arguments to us are not going to be more persuasive than those presented to the jury by the best experts that Monsanto could send into the courtroom to convince a jury. It may well be that they found the defense testimony unconvincing for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that we have sufficient reason to believe that on the basis of news stories and opinion pieces out there. I'm not convinced from what I've read that the jury reached the wrong conclusion on this one.

That's OK, you are allowed to be wrong.

Nobody's basing any decisions on your incorrect opinions.

Nobody should be doing that with juries either, on questions they are unqualified to assess.

I rather like your snide "...had you read it and participated in the community of scientists debating the issues...". Your snark doesn't render our opinions equal in value, nor does it even grant you the ability to know things about me that I have never told you.

I am done being polite about this. Ignorant people need to fucking stop behaving as though their opinions were of value.

 

[scombrid]

Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

Asking a jury a scientific question is batshit crazy nutso insane.

Maybe they will forced to switch to an "organic" pesticide like copper sulphate [/sarc]

In the old days, prior to the invention of glyphosate, they used sodium arsenate to try to control the invasive exotic water hyacinth that was utterly clogging/choking peninsula Florida waters. That didn't have any knock-on effects like dead livestock and contaminated water supplies.

Yeah, sodium arsenate is an inorganic compound but I'm just giving an example that there are way worse things out there than glyphosate that can and have been used to kill plants.

There is zero clinical evidence showing increased rates of cancer in populations exposed to glyphosate or Monsantos "Roundup" formulation of glyphosate based weed killer. If either were carcinogens, we'd be dropping like flies.

 

[scombrid]

Bilby, there are qualified scientists on both sides of this issue who have actually studied the research in detail and come down on opposite sides of the issue.

It's about the same level of qualified scientists from "both sides" on this matter as with vaccine efficacy and safety. Okay, its not that lopsided. But it isn't an equal "both sides" on this one.

From a jury standpoint, it should matter too if Monsanto has information that it hid. Did it?

I'm bothered by the IARC group 2A rating because it gave too much weight to rodent studies (poorly replicated) and not enough weight to a broad NIH epidemiological study that failed to detect elevated rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in exposed farm workers.

Oh, and on IARC lists UV is group 1.

 

[scombrid]

To make a rational analysis of the scientific studies you must have some training in scientific method and statistics.

Statistics is the big one.

You don't need to understand biochemistry to hear a case like this and decide objectively.

You do need to be able to differentiate between a heart tugging anecdote and statistically significant relationships between exposure and rates of disease in the general population.

But if average people understood probability and statistical significance versus anecdote then lotteries would fail and we would see multimillion dollar "Q-Ray Bracelet" "Power Balance Bracelet" scams get recycled every few years on the back of annecdotes "Because it WORKS!".

Remember all the hysteria around silicone breast implants and the unjustified multi-billion dollar settlement? This wasn't a case with the breast implant population showing a higher rate of various diseases (and lawyers attributed a huge range of ailments to the implants) than the non-breast implant population. No, the rate of disease for a lot of ailments blamed on the implants was no different than the general population. But some tragically sick women and a little post hoc gaming by lawyers and we had a scare to end all scares plus a big money settlement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure why people are so certain here that glyphosate has been proven not to cause cancer. It seems that what the studies suggest is that is probably does under some conditions, albeit probably not through normal dietary intake. This lawsuit was about a man who worked with the herbicide and had a couple of incidents of severe exposure to Roundup. There is apparently evidence that it is "genotoxic", and that can lead to cancer.

Nothing has been proven not to cause cancer. Nobody who knows what they are talking about would even claim this as it can't be proven. It's a very different position than what we are saying: That it hasn't been shown to cause cancer.

The reality is that you've got about a 40% lifetime risk of getting cancer. It's impossible to attribute any given cancer to a carcinogen because of this. The more powerful a carcinogen the more likely a cancer is to be due to it but if you look at 1000 heavy smokers dying of lung cancer you'll have some whose cancer wasn't due to smoking.

What I want to know is how much the lawyers are behind the anti-Roundup hysteria. (And before you call me crazy--lawyers were behind the vaccination/autism hysteria.)

- - - Updated - - -

Facts exist. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. If it was, the evidence would be overwhelming - it's been very widely used for a very long time. Where are all the corpses?

No. This can never be proven. All we can say is that it is at most a very weak carcinogen.

 

[Politesse]

I am forever baffled by the way non-scientists think science works. Even if there were "consensus", there wouldn't be "proof", only likelihood. We should be able to empirically rule out the possibility that glyphosate is a carcinogen, if indeed it is not. That clearly hasn't happened yet, introducing an ambiguity into this situation with many visible results. I'm not going to comment on this particular case, not having read it, but this whole scientism rabble-rousing that corporations are always in the right because CHEMISTRY, or always in the wrong because ECOLOGY, strikes me as unhelpful whether the ruling was the best one or not.

Zooming out a bit, I think there are some very good reasons to question the basic idea of a "carcinogen", especially as interpreted in popular culture. Vague at best, and probably very misleading; I think there is a strong degree of magical thinking involved if you imagine potentially carcinogenic substances as functioning just like a germ or virus you might catch. We know that things are not that straightforward, and I doubt that one could ever definitively prove in a court of law that a specific substance caused a specific someone's cancer, unless some weirdly specific circumstances transpired to make them a perfect test case. What you would normally suspect are way too many complicating factors, even in cases where very well known and agreed-upon carcinogens were involved. I could take a bath in asbestos tomorrow and come down with cancer two years later, and proving that the one event caused the other would in fact be very difficult. That doesn't mean it didn't.