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

151–160 of 255 posts

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

#151

Post by lll-o-lll »

throw3823423 wrote: post #149
lll-o-lll wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No modification is perfect: While all GMO modification tries to be as narrow as possible, it's not like things are ever so perfectly narrow as to only just express a bonus protein that you wanted. The problem is assuming that any other change that happens is dangerous and untested. There's mutation all over the place in perfectly organic plants, just like with GMOs. There are also changes on gene expression from thos…

I’d argue back, but I’m too ignorant. You write as if you are supremely confident, so can you back this up? Are you working in the field, or can you point me to (recent) commentary from someone who is?

I have no dog in this fight, I literally know nothing and care very little. However, I can’t just ignore the opinions that have come to me from someone who is an expert in this space. That’s why I raised it; because I was assuming there would be someone working in the field who could provide detail and nuance. Wasn’t expecting “this is all crap” as the response.

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

#152

Post by refurb »

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…

The lack of basic scientific literacy is pretty shocking in the "organic is healthier" world. It's a virtue smorgasbord of "natural fallacy" and "don't eat chemicals" logic.

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

#153

Post by rudyfink »

robertlagrant wrote: post #116
rudyfink wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Businesses aren't trying to harm. They aren't a Mao or a Stalin just going for The Greater Good no matter how many people they have to kill. They're trying to make a profit, and sometimes horribly unethical people in those businesses will not care about harm in order to make a profit. But the goal isn't harm.

To be clear, I was not suggesting the intent was harm for harm's sake. I was suggesting that it was in the company's/businesses' interest to harm. I agree that, often, that interest is framed as making profit, but it can also be framed as reducing cost, not having to care, etc.

The bigger point is that such an incentive exists and that it is further incentivized if the individuals who are harmed are deprived of a mechanism to resist.

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

#154

Post by jancsika »

hinkley wrote: post #133
cracrecry wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Our digestive tracts aren’t fond of detergents either, and Roundup contains some. For that matter, so do the pods you use in your dishwasher, which is something that just came onto my radar recently. Are HE dishwashers removing enough detergent residue during the rinse cycle? Possibly not.

Are you talking about this?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36464527/

If so, that study appears to point to rinse aid as the culprit in the damage, not the detergent.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

cyberax wrote: post #117
KennyBlanken wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

> pesticide use is lower... It's not. Europe uses somewhat lower amount of pesticides because it has more land that regularly freezes which helps to control insects. When corrected for that, Europe uses more pesticides for similar climates. > yields are higher than in the US. They aren't, when corrected for the land area.

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by cma »

sharts wrote: post #69
vkou wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would seem that #2 and #3 directly contradict one another and that the truth is that it does indeed cause cancer at a particular rate / exposure over time. Rather than saying it doesn't affect this group but does affect another group it would be more appropriate to establish the level of consumption/exposure that is likely to cause a statistical increase in the likelihood of developing cancer.

Studies fail to find it doesn't mean all studies fail to find it, but it could have been clearer.

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

#158

Post by dontwearitout »

dgroshev wrote: post #55
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…

"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…

But it's naive to think there's no effect - some level of chemophobia is warranted IMO, because we do not understand all the complex second order effects to these powerful compounds. Case in point: the article we're discussing.

I firmly believe science will illuminate the true risks, but it may unfortunately take decades. Time will tell, until then I try to eat organic when I can.

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

#159

Post by cperciva »

cyberax wrote: post #122
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.

MSDS are crap. They are literally worse than useless. For example, I'm using perfluorohexyloctane eye drops. Its MSDS says that it's a severe eye irritant and requires eye protection when working with it. Again, for literal eye drops.

The dose makes the poison. Hundreds of people have been murdered using insulin, but I wear a device which injects me with it every 30 seconds.

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

#160

Post by throwaway1777 »

w0z_ wrote: post #121
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…

Wait until you hear about how healthy soy is farmed with 4x the herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc. as regular vegetables. Mmm.

[dead]
Post reply on HN