Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
1–10 of 156 posts
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#2I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#3I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.
[deleted]
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#4> Mr Johnson's lawyer, Brent Wisner, said the jury's verdict showed that the evidence against the product was "overwhelming".
Uhhh to say that is quite the stretch, a jury of layman should judge the scientific consensus? The referenced International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report is anything but conclusive. That verdict speaks more to the widespread uninformed FUD against GMO.
https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate...
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#5I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.
Found the story you are thinking of. He wasn’t a Monsanto executive but otherwise correct. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6956034
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#6I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.
It’s been shown safe in like a hundred academic studies, though drinking it straight would be ill advised.
This judgement is absurd and not scientifically based, luckily the judge will reduce it.
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#7> Mr Johnson's lawyer, Brent Wisner, said the jury's verdict showed that the evidence against the product was "overwhelming". Uhhh to say that is quite the stretch, a jury of layman should judge the scientific consensus? The referenced International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report is anything but conclusive. That verdict speaks more to the widespread uninformed FUD against GMO. https://www.iarc.fr/en/medi…
This case and this verdict had nothing to do with GMOs, but ok.
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#8> Mr Johnson's lawyer, Brent Wisner, said the jury's verdict showed that the evidence against the product was "overwhelming". Uhhh to say that is quite the stretch, a jury of layman should judge the scientific consensus? The referenced International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report is anything but conclusive. That verdict speaks more to the widespread uninformed FUD against GMO. https://www.iarc.fr/en/medi…
This case and this verdict had nothing to do with GMOs, but ok.
> This case and this verdict had nothing to do with GMOs
Over 80% of genetically modified (GM) crops grown worldwide are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate herbicides.
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#9I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.
Found the story you are thinking of. He wasn’t a Monsanto executive but otherwise correct. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6956034
Well corrected on his affiliation. Great quote too... Drink RoundUp? "I'm not an idiot".
Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial
#10I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.
It’s been shown safe in like a hundred academic studies, though drinking it straight would be ill advised. This judgement is absurd and not scientifically based, luckily the judge will reduce it.
The presecution claims it's not the active ingredient but the whole herbicide that's cancer causing. I think the studies are only on one of the ingredients, not on the whole herbicide?
Also, questions of exposure are not addressed here. This person was drenched in it couple of times by accident. If I use rat poison for my job vs have it rubbed or consumed in different doses, results can be quite different. Monsanto claims it's safe in any form and quantity but I don't think that's ever been verified. Level of exposure matters a great deal. There is a reason so many cleaning products have warnings on them about keeping them away from the body (though not for cancer)