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

81–90 of 255 posts

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

#81

Post by oooyay »

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!

According to the FDA they genetically modify plants to dump less pesticides on them and to be cheaper: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-f...

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

#82

Post by defrost »

vkou wrote: post #8
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.

Given that as of 2023: 1. Glyphosate is one of the more heavily studied chemicals known to man. 2. The evidence for it causing cancer is poor. Studies routinely fail to find evidence for it. 3. The subset of studies that do find evidence for such a link, find it in occupational exposure , by people who have been working knee-deep in it for decades. [1] Yes, people probably should look at you like you're crazy, becaus…

While I'm in essential agreement with the comment above it's still worth fleshing out the case against for those interested.

The specific papers (worst effects of a great deal of exposure) oft cited are:

Myers, J.P.; Antoniou, M.N.; Blumberg, B.; Carroll, L.; Colborn, T.; Everett, L.G.; Hansen, M.; Landrigan, P.J.; Lanphear, B.P.; Mesnage, R.; et al. Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement. Environ. Health 2016, 15, 19.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26883814/

Leon, M.E.; Schinasi, L.H.; Lebailly, P.; Beane Freeman, L.E.; Nordby, K.-C.; Ferro, G.; Monnereau, A.; Brouwer, M.; Tual, S.; Baldi, I.; et al. Pesticide use and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoid malignancies in agricultural cohorts from France, Norway and the USA: A pooled analysis from the AGRICOH consortium. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2019, 48, 1519–1535.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30880337/

Zhang, L.; Rana, I.; Shaffer, R.M.; Taioli, E.; Sheppard, L. Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2019, 781, 186–206.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31342895/

I'm in a grain growing district and glyphosate isn't being applied to grain ready to eat | harvest here, just sprayed pre harvest to kill weeds and mid season to suppress weeds coming up in competition.

If people are concerned they could source from international suppliers that demand no glyphosate contracts such as https://www.grainmillers.com/grower-specifications/

For an industry review of the possiblities of avoiding

Farming without Glyphosate? https://www.ahri.uwa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/plant...

is a decent balanced paper - it points out the vast number of studies show no real cause for concern while also giving the papers that show issues for farmers and the possible future for glyphosate free farming.

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

#84

Post by KennyBlanken »

conception wrote: post #51
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…

Non-gmos use pesticides, nearly all farming does, and usually more than GMO crops. Eg https://i0.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/20... From https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/

In Europe where GMOs are banned and pesticide use is lower...yields are higher than in the US.

"We need to use poison to grow food to feed everyone" is bunch of false-dilemma poppycock.

If it were truly a matter of "we need to feed everyone", we wouldn't be wasting massive amounts of grain on raising cattle, which is one of most wasteful ways of generating food there is. 80% of agricultural land is used for cattle, but they only represent 20% of the calories in food consumed.

We also wouldn't be growing corn just to turn it into ethanol, a net-energy-negative process.

We also wouldn't be controlling the price of sugar, thus creating a huge demand for corn to turn into corn syrup.

Corn is also an incredibly resource-intensive crop all on its own, and the monocropping is terrible for the soil. But corn is where the money is..

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

#85

Post by AngryData »

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…

Most pesticides and hebicides break down from exposure to the sun and rain. The main reason im concerned with roundup is because it has now become common to finish crops by spraying them with roundup so they all dry up at the same time on a set schedule, which means they are harvesting within days after spraying them, then storing that grain in sunless silos with reduced moisture and drying so that roundup never has a chance to degrade.

I would have no problem eating something that was hit with roundup 2 months previously and exposed to the elements. But spraying it then eating it just a few days afterwards is just dumb.

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

#86

Post by 1letterunixname »

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.

Most people lack subject matter expertise on topics they espouse opinions impertinently, don't look at the evidence, and don't take sensible precautions against unknowns, so their opinions don't matter.

In the absence of compelling precautionary evidence and systematic safety processes, it's clear that the faithful adherents of organic production are more likely to be safer than industrial megafarming done with the same blind faith in the miracles of chemical wizardry that brought us such hits as organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, DDT, and the over 85k compounds that are de facto unregulated because they are allowed until specific injury is proven after the damage is done ("whack-a-mole"-style), rather than first proven safe.

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

#87

Post by echelon »

LordShredda wrote: post #79
nwiswell wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Very frequently?

These chemicals are benign and the media and activists have been scaring people for decades without justification. The fact that their arguments are often convolved with arguments against lawns and lawncare should give you a better sense of their true motives.

I'm shocked Bayer lost and that the plaintiff was awarded anything. Glyphosate has not been shown to cause cancer. If it had, such literature would be paraded out as an evergreen example.

If you want to be afraid of chemical use, it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you. Or the high particulate air you're breathing in.

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

#88

Post by XorNot »

dade_ wrote: post #63
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…

[flagged]

Whether something kills humans, and whether it kills fish are two entirely different questions. For example: the medium fish live in has a 100% kill rate on humans submerged in it for longer then about 5 minutes.

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

#89

Post by XorNot »

theGnuMe wrote: post #60
Reptur wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes! Processed food is loaded with preservatives which IMO probably increase the risk of cancer.

Why would you think that? Which preservative additives are you concerned about?

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

#90

Post by nomilk »

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 must confess to not washing all fruit before I eat it. Especially berries. I sometimes wonder if there's any home testing kit to figure out how much chemical residue is on fruit and vege. Easy testing for pesticides/sprays could prompt changes in both consumer behaviour (e.g. preparation/washing), but also buying behaviour (if one farm's berries had less spray than another's, presumably the former's would be preferable to most people).
Post reply on HN