Round Up getting its comeuppance

[rhino]

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

There are a lot of things that you don't want to inhale that are relatively inert otherwise. A tiny amount of Plutonium-239 in your lungs will kill you deader than someone who intended to testify against Hillary. Don't inhale it? Not nearly so bad. Your skin is enough to defeat the alpha emission. Just don't freakin' inhale it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Lulz, yeah, that's what we're doing. I'm a well known lawyer cheerleader. So, out of curiosity is it "big government" to interfere with civil trials, or is that "just right sized government"?

 

[actaeon277]

There are a lot of things that you don't want to inhale that are relatively inert otherwise. A tiny amount of Plutonium-239 in your lungs will kill you deader than someone who intended to testify against Hillary. Don't inhale it? Not nearly so bad. Your skin is enough to defeat the alpha emission. Just don't freakin' inhale it.

Although cuts in the skin can be problematic.
Beta emissions are stopped by a layer of clothing.
Gamma and Neutron are what you need to worry about. for those you need copious quantities of water, steel, and poly.

 

[two70]

All cells run on sugar.

Biology 101.

Everything causes cancer is Ambulance Chasing Lawyer 101 and Researchers Seeking Grant Funds 101, biology be damned.

 

[HoughMade]

There are a lot of things that you don't want to inhale that are relatively inert otherwise. A tiny amount of Plutonium-239 in your lungs will kill you deader than someone who intended to testify against Hillary. Don't inhale it? Not nearly so bad. Your skin is enough to defeat the alpha emission. Just don't freakin' inhale it.

Does it kill weeds? How quickly is it rain safe? Does it smell like cologne? 'Cause then I'll leave it alone.

 

[two70]

Lulz, yeah, that's what we're doing. I'm a well known lawyer cheerleader. So, out of curiosity is it "big government" to interfere with civil trials, or is that "just right sized government"?

Since cheerleading for a lawsuit against Round Up is kind of the whole point of this thread, its hard to make the case that Harry wasn't doing just that. I'd actually forgotten that I had quoted you as well as I originally intended to reply to both separately in the same post but had to rush to finish the post. So my apologies for incorrectly lumping you in. I think government is a necessary evil and less is better so there is no such thing as just right sized when it comes to government. I think any government interference in civil trials is too much government, however since government has already been interfering and typically in the favor of plaintiffs for a long time that horse is already out of the barn.

Now that I answered all of your questions, answer a couple of mine. First, you do understand that Monsanto is not going to actually be paying any damages, right? Instead, that cost is going to be passed on to the end consumers. Second, if we are so sure that Round Up causes cancer then shouldn't the government agency that regularly approves the product for use be just as culpable?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Since cheerleading for a lawsuit against Round Up is kind of the whole point of this thread, its hard to make the case that Harry wasn't doing just that. I'd actually forgotten that I had quoted you as well as I originally intended to reply to both separately in the same post but had to rush to finish the post. So my apologies for incorrectly lumping you in. I think government is a necessary evil and less is better so there is no such thing as just right sized when it comes to government. I think any government interference in civil trials is too much government, however since government has already been interfering and typically in the favor of plaintiffs for a long time that horse is already out of the barn.

Now that I answered all of your questions, answer a couple of mine. First, you do understand that Monsanto is not going to actually be paying any damages, right? Instead, that cost is going to be passed on to the end consumers. Second, if we are so sure that Round Up causes cancer then shouldn't the government agency that regularly approves the product for use be just as culpable?

With the understanding I never actually entered into the "who's right" question and haven't seen a link to any specific case, I'll play along. I only entered into the fray at the notion a civil trial is "big government", and the specific trial(s) aren't what I was discussing.

First, you do understand that Monsanto is not going to actually be paying any damages, right? Instead, that cost is going to be passed on to the end consumers.

Well, no, that's not how market pricing works, and if it was no company would ever go bankrupt. Cost of production does not set market price. Supply and demand does. Monsanto *might* raise prices, but if they thought the market would bare the new price they'd already have done so because maximizing profit through price strategy is a thing. Shareholders might eat it, or they (more likely) will never pay because appeals, but unless they are a monopoly with a set demand, they can't just raise prices because their costs increased.

Second, if we are so sure that Round Up causes cancer then shouldn't the government agency that regularly approves the product for use be just as culpable?

I have no idea that we are sure, or even if it does. I don't have anything approaching the base knowledge to know one way or the other, and if I did have a belief it would have to be based solely on believing someone I thought did have that knowledge. Yet, I could be a juror tasked with making that decision. Could a gov't agency be culpable? I can see a fact pattern where I would say yes. If they knew given the current research and failed to act, were bribed to stay quiet, etc. then yes. If they were acting on the best knowledge at the time, or were restrained by laws that didn't let them act, then no.

 

[rhino]

Does it kill weeds? How quickly is it rain safe? Does it smell like cologne? 'Cause then I'll leave it alone.

There's really only one way to find out. Pretty sure the Clinton Foundation could get you a deal on Plutonium since they made out so well with their Uranium sales.

 

[lovemachine]

Just saw this thread. I actually just came in from spraying weeds with RoundUp 360.

 

[rhino]

Just saw this thread. I actually just came in from spraying weeds with RoundUp 360.

Did you wear a respirator?

 

[lovemachine]

Did you wear a respirator?

Nope.

 

[rhino]

Nope.

Probably not an issue with your application. If I were mixing stuff and a significant amount could be airborne, I would probably wear a respirator. I'm guessing you just sprayed some that was premixed on some small trouble areas.

 

[lovemachine]

Probably not an issue with your application. If I were mixing stuff and a significant amount could be airborne, I would probably wear a respirator. I'm guessing you just sprayed some that was premixed on some small trouble areas.

Yep. I always buy the premixed spray. I sprayed the driveway and patio this evening.

 

[rhino]

Yep. I always buy the premixed spray. I sprayed the driveway and patio this evening.

Good luck on the results!

 

[two70]

With the understanding I never actually entered into the "who's right" question and haven't seen a link to any specific case, I'll play along. I only entered into the fray at the notion a civil trial is "big government", and the specific trial(s) aren't what I was discussing.



Well, no, that's not how market pricing works, and if it was no company would ever go bankrupt. Cost of production does not set market price. Supply and demand does. Monsanto *might* raise prices, but if they thought the market would bare the new price they'd already have done so because maximizing profit through price strategy is a thing. Shareholders might eat it, or they (more likely) will never pay because appeals, but unless they are a monopoly with a set demand, they can't just raise prices because their costs increased.



I have no idea that we are sure, or even if it does. I don't have anything approaching the base knowledge to know one way or the other, and if I did have a belief it would have to be based solely on believing someone I thought did have that knowledge. Yet, I could be a juror tasked with making that decision. Could a gov't agency be culpable? I can see a fact pattern where I would say yes. If they knew given the current research and failed to act, were bribed to stay quiet, etc. then yes. If they were acting on the best knowledge at the time, or were restrained by laws that didn't let them act, then no.

As I said in my second response, I misread the post I first responded to as calling for legislation against the use of herbicides like Round Up. I think civil trials are rife with potential abuse largely due to the ignorance and bias of jurors against large, successful corporations but that is a far lesser evil than the government legislating against herbicides as they did against the pesticide DDT.

While true that supply and demand sets price, it is not nearly that simple. Both supply and demand are easily manipulated, especially with a product that is already successful and in high demand. The effect of marketing on demand and the breakdown in your argument is easily seen with Round Up as an example. Monsanto sells Round Up branded products for significantly more than other companies sell generic chemically identical glyphosate products. Why and how can they do that? Answer: They can sell the same product for a higher price through marketing to increase and/or maintain the demand for the name brand over generics. Additionally, they can change the formulations of their products slightly(usually by adding or substituting already approved chemicals) and market it as new and improved products, which of course is sold for a new and improved price(and by improved, I mean higher). It is important to also realize that, both Round Up and the various generic glyphosates, already have a high demand with very few real ag herbicide competitors. With demand being high, it is pretty easy to manipulate price by manipulating supply. As you, yourself, noted different rules applies for monopolies, so to do different rules apply for near monopolies.

While maximizing profit through price strategy is certainly a thing, I seriously hope you are not suggesting that companies never voluntarily sell their products below the highest cost markets will bear. The existence of "sales" and "rebates" easily refutes that notion. Selling a product below the absolute highest cost the market will bear in order to boost the amount of product sold and thus total profit is in itself a pricing strategy, one of many. Again, prices are easily manipulated through various means. Heck, large corporations frequently manipulate prices temporarily just to improve quarterly sales numbers in attempt to boost stock prices.

That wasn't my point on the question about government culpability. I should have phrased the question differently but what I was getting out is why didn't the plaintiffs bring a lawsuit against the government agency that approves the use of glyphosate, when the should clearly be culpable if they are approving a known carcinogen? The answer is that no ambulance chasing attorney is going to attempt to bring such a frivolous suit against a government agency with so little evidence. Instead, the attorney is going to target a large(and in this case frequently demonized) corporation because that is the low hanging fruit. The odds of finding a pool of jurors gullible and biased enough to stick it to such a corporation on sparse evidence is fairly decent judging by the number of successful lawsuits of this type. On the other hand, while any ACA would love to make his career by taking on the government and winning, they would also realize that taking on the government without strong evidence is a fools errand.

 

[Fargo]

That wasn't my point on the question about government culpability. I should have phrased the question differently but what I was getting out is why didn't the plaintiffs bring a lawsuit against the government agency that approves the use of glyphosate, when the should clearly be culpable if they are approving a known carcinogen? The answer is that no ambulance chasing attorney is going to attempt to bring such a frivolous suit against a government agency with so little evidence.

No, The answer is that the same government they created the agency makes the agency legally immune from almost all lawsuits of this nature.

There are two totally different set of rules when suing the government versus private parties in cases like this, it is all but impossible to sue the government on many/most cases is you could sue a private corporation on.

As to the "but science" aspect of it, if many corporations spent less time buying the "science" that was helpful to their profit margin's, I would guess that many would feel differently about these things. A quick glance through the history of Purdue pharmaceuticals makes it clear how that goes.

They paid enough doctors to write articles about how OxyContin wasn't addictive that they ultimately succeeded in getting the government to tie Medicaid reimbursement to pain management based on opiate prescription. Now we are awash in heroin addicts because "but science".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Both supply and demand are easily manipulated, especially with a product that is already successful and in high demand. The effect of marketing on demand and the breakdown in your argument is easily seen with Round Up as an example. Monsanto sells Round Up branded products for significantly more than other companies sell generic chemically identical glyphosate products. Why and how can they do that? Answer: They can sell the same product for a higher price through marketing to increase and/or maintain the demand for the name brand over generics.

Well, yeah. Marketing works. That's beyond the scope of what I said and doesn't in the slightest refute what I said. In fact, it agrees with it. The company is *not* a monopoly any more than Nike is because it's shoes sell for more than Keds. A very successful marketing campaign has created a large demand. Monopolies don't need to advertise, it's actually one of the signs of a monopoly. Having a generic available puts downward pressure on pricing, as people will pay *some* gap but not *any* gap before buying an alternative. As to why sales and rebates? Because it's a marketing cost. Short term dip for long term gain.

So we seem to be in agreement that the company will work to maximize it's profit. That's not always by setting the highest price, because that can reduce demand. That would indicate they will raise their price as they can, or lower their price as they must, regardless of the cost of doing business. They can't simply raise prices because they have to pay a lawsuit. If they could simply raise prices, they already would why wouldn't they? They are going to leave money on the table because...?

As far as the second part, I think Fargo covers it better than I can. It's a different bar to sue a regulatory agency. Without knowing the specific facts, it might not rise to the point (or the time frame) where you could overcome the immunity such agencies enjoy that private enterprises do not. However, even removing the gov't aspect, has anyone ever sued Consumer Reports or the like for an excellent safety rating on a car that is later discovered to have a claymore-like airbag or some other major safety fault? Or do they sue the maker of the car or specific auto part? Why?

 

[spencer rifle]

Guess there's no substitute for doing your own due diligence. But as the world gets more complex and changes at an increasing rate, we can't help but being left behind by the specialists, who know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. Either that, or trust government regulatory agencies, who do a good job for the most part. But when they fail, they fail spectacularly.