Roundup

Lumen

Man awarded $80 million after claiming weed killer caused his cancer

https://www.thejournal.ie/monsanto-roundup-cancer-4564625-Mar2019/

:eek:

magicbastarder

they should have rounded that up to $100m
i know, i know.

the_syco

Lumen wrote: »

Man awarded $80 million after claiming weed killer caused his cancer

https://www.thejournal.ie/monsanto-roundup-cancer-4564625-Mar2019/

:eek:

Wonder will the victims of Agent Orange have a case?

New Home

I saw on a documentary a couple of years ago where it was mentioned that the FDA was considering Agent Orange as a weedkiller to be used agriculture. :rolleyes:

Water John

Isn't agent orange closely connected to the old sheep dips?

New Home

I don't know, TBH, but perhaps it was DDT.

my3cents

New Home wrote: »

I saw on a documentary a couple of years ago where it was mentioned that the FDA was considering Agent Orange as a weedkiller to be used agriculture. :rolleyes:

It was for many years and part of it still is.

It was a 50/50 mix of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. We still use 2,4-D as a weedkiller from broad leaved weeds in grass (lawns). iirc 2,4,5-T wasn't that bad but no way to produce it without very toxic Dioxins being part of the mix, think it was banned about 30 years ago, used to be in SBK's stump killer for years.

GrumpyMe

Water John wrote: »

Isn't agent orange closely connected to the old sheep dips?

I think it was the organo-phosphates in sheep dip that was highly toxic to humans. Don't know what was in agent orange...

magicbastarder

here's an interesting examination of the stats used to claim glyphosate is harmful; it's a 9 minute podcast:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p075mwd3

magicbastarder

whoah.

Bayer must pay $2bn to couple in Monsanto cancer trial, jury rules
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/13/monsanto-cancer-trial-bayer-roundup-couple

yes, that is two billion.

_Brian

This is incredible and goes against much of the science.

WHO tested it extensively and it’s labeled a class 2 carcinogenic substance, same as red meat, being a hairdresser and working shift work.

They fall into this category because they may be linked to cancer but there is no evidence to support that.

magicbastarder

yeah, it's worth listening to the podcast i posted a couple of posts up - in short, the current latest metadata study shows a link, but there's a large caveat; it based on half a dozen other studies, one large high quality one, and the rest smaller less rigorous ones. the large high quality one showed no link, the smaller ones combined swung the stats.

i still have never used roundup however. not for concerns for my health, mind you. just want to get by without using it.

fryup

2 billion settlement??

surely a company would fold after that

magicbastarder

the key question is the claims of manipulating the science; the vast majority of the sum is a punitive one rather than a compensatory measure.
if the claims are true, i actually have no issue with the sum. what i do have an issue with is the idea that they should be awarded to the first people to successfully take a case.
and it's simply not going to happen that those people will ever see that money; bayer will appeal and that figure will be driven ever downwards in subsequent court cases.

Lumen

fryup wrote: »

2 billion settlement??

surely a company would fold after that

It's a €55bn company that was a €140bn company in 2015.

So probably not.