Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by transcriptase » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:16 AM UTC

sudhirc wrote: post #37

vkou wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Virtually nil.

Farmers (and employees certified/licensed to apply sprays) generally only spray in favourable conditions. Eg. Calm conditions where the output doesn’t go beyond a few meters of the intended swath. Given the cost, it makes little financial sense to waste it on non-target plants.

And while nearly any pesticide/herbicide/fungicide will tell you to suit up and use a respirator, it’s usually because of the (often petroleum derived) volatiles used in the mixture to ensure stability and proper spreading rather than the active ingredient itself.

Glyphosate (RoundUp) for example interacts with a biochemical pathway that doesn’t even exist in humans, yet still suffers from the legacy and cultural entrenchment of a paper that has since been refuted and retracted. The infamous “roundup causes cancer” paper where the author used lines of lab rats that were (intentionally, for use in cancer studies) genetically predisposed to developing tumours.

The volatiles evaporate and break down rapidly, which is why a freshly sprayed field will have an odd aroma for several hours after application. Meanwhile these sprays come with a PHI (post harvest interval), whereby if a producer is following laws and regulations, the active ingredient itself is virtually undetectable at the time of harvest due to UV/heat/microbial degradation.

PHIs are determined empirically by testing sprays across environments and conditions for years before certification, then still including a buffer period to account for outlier conditions where a chemical may persist beyond what was observed.

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

#72

Post by nemo » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:16 AM UTC

szundi wrote: post #29

nemo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was using glyphosate as a weed-killer and getting it on his hands and feet. Way higher levels of exposure than any foods. Also if you're afraid of glyphosate, the Roundup-ready crops are the ones to avoid especially - soy, corn, canola, sugar beets. There's no Roundup-ready wheat, oats, or nuts. (edit: apparently it's used as a desiccant so it winds up in cereals as well - lovely, though still there's no evidence…

Living in eastern europe I have not seen butterflies for decades. Now they seem to be returning a bit.

I keep records of butterfly sightings. This is the worst year I've ever seen by far. In a normal year queen butterflies are one of the most abundant migrants. So far I have seen 0. I've seen no swallowtails of any species at all, and massively reduced numbers of typical species or none. But that's because of the drought, not glyphosate.

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

#73

Post by andrewjl » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:17 AM UTC

dade_ wrote: post #44

The most dangerous surface in a farm is the farmer’s hat I was told. So they wear the hat in the sun, tilling the fields, but the reason the hat is dangerous is from spraying the fields. Pesticides and herbicides are downright scary chemicals, and we genetically modify crops to improve tolerance of these chemicals. And that is when I went all GMO free, not because I am worried about eating grain that has modified gen…

> I hope the settlement hits trillions. Burn the fuckers down.

Hoping on the sidelines gets you nowhere. Laws need to be changed to end the presumption in many jurisdictions that a lack of safety data equates to a benign substance.

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

#74

Post by dgroshev » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:18 AM UTC

sharts wrote: post #64

dgroshev wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Chemicals killing the crop" aren't inherently dangerous to your body, that's just chemophobia. Best quality artisanal chocolate can easily kill your cat. Nicotine kills bugs and is benign in humans. Belladonna would kill you, but a goat can munch on it without much trouble. Lots of stuff is lethal to some species and harmless to others, "this chemical is so bad it kills plants" is as rational as "chocolate is so bad…

And yet, eating food that has spoiled contains chemicals that are inherently dangerous to your body causing food-poisoning. That people would prefer NOT to believe those with vested interest in profiting from selling things exposed to chemicals isn't an invalid concern.

What spoiled food has to do with it? If anything, it's a tautology, because "spoiled" effectively means "bad", when the process of "spoiling" is harmless we call it "blue cheese" or "kimchi".

"Things exposed to chemicals" is literally anything you see around you. Water is a "chemical". Glucose is a "chemical". Vitamin C is a "chemical". I don't understand your point.

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

#75

Post by oooyay » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:19 AM UTC

sharts wrote: post #64

dgroshev wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Chemicals killing the crop" aren't inherently dangerous to your body, that's just chemophobia. Best quality artisanal chocolate can easily kill your cat. Nicotine kills bugs and is benign in humans. Belladonna would kill you, but a goat can munch on it without much trouble. Lots of stuff is lethal to some species and harmless to others, "this chemical is so bad it kills plants" is as rational as "chocolate is so bad…

And yet, eating food that has spoiled contains chemicals that are inherently dangerous to your body causing food-poisoning. That people would prefer NOT to believe those with vested interest in profiting from selling things exposed to chemicals isn't an invalid concern.

Food poisoning is caused by viruses and bacteria.

As another poster pointed out, a lot of GMO crops are altered in such a way that they don't need as many pesticides. Non-GMO often need more pesticides and the GMO label has nothing to do with pesticides - just genetic modification.

If you don't trust me, just ask the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-f...

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

#76

Post by dade_ » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:19 AM UTC

dgroshev wrote: post #67

dade_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, I'm not saying that, how can you read my reply that way in good faith? I didn't say anything about Hersheys either.

Chemophobia - it annoys me that people think that the only harm we must consider for herbicides and pesticides is humans, then proceeded to dump billions of gallons of this, which ultimately end up down rivers, lakes, and oceans. there are countless creatures being affected by the chemicals, but somehow we skip that study.

You brought up chocolate. Hersheys arguably is chocolate and the Consumer Reports study is actually about dark chocolate, and all the amazing chemicals in it.

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

#77

Post by rudyfink » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:19 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #22

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…

Reforming how class actions are done is probably a very good idea. But Bayer has a market capitalization of over 45 billion. This judgement will probably get appealed and negotiated down. And if it isn't, there is a lot of value in Bayer to pay out in a class action if one succeeds.

If by "reform" you mean weaken class actions, I would argue that is a bad idea.

Larger businesses have already gone to great lengths to eliminate / curtail class actions.

I'd argue that this weakening is the root cause of a chunk of the aggregate problems I see discussed on HN.

It is in a company's interest to harm a great many people a little bit because the people often have to challenge the company as individuals rather than as a group. And the economics often make no sense in that way, so the company is functionally immune to the effects of its harm.

Further weakening the remaining viability of that case type stands to only encourage companies to commit more aggregate harms.

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

#78

Post by sharts » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:20 AM UTC

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…

The other aspect might be that people in their 60s also don't eat diets to replenish things that they've been losing since their 20's.

Similarly to how so many people that died from covid tended toward very low vitamin D levels [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...]

Most "medical" research tends to never focus on actual nutrition. Probably because that would reduce profits for those with vested interest from selling treatments.

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

#79

Post by LordShredda » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:21 AM UTC

nwiswell wrote: post #68

dade_ wrote: post #44

The most dangerous surface in a farm is the farmer’s hat I was told. So they wear the hat in the sun, tilling the fields, but the reason the hat is dangerous is from spraying the fields. Pesticides and herbicides are downright scary chemicals, and we genetically modify crops to improve tolerance of these chemicals. And that is when I went all GMO free, not because I am worried about eating grain that has modified gen…

> But when chemicals so awful they kill the crop, the crop’s genes need to be modified so that they don’t die and that chemical residue ends up all over our food system Fortunately, you are not a plant. These chemicals just need to not harm humans (and domestic animals). The fact that they did, in this case, is merely a safety failure. There is nothing which says that pesticides and herbicides must be harmful to huma…

Although we have seen very frequently that pesticides still affect some humans or animals. At this point, shouldn't we just reduce the possible points of failures instead of hoping the next miracle molecule doesn't kill us all twenty years later?

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

#80

Post by jjoonathan » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:23 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #52

dade_ wrote: post #44

The most dangerous surface in a farm is the farmer’s hat I was told. So they wear the hat in the sun, tilling the fields, but the reason the hat is dangerous is from spraying the fields. Pesticides and herbicides are downright scary chemicals, and we genetically modify crops to improve tolerance of these chemicals. And that is when I went all GMO free, not because I am worried about eating grain that has modified gen…

People tell me "GMO food is perfectly safe" and they do not seem to understand that in practice they genetically modify the food so they can dump glyphosate on it and that's what I want to avoid eating!

How does glyphosate compare to the usual alternatives?