Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#61

Post by colordrops »

wslh wrote: post #41

They are running a big campaign in favour of glyphosate in Reddit. in Argentina at least. Subreddit admins have cobtacted Reddit to suspend the campaign because of false claims going against the rules. The campaign also tricks people because they post links to popular media sites. There is more information about this (in Spanish) here: https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/95m863/followup_...

They've been running a campaign on reddit for years. They've even had a subreddit where they coordinated, though I can't recall the name. They scan every subreddit for posts about Monsanto, glyphosate, or GMOs, and attack anyone who posts negatively about them. It was always the same people.

Edit: found the subreddit, though it doesn't appear to be as active as it used to be: https://www.reddit.com/r/GMOFacts/

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#62

Post by gniv »

tptacek wrote: post #26

A useful thing to know about this case is that the plaintiff took pains not to base their case on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, but rather of Roundup, which is less than half glyphosate. During their opening statement, any time they referenced a study about about glyphosate, they'd say "but remember that study only looked at glyphosate, not Roundup, and as we all know, more than half of Roundup is other stuff".…

And yet this is the first line of the article:

"Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer."

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#63

Post by tim333 »

zorkw4rg wrote: post #4

> Mr Johnson's lawyer, Brent Wisner, said the jury's verdict showed that the evidence against the product was "overwhelming". Uhhh to say that is quite the stretch, a jury of layman should judge the scientific consensus? The referenced International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report is anything but conclusive. That verdict speaks more to the widespread uninformed FUD against GMO. https://www.iarc.fr/en/medi…

The IARC concluded "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A). I'll give you it didn't say "definitely" but still not good.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#64

Post by tangentspace »

killbrad wrote: post #58
fabian2k wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I followed that argument a bit, and what I found was a Seralini study ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756058/ ). He is known for some really bad studies about GMOs, those were simply terrible science and he obviously has an axe to grind. The POEA experiments in that paper were about exposing cell cultures to different roundup compositions and components. It is not surprising that POEA kills the cells…

I'm confused, are you arguing that cellular changes cannot impact a larger organism because they have too many cells?

That's not how I'd interpret this sentence: "We have skin and other barriers that protect the cells." It sounds to me like the author claims that humans have skin, which is true, and that skin forms a barrier that protects internal cells, which is extremely plausible.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#65

Post by trumped »

dgacmu wrote: post #34
keymone wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not defending monsanto here, but this particular argument is garbage. your urine is safe to drink - will you do it in front of me on camera right now?

For $289 million? ;)

I'm cheap, I'd probably do it for $10k (1/4oz)... If it's a recurring deal, I might even do it weekly for $5k each time...

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#66

Post by dionidium »

np76 wrote: post #45
bri3d wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. It doesn't matter what part of the composition was toxic in this context. It's not pertinent in the real world whether gyphosate or something else was toxic, the substance in question is Round Up. If you're trying to have a debate about the merits of glyphosate that's a different subject. I think I linked you to the emails from…

> So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. The same Monsanto that manufactured PCBs and Agent Orange? That's a crazy coincidence.

Well, no, not the same Monsanto that did any of that. They spun off their chemical division in 1996. [0]

More philosophically (and despite what SCOTUS has to say about it), companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency.

And the people who did the things you mention here are dead.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-t...

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#68

Post by dionidium »

tptacek wrote: post #43
bri3d wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. It doesn't matter what part of the composition was toxic in this context. It's not pertinent in the real world whether gyphosate or something else was toxic, the substance in question is Round Up. If you're trying to have a debate about the merits of glyphosate that's a different subject. I think I linked you to the emails from…

Sure? My point is just that the case wasn't about glyphosate but about a particular Monsanto product. I sort of don't care what happens to Monsanto.

> I sort of don't care what happens to Monsanto.

And yet you comment on every thread that mentions them :)

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#69

Post by eganist »

fabian2k wrote: post #56
tptacek wrote: post #26

A useful thing to know about this case is that the plaintiff took pains not to base their case on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, but rather of Roundup, which is less than half glyphosate. During their opening statement, any time they referenced a study about about glyphosate, they'd say "but remember that study only looked at glyphosate, not Roundup, and as we all know, more than half of Roundup is other stuff".…

I followed that argument a bit, and what I found was a Seralini study ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756058/ ). He is known for some really bad studies about GMOs, those were simply terrible science and he obviously has an axe to grind. The POEA experiments in that paper were about exposing cell cultures to different roundup compositions and components. It is not surprising that POEA kills the cells…

> We have skin and other barriers that protect the cells.

This disregards the fact that Roundup can easily be inhaled or absorbed through food consumption or through skin-to-mouth contact.

It's literally sprayed. And when it's on food, it can easily be consumed.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#70

Post by cptskippy »

dionidium wrote: post #66
np76 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. The same Monsanto that manufactured PCBs and Agent Orange? That's a crazy coincidence.

Well, no, not the same Monsanto that did any of that. They spun off their chemical division in 1996. [0] More philosophically (and despite what SCOTUS has to say about it), companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency. And the people who did the things you mention here are dead . [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-t.…

Did any of the people in decision making positions today work under the old guard? That might suggest a corporate culture that's been perpetuated.
Post reply on HN