Jury Finds Bayer's Roundup Weedkiller Caused Man's Cancer (reuters.com) 249
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Shares in Germany's Bayer's fell more than 12 percent on Wednesday after a second U.S. jury ruled its Roundup weed killer caused cancer. Tuesday's unanimous jury decision in San Francisco federal court was not a finding of Bayer's liability for the cancer of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman. Liability and damages will be decided by the same jury in a second trial phase beginning on Wednesday. Bayer, which denies allegations that glyphosate or Roundup cause cancer, said it was disappointed with the jury's initial decision. Bayer acquired Monsanto, the longtime maker of Roundup, for $63 billion last year. The case was only the second of some 11,200 Roundup lawsuits to go to trial in the United States. Another California man was awarded $289 million in August after a state court jury found Roundup caused his cancer. That award was later reduced to $78 million and is on appeal.
Bayer had claimed that jury was overly influenced by plaintiffs' lawyers allegations of corporate misconduct and did not focus on the science. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called such evidence "a distraction" from the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. He split the Hardeman case into two phases: one to decide causation, the other to determine Bayer's potential liability and damages. Under Chhabria's order, the second phase would only take place if the jury found Roundup to be a substantial factor in causing Hardeman's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The jury found that it was on Tuesday.
Bayer had claimed that jury was overly influenced by plaintiffs' lawyers allegations of corporate misconduct and did not focus on the science. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called such evidence "a distraction" from the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. He split the Hardeman case into two phases: one to decide causation, the other to determine Bayer's potential liability and damages. Under Chhabria's order, the second phase would only take place if the jury found Roundup to be a substantial factor in causing Hardeman's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The jury found that it was on Tuesday.
Science Disagrees... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science Disagrees... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know? Did you read articles that I didn't?
Re:Science Disagrees... (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict.
How do you know? Did you read articles that I didn't?
Just the one linked here, but it does in fact say exactly that.
It says the jury only examined and considered evidence regarding the companies business practices, and the judge even called that out.
The jury did not mention anything regarding the scientific studies about if it causes cancer.
The same article even finishes by including the outcome of some of those studies.
Bayer had claimed that jury was overly influenced by plaintiffs' lawyers allegations of corporate misconduct and did not focus on the science.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called such evidence "a distraction" from the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer.
and
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and other regulators have found that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans. But the World Health Organization's cancer arm in 2015 reached a different conclusion, classifying glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."
Had the jury known of and mentioned that very last part from the world health organization, chances are good no one would be discussing this phase of the trial at all.
Even with the "probably" qualifier used, that being mentioned would have put the requirement to scientifically prove there was no chance or that study was flawed or something.
As it is they don't really need to do any real work to counter anything.
If that fact is brought up on appeal, then a whole new trial will need to be held to counter their counter, and basically is more or less starting from square one minus all the time and money and effort wasted to get there.
I have to agree with GP. The jury was required to show scientific evidence, and clearly if some dip reporters can find it, it can't be that difficult of a task!
Getting to the right answer by completely wrong and improper means won't help matters and gives Bayer far more wiggle room in court than they should have been given.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they, like me, listed to this episode of Opening Arguments [openargs.com] where an actual lawyer explains just that.
Re:Science Disagrees... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, a jury found OJ not guilty. Don't sweat it.
For what it's worth, most studies on Roundup were concerned with the level of exposure that consumers encounter. This is a bit different - these are agricultural workers with much heavier and different types of exposure. the typical consumer probably isn't breathing the stuff day in and day out.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, most studies on Roundup were concerned with the level of exposure that consumers encounter.
I totally agree; most of the studies are on consumers who used the product according to the label, and so we already know from those studies that if you wear gloves while you use it, then you get limited skin exposure.
According to the studies, you'd have to accidentally spill some on your skin at least twice in a year to have any cancer risk. Well, or I guess, use it twice without wearing safety equipment, but consumers wouldn't actually do that, would they? Certainly not manly men doing yard work, they'd a
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff that we eat and drink and contact daily are known carcinogens
So fucking what? Feel free to revert to a medieval diet and die in your 50s.
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:3)
Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict.
They used logic - an even bigger threat to your bosses than "science."
Re: (Score:2)
You ever been on a jury? I have. These "peers" wouldn't know logic if it hit them in the face. It's all about emotional appeal and whether the defendant is easy on the eye.
Re:Science Disagrees... (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger problem (as far as keeping people and corporations on best behavior) is that something can kill thousands, but still be almost impossible to prove.
If round up increased one's risk of cancer by 50%, it'd still be nearly impossible to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that any given case of cancer was caused by it (in fact, even if it was responsible for 30% of all cancer, it most likely wouldn't be responsible for any given case).
It's hard to prove a specific case of cancer was caused by anything since it can kind of happen anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing that a 50% increase would make it responsible for 33.333% of all cancer, then. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until the peers of this jury of peers has to decide upon a class-action suit against immunization manufacturers, claiming it causes autism...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Derpstick, manufacturers of those medicines have legal protection in the US. So no, there will not be a jury deciding that.
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict. This is insane.
The jury did rule that Roundup causes cancer. That is the job of science, and it has already been done.
They jury ruled that Roundup caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman's cancer. The next step is to determine Bayer's liability.
We have "votes" on climate change, and a "jury of your peers" to decide on medical and biological science.
Scientific results (medical, biological, or otherwise) are not determined by "votes" or "juries". They are determined by experiment. Then they are published by scientists so that their peers can examine them. Hypotheses turn into scientific laws and theories as supporting evidence accumula
Re: (Score:2)
The jury did rule that Roundup causes cancer. That is the job of science, and it has already been done.
They jury ruled that Roundup caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman's cancer. The next step is to determine Bayer's liability.
Whoops, Didn't proofread carefully enough. Perhaps it's obvious, but that should have read "The jury did not rule that Roundup causes cancer."
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misread my comments. I'm not a denialist. I agree with the science you cited.
What I said was that the jury did not determine that Roundup causes cancer. Rather, they determined that Roundup caused the plaintiff's cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Based only on the news stories I have read, my take is that the jury was presented with these facts:
- Roundup causes cancer
- the plaintiff used roundup for 3 decades
- the plaintiff got cancer
What the jury had to decide was whether Roundup was responsible for the plaintiff's cancer, not whether Roundup causes cancer. Lots of things cause cancer. Was it Roundup in this case? Or was the cancer caused by something else? Both the plaintiff and the defendant made their cases, and the jury decided.
This decision wa
Somebody on the linked /. story made a good point (Score:4, Insightful)
I should add (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about "likely," as that seems a bit premature to say. From what I could sleuth, the focus seems to surround the surfactant used in Roundup, for which I could only find a single paper showing evidence for toxicity in petri dishes:
A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. [nih.gov], Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2005:
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. This is a very important point. The active ingredients of pesticides are highly regulated, with mandatory toxicity studies. However the other ingredients, including adjuvants and surfactants are not regulated at all, at least here in Canada. So we have no idea how toxic or safe some of these additional chemicals are, which is deeply worrisome, especially the unknown effect on wildlife. Many of these surfactants and adjuvants are required to make the pesticides work better, but aren't incl
You mean (Score:2)
If I don't wear prescribed protective equipment of any kind when dealing with large quantities of a known biocide, and wind up quite literally SOAKING IN IT on a regular basis, I might get cancer or other ill effects?
I AM AMAZE!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if a person genuinely believed the idiots claiming it is "proven safe," why would they need to worry?
That's really the problem; the lack of honesty about the risks, especially from the manufacturer.
Personally, when I hear somebody say something is "proven safe" I actually hear them say, "I dunnu grok the sciency, can I haz cheeseburder?" So handling concentrated chemicals always still seems stupid to me.
Yes there is chlorine in my drinking water. Yes, I drink it. No, I don't think that means it is saf
Re: (Score:2)
Because too much of ANYTHING can have nasty effects on you.
Especially when the product SPECIFIES the use of protective equipment.
"Proven safe" means that when you use it within specifications, you aren't at risk.
This guy didn't do anything of the sort.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Prove a negative?
Re: (Score:2)
Prove a negative?
If you prefer, you may also prove that it is positively safe to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go [fda.gov]. It's for contaminated water, but closest I could find.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start by proving that water is safe to use. Go ahead.
I'll demonstrate it by having billions of people drinking it, and soaking their skin in it. You do the same with glyphosate.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single person who has or had cancer drank water.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove a negative?
Well, if you can prove that carcinogenic isn't the cause of cancer, then repeat the methods they have used to prove that it causes cancer. If the result comes out otherwise, maybe carcinogenic doesn't cause cancer? Is that what prove a negative you are asking for?
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:3, Informative)
Nobody has proven that it causes cancer. That's the point. After hundreds of studies all the data is still negative. We can't prove a negative, but we can certainly point to all of the studies which failed to disprove it. That's how science works.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has proven that it causes cancer. That's the point. After hundreds of studies all the data is still negative. We can't prove a negative, but we can certainly point to all of the studies which failed to disprove it. That's how science works.
How many decades did it take until it was official that smoking cigarettes caused cancer? My doctor when I was a kid smoked in the exam room. I knew people that were told by there doctors to smoke to calm their nerves. Yet my grand parents called them "coffin nails". How many decades did the American Cancer Society rally against smoking?
This is one of the things that I've always found a bit scary in the US. If there's a lot of money involved, it takes damn near irrefutable proof that something is reall
Re: (Score:2)
A jury found that silicon breast implants cause all kind so bad shit and the plaintiffs got hundreds of millions.
Science later conclusively disproved that silicon was the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the silicone is toxic, and the liner that is supposed to be in contact with the body is made of something else. So there is no contextual truth in your statement, just a misleading irrelevancy.
And the bags leaking the silicone does cause all sorts of health problems. Duh.
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:3)
How many decades did it take until it was official that smoking cigarettes caused cancer?
Not particularly long. The question, of course, is when did people first start looking at the possibility, and what kind of studies were done.
If the kind of studies which have been done on roundup had instead been done when people first started smoking, we would have had a conclusive link in a matter of years. I don't think you realize how much of a difference there is between modern clinical trials and animal studies compared to what they were like in the past.
Re: c6gummer sucks the tumors right off your cock, (Score:2)
The animals studies which led the IARC to that conclusion were incredibly bad, and I believe have all been retracted. They made a bad call but refuse to back down; there's a reason no other scientific organization has followed suit.
The farmer study you're referring to (if it's the same one I'm thinking of; who knows since you've provided no references) found that:
"glyphosate was not statistically significantly associated with cancer at any site. However, among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is proven. There are dozens of studies that clearly proof it.
Here is one: https://www.iarc.fr/featured-n... [www.iarc.fr]
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:2)
That's not a study, it's an evaluation of previous studies; at best a meta-study. It also doesn't prove anything. If you bothered to read the text you would see they say there's "limited evidence" of glyphosate causing cancer in humans, which basically means no statistically significant link. They largely based their conclusion on animal studies, all of which have been debunked numerous times, and many of which have been retracted. Most of the positive animal studies have come from biased jackasses look
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how you get "yes it was proven" from that. I'm not surprised though; it's well in keeping with your beliefs on many other subjects.
He understands that it says that because he can read. That's where you differ; you see words, but instead of reading them, you listen to the voices.
Here is the excerpt you attempted to quote that talks about "limited evidence." Notice how you botched the conclusions?
In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).
This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate).
IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:2)
He understands that it says that because he can read.
Thus seems unlikely; both of you seem to be having difficulty understanding the words "limited evidence".
Re: (Score:2)
This is your word, not OP's.
In science we can demonstrate the null hypothesis is the most likely explanation of the facts with a high degree of significance.
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely nothing special about proving a negative.
If you can:
A - Define a coin as a two sided disc that had two faces, heads and tails, and one edge.
B - Define the process of flipping a coin and measuring how it landed (head up, tails up, or on edge).
C - Do so to any desired degree of accuracy or certainty.
Then you can both:
A - Prove a coin landed head ups.
B - Prove a coin did not land heads up.
Negating the statement has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The degree of certainty to which you
Re: (Score:3)
You're not proving a negative, you're proving a positive where there are two positive states, and then phrasing the result as a negative.
Yes, you can always rework a sentence to use a negative instead of a positive. Duh.
No, that doesn't mean negatives are provable.
Re: (Score:3)
Like the people that asks for a proof that vaccines do not cause autism, etc.
There's plenty of proof to give them for this.. The problem is they won't accept it. The standing argument used to dismiss CDC or actual medical studies basically boils down to some vast conspiracy theory involving thousands of people, from doctors to researchers and many government officials from multiple countries.
Why do you think that offering proof that Roundup is causing people to die from cancer would be acceptable? The argument is always the same, it's a conspiracy to hide the truth in the name o
Re:Science Disagrees... (Score:5, Informative)
This is the evaluation by IARC that opened up for the lawsuits:
IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides [www.iarc.fr], International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015:
That IARC evaluation was subsequently criticized, and other high-profile papers and agencies were unable to reach the same conclusions:
A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate [hoajonline.com], Journal of Toxicology and Health, 2015:
The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate - BfR [bfr.bund.de], German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, 2015:
Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers [nih.gov], Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 2016:
EPA Releases Draft Risk Assessments for Glyphosate [epa.gov], Environmental Protection Agency, 2017:
Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC [nih.gov], Archives of Toxicology, 2017:
Re: (Score:2)
None of these government agencies actually did any research on the matter themselves
Agencies typically don't do their own research, as any one single primary study doesn't show much on its own [wikipedia.org]. They instead perform a form of systematic review [wikipedia.org] which aims to sum up multiple up high-quality papers to reach a conclusion of the current state of the science.
You could drop at least half those links since they all refer to the same study paid by monsanto to disproof the other study. [...] they all quote each other and ultimately a single scientist on Monsanto payroll.
I don't suppose you could point to which study that was composed by the Monsanto scientist, and why that study has a flawed conclusion?
Re: (Score:2)
I am neither an expert nor paid by any biotech company like Bayer/Monsanto. I work full time as a software developer, but I do find controversial science topics intriguing, and I have some background in scientific skepticism and fact checking.
On the topic of Roundup/Glyphosate carcinogenesis, its relatively easy to google for reliable sources [wikipedia.org]. In this case, even the Wikipedia articles on its safety have a comprehensive list of citations. And I just copied some of the relevant findings from the papers' abstr
Re: (Score:3)
>"Please provide a credible citation which shows that roundup is not carcinogenic."
Besides being difficult to prove a negative, I would ask "under what conditions and circumstances?" Using Roundup on weeds in a yard several times a year, properly, is almost certainly safe. I admit I don't know the details of the case but the links and stories have no useful information on things like:
Was this guy following ALL the instructions on the label?
Was he mixing the correct dilution?
How often was he using it?
Wa
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:3, Interesting)
Monsanto is hated for good reasons, but it should be held to account based on real evidence.
I've yet to hear a good reason which wasn't blatant bullshit, like supposedly suing completely innocent farmers, or causing suicides in India. Every single "good reason" that people have presented can be shown to be nonsense with just a 5 minute google search.
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Monsanto used to be the largest manufacturer of PCBs in the US, a fair amount of which apparently got dumped into some rivers. They paid out $700 million to some people in Alabama as a settlement. Something along the same lines in Wales. They were also involved in making agent orange for the US to use in Vietnam, and then denied a connection between exposure and US veterans' medical problems. They settled that one too. They've also admitted to illegal bribery and accounting fraud.
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that's fair. Kinda. I mean the PCB thing ... for the majority of the time they were being manufactured nobody really knew about the risks, and Monsanto certainly wasn't the only manufacturer. And they stopped making them well before any laws were passed which would have put a stop to it. But, sure, at least your criticisms are in the realm of reality.
Monsanto did have a less-than-stellar record some 50 years ago, but I'm not sure that it's particularly rational to hate a corporation because of thi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the bribery is contemporary. They bribed a government official in Indonesia responsible for assessing one of their GMO crops, and covered it up in their books. The US justice department went after them but they got a deferred prosecution agreement; the same kind of deal that's causing a big scandal in Canada at the moment, except ours is a big construction company that seems to have bribed everyone except me (dammit, am I not good enough?).
Monsanto is usually associated with evil for their patented
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:2)
Yeah I can't find much to disagree with there, and your last paragraph is dead on. Cheers.
Re: (Score:3)
According to Wikipedia Monsanto took over manufacturing of PCBs in 1935. Also during the 1930s the toxicity of PCBs became well known. The first well documented medical cases were in the late 30s and warnings continued to be issued through the 1940s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It also mentions that Monsanto knew about the problems in the 1960s, despite their efforts to remain ignorant, yet carried on making PCBs anyway.
They are not much better these days. Just listen to this bullshit: https://youtu.be/ [youtu.be]
Re: Science Disagrees... (Score:5, Informative)
You can read the Canada Supreme Court decision [wikipedia.org] that Monsato won over Percy Schmeiser (first link in the references). It was pretty obvious that he was innocent. The Court even reduced his fine to $1 (a fact scrubbed from the wiki page, probably by Monsanto-paid editors) because they determined that he didn't benefit in any way from planting the RoundUp Ready seeds (he never sprayed RoundUp on his crops).
The Court only decided in favor of Monsanto because they did have a patent, and they determined Schmeiser violated that patent by planting seeds with the patented gene. And even that determination is suspect because the Court bought Monsanto's argument that there was no way for plants to develop resistance to RoundUp on their own. So Schmeiser "ought to have known" that the canola plants he found in the gutters by his field that survived spraying with RoundUp were from Monsanto's patented seeds. This argument was later disproven when weeds were found which had developed resistance to RoundUp on their own, meaning Schmeiser was right when he argued that he believed the Canola in his gutters had developed resistance on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
This would indicate that he planted the patented seeds, whether knowingly or not. A lucky random mutation wouldn't spread out to an entire field in a single generation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"ultimately paid by the rest of us?" I doubt it. (Score:2)
I'm not a Monsanto/Bayer customer or stockholder, so I'm pretty sure I will not be paying any of their fines or penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy food that comes from a farm, you will be paying for it. Doubly-indirectly, but you'll be paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HArd time for the execs isn't currently on the table. Actual losses, mental anguish, and punative damages are the only options on the table here.
Don't forget extensive legal fees, experts, research, the lawfirm taking significant risks of time and money for all of that, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
In civilized countries, we have medical insurance and welfare for people too sick to work.
It would be those institutions that would go after Mondanto for medical bills.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it should be, but that's not the world the plaintiff lives in.
Re: (Score:2)
The science linking glyphosate to lymphoma seems to be a bit iffy. But I don't think that's even relevant. The question should be whether Monsanto covered it up. If they did, I agree, a corporate death penalty is in order. Otherwise, they made a product, which was approved for use according to the regulatory requirements of society. If new evidence shows it doesn't meet those standards then it should be withdrawn with no fault.
Bacon causes cancer. But we deem bacon an acceptable risk. We also deem tobacco
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying selecting twelve people randomly from the populace and asking them to decide isn't a great way of establishing guilt, or reasonable consequences.
Other countries use a single judge, or maybe a panel of judges, none of them trained in science. Hardly seems better in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges are at least trained in law, and in most places do tend to specialize in different areas, so they have some professional ability to become familiar with the kinds of evidence that tend to be presented in their field.
I think a mandatory review by independent, court appointed scientists of any scientific evidence is a great idea though.
Re:Science says "moehard" is a dumb faggot (Score:5, Informative)
Post the scientific study that proves it or GTFO.
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content... [www.iarc.fr]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"no apparent risk to consumers was identified"
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5263 [europa.eu]
"The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the abs
Re:Science says "moehard" is a dumb faggot (Score:5, Insightful)
"not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. "
In other words, don't drink the stuff, and it's less carcinogenic than sunlight, diesel, or your computer screen.
You really are doing more harm than good by trying to get glyphosate banned. It will be replaced by something more toxic and probably patent encumbered.
Don't like Monsanto? Fine, no one will blame you for that, just buy your glyphosate from another source (they only own the Roundup trademark).
Patrick Moore: "You can drink a whole quart of it" (Score:2)
In other words, don't drink the stuff,
On the contrary, according to industry lobbyist Patrick Moore, "you can drink a whole quart of it an it won't hurt you." [youtube.com]
Re:Put your hand out, let's experiment on you fagg (Score:4)
"Drink a glass" is a common argument from those unable to to comprehend the difference between a carcinogen and a toxin.
Cyanide isn't carcinogenic. But you wouldn't drink a glass of it because it's extremely toxic. You avoid drinking a glass of glyphosate because its toxic at that dosage. That fact is not evidence for it being carcinogenic, whatosever.
So then they goal-post shift to "it's toxic therefore it's dangerous". But 90% of the stuff we consume is toxic if consumed at a quantity in which it's toxic to humans. Water is toxic if you drink too much of it. It causes acute water toxicity. The key is that we consume goods at levels they're not toxic in humans. "The dose makes the poison".
So then they move the goalposts again to "any amount of a toxic chemical is bad", illustrating their complete misunderstanding of chemistry or toxicity. No, it's not. Bananas contain potassium. Potassium is required by the body for many chemical processes. But if you drink a glass of it, you'll die. If you get none of it at all, you'll die. Same goes for copper. Same goes for magnesium. Etc. Required to live. Only dangerous if you consume too much. Arsenic and formaldehyde are found in plenty of foods - but they're not toxic at the levels we consume them. Hell, cyanide is produced in plenty of plants we eat. But it's not toxic at the levels we consume it. Trace amounts of glyphosate found on food are thousands of times below the threshold of toxicity in humans - it's non bio-accumulating, so unless you're eating several thousands cabbages in one sitting, you can never consume glyphosate in toxic quantities from food.
Yeah - there's plenty of evidence glyphosate is toxic at high doses, just like almost every pesticide used in organic food production. Which is why you need to wear safety gear if you're handling it directly. But the fact it's toxic is not evidence its carcinogenic at all, and when the summation of IARC findings that it "may" cause one type of cancer is "because people blamed it for their cancer", you just have to look at the number of folk who think vaccines cause autism to understand that science is never determined by popularity. Policy may be. Science is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a youtube video. Well I'm totally convinced.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you want to check who or what the IARC actually is: https://www.iarc.fr/featured-n... [www.iarc.fr]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.sciencealert.com/s... [sciencealert.com]
You lose, fucktard.
Re: (Score:2)
In my book, plenty of people need to be told that they're fucking retarded because plenty of people are fucking retarded.
People who avoid calling it like it is because they don't want to be seen as offensive, crass, or whatever else are also fucking retarded.
People who buy a thesaurus and lookup needlessly ridiculous words to use in an attempt to make themselves sound more intelligent are also fucking retarded.
Re:Science Disagrees... (Score:4, Insightful)
... and "electoral colleges" to decide election results.
How should the states vote for the president of their union? Should the federal senators and house representatives vote between the candidates? Should the governors of the states vote? Don't tell me the citizens should vote, because then there's not much reason for having individual states in a federated union.
IF you ditch the electoral college, then you are right, the states really don't matter. Sadly that's NOT how this system was supposed to work, the states are a unique part of the division of power, or they used to be.
IMHO we are rapidly departing from our founding principles to our peril because folks somehow think states don't mater or the division of power between the states and the people isn't being respected. Someday, we will look back and realize the genius of our founders, but most folks don't understand how the system was designed because we've not taught basic civics for more than a generation now.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why the system set up as the United States has lasted over 200 years. The constitution was a contract between the states and the new federal government. The architects of the federal gov and constitution had to figure out a way that the states would actually sign on to this experiment, therefore most control was given to the states. One thing that amazes me is that some states are now voting on bills to reduce their effective power by making their electors follow a national popular vote. After so
Re: (Score:2)
After something like that is in place, 100% of a state could vote for x, but the electors would end up voting for y.
This can already happen. They call it a "faithless elector".
Some states have laws against it, but such laws wouldn't invalidate an electors vote. A lot of people were crossing their fingers and hoping against hope for faithless electors to hand some more votes to Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the system set up as the United States has lasted over 200 years.
So, early days. :-)
The constitution was a contract between the states and the new federal government.
If the states had known how little power they would retain by the end of the 20th century, would they ever have joined?
It is the same in other countries though. People no longer interact just locally, and are more mobile.
So many more things are naturally run at a national level than 200 years ago, and so power concentrates.
States will soon be primarily concerned with garbage collection and local transport.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO we are rapidly departing from our founding principles to our peril because folks somehow think states don't mater or the division of power between the states and the people isn't being respected. Someday, we will look back and realize the genius of our founders, but most folks don't understand how the system was designed because we've not taught basic civics for more than a generation now.
Or maybe some combination of travel, communication, and globalization is making states less significant than they used to be, and the shift of focus to the federal level is just how things are going, and not a sign of disrespect and decay of the founding vision. Change isn't necessarily bad. (Not that it's necessarily good, either.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Popular election of senators was a huge fucking mistake. They complained about deadlocks and vacant seats. That's a problem for each state to solve individually.
Now all we get is the same bullshit politics we see in the house (which is run like a zoo) and the same bullshit spending to appease the mindless retards who can't add. Oh, and all the bribery and corruption are still in place, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a moron. We are a union of states by design. This is not a fucking democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bagehot was referring to the original intent, which was pretty much discarded, and because the constitution remained largely silent on the functioning of the College, it ended up being decided by the states. The intent was a deliberative body, what was practiced in short order was little more than a pretense, and now really is just a sham. If it is the states that select the President, then why not just have each legislature make the pick, and get rid of the college entire?
The whole point of the EC was to c
Re: (Score:2)
And beyond that, where in the Constitution does it say the states pick the president. The electors are apportioned based on the number of Congressional seats each state has, the intent being that the states each got a certain number of Electors. The states have control over how the electors are selected, but there's clearly nothing in that that says that electors must be pledged. That's a convention that grew out of the first few elections.
Re: (Score:2)
The misconduct centered around suppression of research that had "unfortunate conclusions", and so tends to indicate that MONSANTO believes it causes cancer.
That kind of testimony to a layman jury seems relevant enough. Had it been a mile long list of tickets for jaywalking and moving violations, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it a jury of scientists? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care what a jury of Jerry Springer-watching automatons find about scientific subjects.
Now try to collect (Score:2)
The lawyers will make out well, they are the only winners.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is true.. Only the lawyer's win, I had one tell me so when I got sued two decades ago.
My daughter was injured in a car accident that was the other driver's fault and all sorts of personal injury attorneys offered to "sue" for only 35% of the recovery.. The kid driving the other car only had $100K worth of insurance and we where out $50K in medical bills with an arguable 4x multiple for ongoing medical costs (which she will have for the rest of her life). IF we went with the lawyer, we'd collect $75K,
Yes and no (Score:2)
Juries are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Juries are often filled with anti-corporate types who want to stick it to the man regardless of reality.
Might Roundup be carcinogenic? Sure. Did a guy who used it in his lawncare regime get exposed enough to *cause* his *particular* cancer? I hugely doubt it.
I mean, unless he filled his pool with it an swam around in it for a few days...the level of exposure with proper use is pretty much zero.
Never trusted the stuff (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure they would...but cancer cases normally can't qualify b/c lack common facts.
So, the fallback strategy is to try a handful (4-10) of test cases to establish a going rate, then use those data points to settle the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
That stuff keeps decimating bees worldwide, this is literally a crime against humanity!
But a few humans die, now it's serious?
Roundup is a herbicide, it kills specific kinds of plants, how's it killing bees?
Re: Fuck Monsanto. Fuck Bayer's. (Score:2)
Re:Maybe it's the articles I happen to read, but . (Score:4, Informative)
Bayer continues "to believe firmly that science confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer".
It always sets of my BS detector that it leaves a loop hole for one of the solvents or even the glyphosate when combined with one of the solvents to cause cancer.
That seems pretty iron clad and not weasel worded to me. Roundup is a glyphosate based herbicide. The scientific evidence says it doesn't cause cancer. Or more accurately, doesn't cause in increase in cancer risk, even at moderate exposure levels well above what most people experience.
Re: (Score:2)
You go on ahead. I still have some /. articles to finish reading.