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

Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 255 posts

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#31

Post by Reptur »

tempsy wrote: post #2

People look at you like you're crazy if you tell them you avoid oats, grains, nuts that are particularly heavy in glyphosate.

If we're sharing thoughts, I need to point out that once you hit your late 60s, you're more likely to get cancer, and your risk keeps going up [1]. Our food is loaded with chemicals that can make you sick or even cause cancer [2]. That age is also when people usually retire and are no longer "productive".

Here's where I might lose you. In our country, illness is a way to make money [3]. If you're really sick and trying to stay alive, you'll spend everything you've got. So the quickest way to turn people's savings into profit while also reducing the population of non-productive people is for them to fall ill, pay as much as they can to survive and then ultimately die an early death, which triggers a death tax event [4].

1. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

2. https://www.eatthis.com/toxic-food-ingredients-linked-to-can...

3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2023/01/13/unitedhe...

4. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/death-taxes.asp

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#32

Post by j-bos »

abeppu wrote: post #17

The idea of punitive damages being awarded to a single person in a situation like this seems unjust on its own. If Roundup is responsible for this person's cancer, it's almost certainly responsible for the cancer of many other people, alive and dead. Clearly I am not a lawyer, but in cases of such a finding, I feel like there ought to be some mechanism to identify an affected class, and make proceeds benefit that cla…

Generally the first plaintiff (attorney) takes the greatest risk as there's no precedent of guilt. Afterwards the class action suits ride the single case momentum towards relatively easy payouts.

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#33

Post by LunaSea »

projektfu wrote: post #20
zetsurin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guessing the implication is that america doesn't sue it's own

Several tobacco companies would like if that were true.

How long after the dangers of smoking were known?

Aren't these same companies owners of large vaping brands now btw?

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#34

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

malta_kano wrote: post #26
Reptur wrote: post #10

Doubt they even blinked, these companies hire people to calculate risk and so they can continue to get away with it. Just a cost of business. Bayer's gross revenue for just 2022 was 53.4B. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BAYRY/bayer/revenu...

[flagged]

It's better to engage in good faith rather than come out of the gate swinging like that, because otherwise it just sets a mood for inflammatory responses.

Bayer's EBITDA is $12.74B for the trailing 12 months, so they can afford this payout. That said, a number that large is only going to end up getting appealed, there's no way they're just going to sign that cheque.

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#35

Post by Reptur »

malta_kano wrote: post #26
Reptur wrote: post #10

Doubt they even blinked, these companies hire people to calculate risk and so they can continue to get away with it. Just a cost of business. Bayer's gross revenue for just 2022 was 53.4B. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BAYRY/bayer/revenu...

[flagged]

Thank you for pointing that out. So profit their 2022 32.523B [1]. 32.5 billion in profit dwarfs a 332 million settlement. You have made my point only stronger.

1. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BAYRY/bayer/gross-...

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#36

Post by Loughla »

cracrecry wrote: post #18
tempsy wrote: post #2

People look at you like you're crazy if you tell them you avoid oats, grains, nuts that are particularly heavy in glyphosate.

They probably do not have that high concentration on seeds itself. The problem is that it thousands of tons need to be dispersed on the environment and its effect as an antibiotic on big scale. We have a very important microbiota that are bacteria themselves. The antibiotics on meat and environment can break havoc there, specially for people that work or live near those environments and can breathe or drink the pesti…

Does glyphosate act as an antibiotic? This is literally news to me. It's a weed killer?

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#37

Post by sudhirc »

vkou wrote: post #30
genter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MSDS for Roundup is hilarious. It's completely safe, no known health effects, as long as you're wearing a full hazmat suite.

How does its[1] MSDS compare to any other herbicide/pesticide in common use[2]? All the handling instructions for the them are nearly word-for-word identical. It seems to be a good idea to wear a hazmat suit when you're spraying a field with anything that's supposed to kill weeds. [1] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Roundup%20Pro%20Con... [2] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS...

If you have to wear the hazmat suite, think about the impact on non targetted crop plants and the farmer.

Why this shit is even allowed?

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#38

Post by w10-1 »

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.

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#39

Post by ok_dad »

Reptur wrote: post #31
tempsy wrote: post #2

People look at you like you're crazy if you tell them you avoid oats, grains, nuts that are particularly heavy in glyphosate.

If we're sharing thoughts, I need to point out that once you hit your late 60s, you're more likely to get cancer, and your risk keeps going up [1]. Our food is loaded with chemicals that can make you sick or even cause cancer [2]. That age is also when people usually retire and are no longer "productive". Here's where I might lose you. In our country, illness is a way to make money [3]. If you're really sick and tryi…

Maybe that’s why America has such high productivity. We’re have a culture and economy that agree that it’s better to die than be unproductive and rely on others.

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#40

Post by gruez »

darklycan51 wrote: post #24
LunaSea wrote: post #9

America suddenly suying after Monsanto was bought by a European company, Bayer. What a coincidence!

It is fairly funny, I remember how Monsanto used to run paid comments over every big news subreddit you posted stuff about them, then the moment they got acquired suddenly those stopped and Monsanto is evil. Not saying they aren't but I trust them more now under a German firm than when they were American.

>It is fairly funny, I remember how Monsanto used to run paid comments over every big news subreddit you posted stuff about them

Source?

Post reply on HN