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

Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 379 posts

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#141

Post by zzzeek »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #120
abe_duarte wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have been exposed to the chemical got cancer. Internal Monsanto documents show the link and their concern. A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr...

People who have been exposed to got cancer, but that is meaningless in showing causation. Internal documents show concern, but show no evidence that it causes cancer, or that Monsanto had internal data showing it caused cancer.

right and that's why they just settled instead of proving their product is safe

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#142

Post by pragmatic »

Add I kid I watched people who worked with the spray coups/planes work with zero safety equipment.

They would reach right into tanks full of weed killer with bare hands to try to fix something. No masks worn, no gloves.

We’ve learned a lot since the 70s/80s/90s.

I would imagine direct substained contact with the stuff is different than the minimal amounts in food.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#143

Post by thatguy0900 »

thfuran wrote: post #127
WarChortle wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're overthinking this a little. If Monsanto comes up with a new weedkiller, they have to prove that its safe for humans before its put into use. It has nothing to do with restaurants. Obviously stuff would be grandfathered in as well. But its a fantastic idea going forward.

That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.

Some would consider that a good tradeoff for stopping cancerous forever chemicals from being in 80% of pee. And it will be less, not no.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#144

Post by [deleted] »

thfuran wrote: post #122
zardo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have to have a dim outlook on your prospects of winning to agree to pay out 10 billion.

What if you're sure that there are going to be quite a lot of plaintiffs and expect to win a mere 99% of the time?

[deleted]

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#145

Post by lettergram »

dodgerdan wrote: post #55
microSnowball wrote: post #21

Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Foo…

Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settleme...

It’s actually a bit different. It’s more expected value:

Cost of settling is X

Potential cost of losing is Y

Risk of losing is Z

If X In this case, Y could have bankrupted the company (hundreds of billions in real damages). So, even if risk (Z) was 10-20%, $10B is a deal.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#146

Post by xattt »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #120
abe_duarte wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have been exposed to the chemical got cancer. Internal Monsanto documents show the link and their concern. A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr...

People who have been exposed to got cancer, but that is meaningless in showing causation. Internal documents show concern, but show no evidence that it causes cancer, or that Monsanto had internal data showing it caused cancer.

This type of rhetoric isn’t helpful, except to companies and manufacturers looking to minimize the attention around specific products with known carcinogenic properties.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#147

Post by coredog64 »

grendelt wrote: post #69
microSnowball wrote: post #21

Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Foo…

The back and forth with regulatory agencies is so frustrating. Another user here pointed out a while back that the better regulatory model, when it comes to health, is to put the onus on the supplier. We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed.

Proving a negative is trivial.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#149

Post by omginternets »

zzzeek wrote: post #141
WillPostForFood wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have been exposed to got cancer, but that is meaningless in showing causation. Internal documents show concern, but show no evidence that it causes cancer, or that Monsanto had internal data showing it caused cancer.

right and that's why they just settled instead of proving their product is safe

You don’t prove a product is safe. You fail to prove it isn’t.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#150

Post by dodgerdan »

IncRnd wrote: post #96
dodgerdan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settleme...

While Monsanto was guilty, many companies and people settle for large amounts of money even when not guilty. Settling is often about cost not guilt. A company settles to reduce future risks and to stop unbounded lawsuit costs.

Show me an example of that where the payment was over $1bn.
Post reply on HN