Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised these judgements are happening. The science isn't really nailed down.
“The science,” is such a cringe term
Replace it with 'The scientific evidence' then.
Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
231–240 of 255 posts
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
see no judgment happend when Monsanto was US owned but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that) but whats happening ther…
> but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) During the same trials it came up that Monsanto at least believed that it had enough contacts to undermine any study it did not like. That probably also influenced what kind of studies the cour…
Using non peer reviewed studies means using studies which have not yet been properly error checked!
It's like making decision based on draft laws which have not yet been passed i.e. it fundamentally undermines the justice systems claim to be based on facts, because creating a study which uses various form of "subtle accidental mistakes" to twist the truth is very viable (and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews, but if there isn't even a peer review you have free rain to manipulate).
I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer without prove it's okay to use some intermediate test results and pretend they are final to get a fake claim to base a decision one, that's just so wrong.
And surprise the parts which where mostly used as a reference for the ruling where found to be quite faulty (in ways which look to me a lot like someone tried to forcefully come to the result that it is causing cancer).
> to undermine any study it did not like
you still need to use facts to do so, if any study showing that it causes cancer can be undermined using facts then maybe it's a strong indication that there is no good way to proof it to be harmful (with current methods)
If the US believes there is enough suspicion for it being harmful to make it okay for judges to conjure facts where there are non then they should just ban it through a congress decision. This might not be fact based but at least it's based on a proper political due process.
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
North Dakota and Kansas are deserts or near desert. Germany gets 2 to 7 times more rain per year (depending on which part of Germany you look at)
A better comparison would be ND and Ukraine in terms of climate.
Maybe, but both are large enough and have enough regional variation that it isn't safe to compare like that. The worst regionsare much worse in ND, and the best much better in Ukraine.
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
But roundup has tons of safety data in favor of it?
But it really doesn't. What it has is a lot of industry-funded "research" muddying the waters with ambiguous or misleading results.
When I worked at Monsanto, the mantra was that __the burden of proof was on those alleging harm__.
I don't know about you, but I expect a higher standard from the system that regulates the food I put in my body.
Broad spectrum pesticides are terribly complex to test and it should take years if not decades to properly prove them safe for agricultural use and human consumption.
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does glyphosate compare to the usual alternatives?
Well the main alternative was cultivation, that is dragging a steal hoe threw the ground. This releases a lot of co2, both from burning fuel and faster decomposition of organic matter and so is a factor in global warming. That hoe also destoryes the soil and leads to topsoil loss. Glyphosate allows modern farm to leave the soil alone and that builds more top soil.
No-till organic farms exist.
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) During the same trials it came up that Monsanto at least believed that it had enough contacts to undermine any study it did not like. That probably also influenced what kind of studies the cour…
Using non peer reviewed studies means using studies which have not yet been properly error checked! It's like making decision based on draft laws which have not yet been passed i.e. it fundamentally undermines the justice systems claim to be based on facts, because creating a study which uses various form of "subtle accidental mistakes" to twist the truth is very viable (and sadly also often enough tricks peer review…
> and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews
A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control.
> I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer
You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely. Which afaik (not a lawyer) there is even a legal principle that would have allowed the judge to go that far. Something about defendants getting caught red handed messing with evidence allowing the court to assume the worst.
> you still need to use facts to do so,
I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results.
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised these judgements are happening. The science isn't really nailed down.
see no judgment happend when Monsanto was US owned but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...) nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that) but whats happening ther…
>nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that)
This would be a terrible mistake. Even if it turned out that glyphosate causes cancer (it's extremely unclear that it does), it is still the least dangerous herbicide of its type, which is what makes it the most popular herbicide worldwide.
The alternatives are much, much more harmful to people and to the environment. If we ban glyphosate, we will see a drastic rise in the use of far more harmful substances.
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#238Just like Dow Chemical and Union Carbide[1] they claim they are not responsible as the acquired only the assets of Monsanto not the liabilities.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
The MSDS for Roundup is hilarious. It's completely safe, no known health effects, as long as you're wearing a full hazmat suite.
I used to work in the agriculture sector, and we had to fully suit up to spray anything whatsoever, even neem oil.
But there were good reasons for this:
1. Human error: If the last user didn't clean it properly, there could still be residue in the sprayer from a different (more dangerous) chemical. Or you may have accidentally added the wrong chemical.
2. Bad luck: You never know who's going to have an allergic reaction to something, like a dye or a surfactant in the product.
3. Liability: Future research may reveal risks that we do not currently know about (e.g., who knows, maybe people with prior exposure will turn out to be more likely to get long covid or some random thing like that). Requiring a suit for absolutely everything means your employer doesn't have to stress about future lawsuits over unknowns like these.
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#239The same Bayer that killed tons of Holocaust victims in drug trials during WWII? That Bayer? I’m having trouble feeling sorry for anything that ever comes their way. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/bayer
You're not wrong, but VW, Ford, and GM all have ties to Nazi Germany.
Yeah, but were they murdering holocaust victims to design their vehicles?
Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial
#240The 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…
The primary function of the U.S. civil judicial system is to adjudicate disputes, which is what it did here. Making society more just is an overarching, but ultimately, secondary goal.
But the concept of punitive damages is about some claim on justice, right? Like, "in addition to causing harm to this other party worth $m, because your behavior was so bad, you should pay a further $n whose value is about your badness which demands punishment, rather than about their loss."
$7M in compensatory damages and $325M in punitive damages sounds like almost all the dollars in this are about justice, not dispute settlement.