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

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141

Post by tripzilch »

tptacek wrote: post #121
christophilus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My answer is in the linked video, and doesn’t fit into a sound bite. If I understand your question, you are asking for evidence that corporations get away with things that normal citizens wouldn’t. The answer is that history provides ample evidence to back up this claim, and my link is one such piece of evidence.

No, you don't understand my question. My question is: is there some legal basis for the idea that a corporation serves as a liability "buffer" for the actions of its employees?

Sounds like your question has now moved the goal posts on what you imagine to be "that whole buffer argument".

What matters is whether corporations routinely get away with stuff that individuals don't, in practice. Not whether there's a "legal basis" for it.

And this is wide spread, plain obvious and readily admitted by most Americans.

Your framing of the question edges on the disingenuous because it really doesn't matter, even if there was legal basis to this or to the opposite, it would be selectively applied to large corporations any way. So many things for which there actually is a legal basis when it concerns individuals, corporations get away with in practice so frequently, that most individuals (of modal income) don't even attempt and try to get their right. Because they'll lose or bleed an unknown amount of money into it, which they probably can't afford.

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

#142

Post by tripzilch »

tptacek wrote: post #136
ethbro wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(IANAL) I believe the definition of corporations varies widely enough from state to state that there may not even be an answer to this question. My understanding is that there is still generally a veil in tort law, except when the tort was committed personally by an agent of the corporation. I hit you in a company vehicle through my own negligence, you sue me. I hit you in a company vehicle because I wasn't properly…

I think we are now trying to work from axioms to a legal question neither of us are qualified to answer. But my current understanding is: working for a giant company while knowingly breaking the law, whether or not your company tells you to do it, does not shield you in any way from criminal liability. As I understand it, the "interesting" questions here are the extent to which you can hold directors or even major sh…

> But if you commit a crime while working for Dow Chemical, or instruct someone to commit a crime who then does so, Dow's liability shield can't keep you out of prison.

How about if you, in a powerful role, change incentives within the company such that people working under you are all but guaranteed to commit crimes, simply because the ones who refuse to will end up lower on the corporate ladder, so the supplicants and ones that will gladly commit crimes for you without having to be explicitly instructed, will remain?

Because that's not a very hypothetical power structure, at all.

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

#143

Post by tripzilch »

tptacek wrote: post #79
dionidium wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I sort of don't care what happens to Monsanto. And yet you comment on every thread that mentions them :)

I do, because they are full of nonsense, and I am like a moth to the buglight with that kind of thing.

It's unfortunate that your continued vehemence with "that kind of thing" doesn't translate to being generally right as often, or even making for a pleasant discussion, participating or just reading along.

I see your name at the top of a thread, I just know I'm in for reading a huge thread that isn't much about the topic at hand (that alone should give you sufficient pause for thought), but about you trying to prove people wrong about an increasingly narrow question that you framed yourself.

In the end, you technically get to be right, and nobody learned anything.

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

#144

Post by saalweachter »

ScottBurson wrote: post #29
shawnz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you made an honest effort to understand the parent's point. They are saying that the jurors might have been biased against Monsanto due to the widespread fear of GMO, and glyphosate being a symbol of that fear.

I can't speak to what was in the jurors' minds, but in my opinion that's backwards: it is concern about glyphosate that is primarily driving fear of GMOs. If we got rid of glyphosate, I for one would not have any problem with the other GMOs I am currently aware of, though I would of course reserve the option of objecting to specific GMOs I might learn about in the future.

How do you feel about bt crops?

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

#145

Post by saalweachter »

simias wrote: post #53
cies wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salt is not safe to drink. Vinegar is to some extend (you can take several gulps) Glyphosate is not. Claim was BS. Good journalists to challenge them on the spot. Bad Monsanto for making that claim. It is clearly not safe to drink. Not one gulp. Microdosing is not the point there, the claim was not made for microdosing, the claim was safe to drink.

The journalist was right to challenge him if the claim was BS but I disagree that asking him to drink a glass of roundup and him refusing is a good argument. I mean take the position of the Monsanto lobbyist, he most likely never attempted such a stunt before, he doesn't know how it tastes, he doesn't know if drinking a whole glass of it at once is going to cause digestive distress etc... Of course he's going to refu…

I mean, the LD50 is something like a cup of the pure stuff. A bottle of concentrate is probably a lethal dose. Diluted 1 tbsp to a few gallons (like when spraying) a cup of it is probably fine. Granted, I personally wouldn’t drink it even if I prepared it myself, but I’m also not drinking a cup of bleach diluted well below a meaningful dose.

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

#146

Post by tptacek »

tripzilch wrote: post #143
tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, because they are full of nonsense, and I am like a moth to the buglight with that kind of thing.

It's unfortunate that your continued vehemence with "that kind of thing" doesn't translate to being generally right as often, or even making for a pleasant discussion, participating or just reading along. I see your name at the top of a thread, I just know I'm in for reading a huge thread that isn't much about the topic at hand (that alone should give you sufficient pause for thought), but about you trying to prove p…

Sorry. Never mind. I'm wrong. Glyphosate is a carcinogen, Monsanto sues every farmer within a 10 mile radius of one of their Roundup-Ready customers, the IARC and California carcinogenicity warnings are entirely reputable and based on only the soundest of science, and if you work for a corporation, prosecutors have to prove your boss didn't order you to commit a crime before they can come after you. Sorry for obstructing those truths. :)

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

#147

Post by sampo »

gonvaled wrote: post #102

Interesting that this happens after Monsanto has been acquired by an EU company. How long have cases like this one been dismissed? Are there any examples of US court rulings against big American companies with comparable foreign competitors? I mean, rulings affecting only the American company? (putting it at a disadvantage) The US is becoming a risky market for foreign enterprises, since it has become extremely polit…

Last year, a jury in California issued an even larger $417-million verdict for a woman with ovarian cancer. Against Johnson & Johnson, an American pharma company. It was about talcum products, that is baby powder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson#Baby_powde...

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cancer-talc-verd...

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #146
tripzilch wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate that your continued vehemence with "that kind of thing" doesn't translate to being generally right as often, or even making for a pleasant discussion, participating or just reading along. I see your name at the top of a thread, I just know I'm in for reading a huge thread that isn't much about the topic at hand (that alone should give you sufficient pause for thought), but about you trying to prove p…

Sorry. Never mind. I'm wrong. Glyphosate is a carcinogen, Monsanto sues every farmer within a 10 mile radius of one of their Roundup-Ready customers, the IARC and California carcinogenicity warnings are entirely reputable and based on only the soundest of science, and if you work for a corporation, prosecutors have to prove your boss didn't order you to commit a crime before they can come after you. Sorry for obstruc…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by SuoDuanDao »

dionidium wrote: post #97
atlantic wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sophistry. You can take that line of argument to absolve anyone or anything from responsibility. For example, none of the cells in my body are the same as ten years ago, ergo this is not the same body as a decade ago. Or, there is no continuity between my thoughts then and now, therefore mentally I am not the same entity. Or, all of the individuals composing a company when it committed an environmental crime a…

In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.

Why not? It's the same legal entity committing both crimes.

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

#150

Post by dionidium »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #149
dionidium wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.

Why not? It's the same legal entity committing both crimes.

Again, you're focusing on the legal entity. Maybe it's useful to hold the entity liable. Maybe not (I suspect not, but it's unrelated to my point).

My point is that if you want to meaningfully engage in and understand a debate about glyphosate on the Internet, then a subthread about Agent Orange is guaranteed to confuse, distract, and mislead.

It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's political axe-grinding. It's mere well-poisoning (and would be even if the same people were involved, but, moreover, the people responsible for Agent Orange are dead).

Post reply on HN