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

101–110 of 255 posts

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

#101

Post by lll-o-lll »

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…

> not because I am worried about eating grain that has modified genes, that’s plain stupid.

So, it turns out this is not so stupid. I’m going to sound a little stupid, because this is not my field, but my sister is a plant molecular biologist. All her research/work is in plant DNA. Apparently it’s been recently discovered that the gene expression for the genetically modified plants was not as had been previously understood. Instead of turning on just one gene, it turns on like five other unexpected random genes. In addition there was something about “complex interactions” and “poorly tested and uncertain outcomes” or something. Any actual experts able to weigh in?

Anyway, she’s gone from “genetic modification of plants is a great thing because of improving food security” to “I’m not letting my kids eat this stuff”.

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

#102

Post by dymk »

andrewjl wrote: post #73
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.

[flagged]

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

#103

Post by hirvi74 »

chubs wrote: post #98
echelon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glyphosate hasn't been shown to cause cancer, despite decades of science trying to demonstrate otherwise. Plant and insect biology is incredibly different from our own. We are attracted to many natural insecticides, in fact.

Chilli, for instance?

Nicotine and THC are two more.

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

#104

Post by unihd2kno »

echelon wrote: post #87
LordShredda wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you

If violence doesn't work, you are not using enough violence.

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

#105

Post by robertlagrant »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #97
oooyay wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Discussing GMO's in general and not specific varieties is about as productive as discussing manmade materials- the topic is too broad. What are we even comparing- bricks vs stones? Copper vs a rock? Monsanto was producing crops that better withstand it's chemicals and China is producing Rice that can tolerate salt water. Clearly China is Innovating to feed it's people while Monsanto is 'Innovating' to boost their sha…

Comparing Monsanto to China is an even sillier comparison than copper vs rock.

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

#106

Post by jcranmer »

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?

Because people see "wear standard PPE" in an MSDS and think "it's unsafe if you're not wearing a hazmat suit!" and not "this is safe." Here's the MSDS for good old table salt: https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/21105.htm

Quoting the PPE section:

> Personal Protective Equipment

> Eyes: Wear appropriate protective eyeglasses or chemical safety goggles as described by OSHA's eye and face protection regulations in 29 CFR 1910.133 or European Standard EN166.

> Skin: Wear appropriate protective gloves to prevent skin exposure.

> Clothing: Wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent skin exposure.

> Respirators: A respiratory protection program that meets OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.134 and ANSI Z88.2 requirements or European Standard EN 149 must be followed whenever workplace conditions warrant respirator use.

This is table salt. The thing you keep in a salt shaker on your kitchen table. If even this has "wear PPE" in its section on what to wear for PPE, then you can infer that literally every single chemical will at least advise you to wear something.

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

#107

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #101
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…

> not because I am worried about eating grain that has modified genes, that’s plain stupid. So, it turns out this is not so stupid. I’m going to sound a little stupid, because this is not my field, but my sister is a plant molecular biologist. All her research/work is in plant DNA. Apparently it’s been recently discovered that the gene expression for the genetically modified plants was not as had been previously unde…

Does she let her kids eat sweet potatoes?

While there is AFAIK no genetically engineered variety of sweet potato being cultivated, every cultivated variety of sweet potato bears genetic traces of having been modified by Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which is the bacterium which is widely used to edit plant genomes.

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

#108

Post by oooyay »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #97
oooyay wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Discussing GMO's in general and not specific varieties is about as productive as discussing manmade materials- the topic is too broad. What are we even comparing- bricks vs stones? Copper vs a rock? Monsanto was producing crops that better withstand it's chemicals and China is producing Rice that can tolerate salt water. Clearly China is Innovating to feed it's people while Monsanto is 'Innovating' to boost their sha…

You certainly can discuss them in general, here's the NIH doing a meta analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/

> Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

> On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

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

#109

Post by dade_ »

dgroshev wrote: post #93
dade_ wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actu…

Who are those people? Regulators look at harm to other animals as well, and the fate of the herbicide is one of the most important considerations. Glyphosate in particular effectively binds to soil [1] and is biodegraded there by various bacteria fairly rapidly. The fact that you are talking about "chemicals" in this generic way is what makes it chemophobia. There can be no serious point in talking about "chemicals"…

I don’t have a fear of chemicals. Everything is a chemical, but I’ve met the people you are describing, I promise to never use the work again.

Keep in mind these studies are from 1997, the world wasn’t even ruined by the Internet at that point. The studies about humans described in your link are: some idiot drank half a cup of it, and he didn’t die, and the rabbits and mice seem ok. It’s safe! I just struggle, because even at that time these types of anecdotal statements were so dubious. It’s now over 25 years later, so what are the long-term effect?

As a point of comparison, Johnson and Johnson continues to insist that their asbestos laced baby powder doesn’t cause cancer (contradicting reality), so Monsanto now Bayer assurances don’t generate much confidence for me.

Post reply on HN