Round Up getting its comeuppance

[halfmileharry]

Gee, maybe some governmental agency should take steps to outlaw cigarettes and all tobacco products. No pushback from the farming lobby nor from the federal, state, and local taxing entities I’m sure !

Isn't the study by the WHO or some such being used as the basis for the “proof ?”

Big Tobacco has been sued many many times and the word is out on cigarettes and the implied or real additives. Someone is always introducing legislation against the effects(for lack of a broader term) but the big bucks that rule with the best lobbyists and attys have plenty of money to fight their cause with. Monsanto has this same power.
Guys, I'm an ex farm boy, ex smoker, (guess that makes me a quitter) and hindsight is usually right.
Monsanto is damaging the environment and their products are messing with health. They're not the only ones but they've got something going on that's bad enough that the smart people are fighting against it.
Maybe it's just smart ambulance chasers going after the money (with due respect to Willie Sutton) but Monsanto isn't popular with many that care about the future of farms and health.
I'm no orator (obviously) to further any cause or crusade but I'm glad the publicity is waking people up to what's going on.

 

[churchmouse]

Big Tobacco has been sued many many times and the word is out on cigarettes and the implied or real additives. Someone is always introducing legislation against the effects(for lack of a broader term) but the big bucks that rule with the best lobbyists and attys have plenty of money to fight their cause with. Monsanto has this same power.
Guys, I'm an ex farm boy, ex smoker, (guess that makes me a quitter) and hindsight is usually right.
Monsanto is damaging the environment and their products are messing with health. They're not the only ones but they're got something going on that's bad enough that the smart people are fighting against it.
Maybe it's just smart ambulance chasers going after the money (with due respect to Willie Sutton) but Monsanto isn't popular with many that care about the future of farms and health.
I'm no orator (obviously) to further any cause or crusade but I'm glad the publicity is waking people up to what's going on.

 

[tsm]

When you can get a multi-million dollar judgement award for the use of talcum powder!!!, it really makes me wonder about the intelligence of the juries trying some of these “injury” suits.

 

[two70]

Big Tobacco has been sued many many times and the word is out on cigarettes and the implied or real additives. Someone is always introducing legislation against the effects(for lack of a broader term) but the big bucks that rule with the best lobbyists and attys have plenty of money to fight their cause with. Monsanto has this same power.
Guys, I'm an ex farm boy, ex smoker, (guess that makes me a quitter) and hindsight is usually right.
Monsanto is damaging the environment and their products are messing with health. They're not the only ones but they've got something going on that's bad enough that the smart people are fighting against it.
Maybe it's just smart ambulance chasers going after the money (with due respect to Willie Sutton) but Monsanto isn't popular with many that care about the future of farms and health.
I'm no orator (obviously) to further any cause or crusade but I'm glad the publicity is waking people up to what's going on.

So the solution to big bad Monsanto is even more government? While the case against Monsanto is far, far from being made, the case against big government should be quite clear to anyone paying attention. It never ceases to amaze me at how readily people will leap to torches and pitchforks(ie. the government) against some imaginary bogey man but never spare a thought to the real danger they are empowering.

 

[halfmileharry]

Who's talking about big govt?
I was just mentioning the legal ramifications and open discussions so it's out in the open for all to be aware of

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So the solution to big bad Monsanto is even more government? While the case against Monsanto is far, far from being made, the case against big government should be quite clear to anyone paying attention. It never ceases to amaze me at how readily people will leap to torches and pitchforks(ie. the government) against some imaginary bogey man but never spare a thought to the real danger they are empowering.

Civil courts are "big government" now? How should citizens with a dispute solve them when they can't come to terms amicably?

 

[HoughMade]

Civil courts are "big government" now? How should citizens with a dispute solve them when they can't come to terms amicably?

Civil courts are not really big government and it's a great system that has some weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is lax standards that allow theories that wouldn't be called "science" in many other contexts to be presented to a jury as if proven. Juries like the narrative of "big bad corporation" and are prone to believe that all kinds of things (talc comes to mind) are trying to kill us.

Plaintiff's attorneys thrive on fear and reflex, not calm reflection and analysis. It's called the "Reptile Strategy" because it treats jurors like lower life forms, trying to trigger survival instincts rather than asking them to logically analyze the evidence to see what evidence is most reliable.

Meanwhile, HoughMade will continue to keep his lawn out of his 100+ yard long driveway with generic glyphosate and never give a second thought to the fact that he's on a well.

 

[Route 45]

Civil courts are "big government" now? How should citizens with a dispute solve them when they can't come to terms amicably?

 

[Tactically Fat]

When you can get a multi-million dollar judgement award for the use of talcum powder!!!, it really makes me wonder about the intelligence of the juries trying some of these “injury” suits.

Talc is a silicate mineral. Silicate minerals, when inhaled, cause big problems. This has been known for years and years. Silicosis, asbestosis, and their big, ugly, nasty, brother mesothelioma.

Know why you should wear a respirator when cutting/pulverizing concrete? So you don't inhale the dust (That contains silica AND lime) that'll cause problems. Know why you should wear a respirator when working with fiberglass insulation? So you don't inhale the dust (that contains silica). Know why you should wear a respirator when working with asbestos containing materials (ACM) - so you don't inhale the dust (that contains silica).

Guess no one ever suspected talc would also cause issues. It wasn't studied much. Until recently. And you know what - they found that it can cause issues.

Moral: Don't inhale silicates. They're bad juju in your lungs.

 

[HoughMade]

Talc is a silicate mineral. Silicate minerals, when inhaled, cause big problems. This has been known for years and years. Silicosis, asbestosis, and their big, ugly, nasty, brother mesothelioma.

Know why you should wear a respirator when cutting/pulverizing concrete? So you don't inhale the dust (That contains silica AND lime) that'll cause problems. Know why you should wear a respirator when working with fiberglass insulation? So you don't inhale the dust (that contains silica). Know why you should wear a respirator when working with asbestos containing materials (ACM) - so you don't inhale the dust (that contains silica).

Guess no one ever suspected talc would also cause issues. It wasn't studied much. Until recently. And you know what - they found that it can cause issues.

Moral: Don't inhale silicates. They're bad juju in your lungs.

I just learned that women breathe through their frontholes.

 

[two70]

Who's talking about big govt?
I was just mentioning the legal ramifications and open discussions so it's out in the open for all to be aware of

Civil courts are "big government" now? How should citizens with a dispute solve them when they can't come to terms amicably?

I was referring to "Someone is always introducing legislation against the effects..." At first I read the original comments as calling for the introduction of legislation against products like Round Up after re-reading it a couple more times, I think I see that I was mistaken and your comments about legislation was more likely about limiting damages for the defendants. So carry on cheering for ambulance chasing lawyers pursuing frivolous cases in front of juries gullible enough to buy emotional argument over evidence.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I just learned that women breathe through their frontholes.

Well you know they also "powder their nose" a lot...

 

[two70]

Well you know they also "powder their nose" a lot...

That is true but the ambulance chasing adds about talcum powder causing cancer specified various cancers of the front hole not nose/throat/lung cancers.

 

[halfmileharry]

I was referring to "Someone is always introducing legislation against the effects..." At first I read the original comments as calling for the introduction of legislation against products like Round Up after re-reading it a couple more times, I think I see that I was mistaken and your comments about legislation was more likely about limiting damages for the defendants. So carry on cheering for ambulance chasing lawyers pursuing frivolous cases in front of juries gullible enough to buy emotional argument over evidence.

I only cheer for ambulance chasers representing me.
I'm not really good at caring or sharing.

 

[Tactically Fat]

How about this: Keeping aerosolized silicates out of orifices is the best policy.

 

[Route 45]

Cancer loves sugar. When we gonna get the ambulance chasers on that for some hot class action ???

All cells run on sugar.

Biology 101.

 

[rhino]

I'm waiting for significantly more, independently generated evidence implicating glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen before I get concerned. WHO is not an organization I would trust as a sole source of condemning something.

I am reminded of the fate of what was once the most effective NSAID on the market (that you could take long term, so Toradol doesn't count even though it's freakin' magic): Vioxx. Vioxx was removed from the market by the manufacturer after a lawsuit implicating it as a factor in increased heart attack risk when used for long periods of time. The thing is, all NSAIDs carry that same risk and the numbers for Vioxx were essentially the same as for Celebrex and a few others. The difference was whose son died while he was taking Vioxx and who had a lot of money and enough political juice to use the courts to get a drug eliminated on a personal vendetta. If Vioxx were still available, I would gladly be taking it every day.

Used properly, DDT could be saving a lot of lives from insect-borne illness around the world. It has virtually no mammalian toxicity (a Purdue entomology professor used to drink a test tube of DDT in front of his class to demonstrate this fact) and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Yet DDT is D-D-Dead.

 

[spencer rifle]

As one of the few licensed pesticide applicators/professional biology educators here, I remain skeptical.

 

[rhino]

As one of the few licensed pesticide applicators/professional biology educators here, I remain skeptical.

Because: science.

 

[Alamo]

By law the EPA evaluates pesticides every 15 years ("Registration Review"). The evaluation for glyphosate, key ingredient in Round Up, is just finishing up and consists of a number of assessments. I had thought it was completed, but so far all I can find on the EPA site are the draft reports that were published for the period of public comments which closed on 30 April 2018.

The "Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential" examined a large number of studies ("63 epidemiological studies, 14 animal carcinogenicity studies, and nearly 90 genotoxicity studies") on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. These studies were evaluated for their quality and strength, and where studies disagreed on the same issues, were evaluated as to where the weight of the evidence was best/strongest.


The EPA rates or classifies the cancer risk of a chemical according to five descriptors:
Carcinogenic to Humans
Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans
Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential
Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential
Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans

For glyphosate, the recommendation is:

For cancer descriptors, the available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the
descriptors “carcinogenic to humans”, “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, or “inadequate
information to assess carcinogenic potential”. For the “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
potential” descriptor, considerations could be looked at in isolation; however, following a
thorough integrative weight-of-evidence evaluation of the available data, the database would not
support this cancer descriptor. The strongest support is for “not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans”.