Bayer's Monsanto To Pay More Than $1.5 Billion Over Claims Weed-Killer Caused Cancer
themessenger.com
Bayer’s Monsanto was ordered to pay more than $1.5 billion Friday over claims its patented weed-killer, Roundup, was linked to users’ cancer, Bloomberg reported.
James Draeger, Valerie Gunther and Dan Anderson were each awarded a total of $61.1 million in actual damages and $500 million each in punitive damages by jurors in state court in Jefferson City, Missouri.
The three people alleged that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas — a type of cancer that begins in your lymphatic system, part of the body’s immune system — were caused by years of using Roundup while gardening.
I'll never forget the weird fucking sub of literal Monsanto apologists on reddit who'd keyword search for anything negative and descend with gish-gallop and brigading.
Bunch of weirdos, some of whom openly admitted to working for and depending on Bayer/Monsanto for a living.
They'll be here if we start popping up in Google searches. I always assumed they were paid professionals, working entry-level jobs for reputation management consultants.
More than likely it's a bot farm hired by a public relations firm. Bot farms create bots every day and then assign them tasks to repost popular content and then reply using popular comments under different bots all so they can build up credibility and look like a real user. So then when they are put to a task you can have a single user welding the influence of hundreds or thousands to control the narrative.
Reddit is famously saturated in those bots and this place is likely no different but on a smaller scale made even easier by the instance system.
It was proven in court docs if I recall that they did have a troll farm not unlike the Russian IRA with the sole purpose of defending Monsanto's products with vigor. The only type of person who would engage in that degree of fundamentalist day in and day out is either an AI bot or on a payroll to do exactly that.
As a mod on a few garden and science subs at that time, they were pernacious and ethically inept. They would associate anything anti-pesticide or GMO with being an anti science quack. And they would dog pile on poor individuals expressing concern.
I had several debates with them, often reported them for brigading, and ultimately had to ban them.
Being anti-GMO is almost always anti-science quack. (Except if your complaint is about the patenting of the DNA) Pesticides are a bit more complicated because they are necessary for modern agriculture, but of course making a poison that only kills the things you want to kill has the risk if them killing more things.
Being blanket pro GMO is kinda nuts and can only come from a kneejerk against anti-science nuts.
There are some great GMO examples but also a lot of really bad ones, do you realise that the vast majority of GMO seeds have been modified not to use less pesticide but to make the crops resilient to the pesticides and allow them to use more? It allows them to absolutely flood the area with Monsanto products that all wash into the waterways and destroy ecosystems - and they don't care because if people are forced to farm dead wasteland they'll need loads of the chemical fertilisers they also sell....
Capitalism had a whole load of choices for how to use these new technologies, they could have chosen to help the environment, but the other option is fuck everyone and grab the money so of course they took that.
Society relies on products they've developed, the world would be a very different place without gramoxone, 2,4-D and glyphosate. Considering glyphosate is the safest of the widely used herbicides it's probably not a great thing to brand everyone who is against banning it a shill.
I'll defend glyphosate if you like, it's pretty damn safe and useful. Might not be good idea to be chronically exposed to it, although as I understand it the evidence is still unclear.
I think it has an important role in setting up conservation agriculture systems, during the initial land preparation to remove perennial weeds. We don't do enough of this and topsoil losses from annual tillage are a huge, civilisation ending problem.
But it's like that clip of somebody calling it safe then refusing to drink a glass of it. He should have offered them a nice glass of cow shit slurry in return. It doesn't track, I wouldn't drink a glass of lube but I'm pretty sure it's safe.
Lol this is hilarious. You're the only one here that put forth an argument. And in a thread where someone was whining about being "piled on" for their position against glyphosate, you're being piled on.
It was like they were literally warning people what would happen if you don't join the circle jerk.
You call that an argument? It was all either unsourced or unfalsifiable opinion. Additionally their final paragraph worked against their own point. It's either safe or it isn't. "Pretty sure" doesn't cut it.
I really don't even think it merits a response. Basically, I rest my case.
Yes, it was an argument. A weak one, maybe, as it was unsourced as you point out. But they gave something to actually challenge. They took an actual position rather than just claim any opposition to their belief must be shills.
Of course you don't, this come as zero surprise. You just want to, hilariously in light of the whining by a previous poster, pile on any dissent.
You're what you hate, not separate from it.
Well, it's not like I'm getting paid. It's literally just my opinion, although I think of it more like a conclusion on a personal level.
I'll grant an argument need not require a source, but even you admit it's a weak one. I don't accuse this individual specifically as a shill, I just don't consider it worth my time and find them somewhat ignorant on the subject-matter. I'm referring to a specific community that included self-professed shills who literally worked for said companies as mouthpieces. Literally can't get more shill than that.
I'm not because I don't take a paycheck and have zero skin in the game. The burden is on the user above to source their claims and we go from there. They did not.
I have a top MSc in agricultural science 😂
I just know from experience these exchanges don't go anywhere productive, everybody has already made their mind up.
Not sure how that degree makes you an expert in toxicology or cancer research, but I sure hope you've not made your mind up about Roundup being safe. I'm not saying it's not (the WHO is) but from experience I've found that treating potentially cancer causing chemicals with extra care is less likely to well...give you cancer.
But I'm willing to hear your side. Just fyi I don't think the argument "it's the best we got right now or people starve" is any stronger than saying "we can't switch from lead pipes, the people will die of thirst".
My BSc was in pharmacology which gives me a passing familiarity with those subjects. My conclusions aren't faith-based - any strong evidence, especially toxicology data, would certainly change my mind.
I think the average agricultural worker should be much more concerned about, for example, silicosis. That's legitimately scary and ruins countless lives.
I work with dangerous machinery and chemicals all the time and my position at present is that glyphosate is orders of magnitude less dangerous than many common household solvents and cleaning products.
Then what is your thought on the specific data presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and their classification of glyphosate as, "probably carcinogenic to humans"?
Pardon me but I just thought if a self-proclaimed expert in the field was going to mount a defense, I'd see a more data-oriented stance. I am an Engineer, myself, and I appreciate data-driven points. Not, "drinking lube" because it's "probably safe" and "give them a glass of shit".
Alas, my original comment was less about having an argument over the matter at this time and more shooting the shit about my past experience on Reddit. Others here shared a similar experience with vitriolic brigaders on Reddit just the same.
I don't consider myself an expert, and I accept that data. It probably does have the potential to be carcinogenic, particularly with chronic, high exposure. Many fairly innocuous things are, like eating pickles. It's a relevant concern for certain agricultural workers, but doesn't really warrant a ban.
Well that's something I can generally come to terms with. It's certainly not up to me to decide whether it's worth a ban or not and there is enough mixed data and conclusions on the subject that I don't think it's cut-and-dry, but clearly poses a risk with chronic exposure as you mention. I certainly wouldn't want my family-members exposed to it on a farm.
To the consumer down the line? Yeah, it doesn't keep me up at night. PFAS/PFOAS/forever-chemicals seem far more concerning in that respect to the end-user.
Well hey, fair enough! For fun, can I challenge you on that notion? Screenshot of diploma w/ username? 😁
I'm at work - I actually do have a photo of the certificate on my phone but as you point out, that could be anybody's. I know it must seem incredibly convenient, particularly considering the added relevance of my first degree. But I wouldn't have bothered weighing in otherwise, so there's a huge selection bias at play. I also managed an organic vegetable farm for three years, which I can't prove either.
On the topic of organic farming, what's your opinion on herbicide free permaculture gardening? In a small scale distributed model I don't see why glycolphosphate would be needed if weeds are just part of the landscape.
Honestly, I've never seen it work. I've really gone off permaculture; a lot of people talk a lot but I've never seen it done well. Forest gardening is in principle a nice idea with lots of merit, and elements of that can absolutely be integrated into smallholding systems. In general however organic systems rely on a massive amount of human labour, inevitably terribly paid and worked to the bone. If I sound jaded, that's because I am!
Well if you feel comfortable and get around to it, that would boost some ethos. On the other hand I understand that may not be the most comfortable thing to do on the internet as I'm not sure I would share my engineering degree either.
I'm not keen on identifying the university. But I may share the academic transcript later, with redacted whatever.
It's interesting that it's not worth your time to make an actual argument, or ask for sources because you don't think the argument is complete, but it is worth your time to defend not making an argument and making vague accusations of subs filled with self professed shills and other less forthcoming shills descending upon any post critical of glyphosate.
The latter, of course, you've provided no evidence for and thus by your own metric is a weak argument. Again, you are what you hate.
Teaching you fundamentals of argumentation and rhetoric to me is worth a little bit of my time. It is, of course, not your decision to decide what is and isn't worth my time.
Bear in mind that my original comment wasn't intended to mount an anti-glyphosate position; for I've very little interest in divesting the time into that at the moment (been there, done that). I was simply ranting out loud about a negative experience I had with vitriolic brigaders who openly admitted to shilling and taking a paycheck from the very company in question; a notable conflict of interest that would taint anyone's perception in matters of controversy that might jeopardize their very own paycheck. After all, we saw precisely the same behavior from Tobacco companies for decades until they were thoroughly eviscerated. Anyways, that's not really an argument I need to defend; it's merely an observation from a personal experience I'm throwing out in the void, which evidently, many others here shared a similar experience. The user who volunteered to defend glyphosate mounted a point utterly tangential to the original subject-matter at hand, which is why I think it was down-voted. I thought their defense was very amateur, argumentative-wise — especially if they're a scientist in that field. I'd expect better. So if that's the starting-point, I'm very skeptical over it being worth investing further time. Sorry, take it or leave it.
Meanwhile observe how your own cognitive bias taints your perspective, here. You came to the user's defense and yet absent of any compelling argument — for which you openly admitted yourself — did you advise they provide a source? Of course you didn't.
When you start doing this, lmk, because at this point you've not done anything that could even remotely be considered teaching anyone anything about argumentation and rhetoric.
Nor did I say it was. I was just pointing how what you think is worth your time exposes strange priorities.
This is exactly what I pointed out: you provided an empty position, the other person made an argument. . .and that poster was piled on (while hilariously other people were whining about being "piled on").
This is an extremely subjective statement as no argument in a non-formal setting really needs to be defended. But if you are making factual claims of subs filled with shills, and shills descending on you whenever you made a point, then you are making statement of facts that can be cited or supported, so to turn around and whine that other people aren't making strong arguments because they didn't source their facts. . .well, it's terribly hypocritical.
The submission is literally about a lawsuit over glyphosate causing cancer. Posting about shill-brigades piling on is actually "utterly tangential" to the actual point. And they were all upvoted. Someone actually talked about the topic, whether it actually causes cancer, and you're claiming the reason they were downvoted was for being off topic. Wow. It's like every accusation is an admission.
You are the one who brought up the fact that their position is weak because it was unsourced, all I did was point out the hypocrisy of this. I understand that this is an informal debate setting and that people aren't going to generally cite every claim they make. So you're right, of course I didn't, because they weren't the ones hypocritically demanding sources.
First Lesson: Don't hold double-standards.
You accused me of being the exact same as those mentioned in my original comment. You deflected this, despite (1) I make no money. (2) I don't operate out of some sub. (3) I have literally no horse in this race. And you have zero evidence of any 3 of these actions -- which makes your callous accusation odd, and certainly not a story from your past as was my case -- and for which others openly corrorborated experiencing for themselves. So "Point out" my priorities all you want, strangely. I don't particularly take high stock in vacuuous moral judgements from strangers if I'm being honest. I wouldn't expect that from you either. This brings you no closer to proving I'm a shill equivalent to those whom I and others in this thread experienced.
You may or may not believe what I said, but you either have to accept that within the domain of discourse or you don't. If you don't, then we literally have nothing to discuss. You don't believe me, and that's fine. But relative to my domain where this is my reality, you couldn't be further from the truth. Considering your counter-points hinge on taking my story at face-value, you kind of fork yourself.
Moreover there is a clear difference between sharing a personal story and seeing if others relate versus someone who literally goes directly from that to, "I am going to defend X. Here's my case: " that is also tangential to the original subject-line. Both of these reasons are why they were down-voted and why this isn't some case of "brigading" as you try to equate it to. Being down-voted isn't what I really consider "piling on," much less moving the goalpost from literal "brigading." Forget the fact that the outcome of this court case in of itself goes counter to their own position they half-heartedly defend.
To be upset that this user was down-voted because they provided an unsubstantiated argument consisting of telling people to drink shit and that "lube" is probably safe just isn't a compelling argument and in my view is worthless. Again, take it or leave it.
Furthermore I think it's a little amusing that for the person whom you defend, no sources = okay. For me, no sources = "bad! Shill!" Are you not seeing the double-standard, here? For my original comment you refer to it as an, "empty position," but they provided... a "weak position" -- and yet, you come to their defense and not mine when I already proved the two comments couldn't be more different? You're upset that the user is down-voted after mounting a couple-sentence unsourced argument about a considerably complex topic that would take literally thousands upon thousands of words and countless references to legitimately unpack? I mean, Really...?
It's not my job to coddle others and guide them to the process of sourcing. So if you hide behind the fact that this isn't "formal" debate, then why do you act like down-votes on a public forum is some atrocity and proof of shilling on its own? Again, a double-standard.
Second Lesson: Don't seek to "win" the argument out of egoism, but mutually pursue truth, cooperatively.
I freely admit I'm not perfect at this, but it's all too common. I've already been able to admit when I was wrong. I first cast their comment aside as a non-argument, but after review from your response I agreed it was. A poor one, but an argument nonetheless. To your credit you seemed to admit that their argument was poor and unsubstantiated, too.
In my view you seem heavily-fixed on accusing me of hypocrisy. Looking at it from your perspective I guess I could see that on the surface. To me it's completely different because I'm not linking this thread to bury this user; I'm not using keyword searches; I'm not even brigading the user with gish-gallop of my own as I discussed in my story. I did quite literally nothing I referenced in my original comment.
You are trying very very hard to equate my story with their defense of a position, and therein lies a massive disconnect in your accusation of hypocrisy. This to me is the root of a lot of our differences.
Finally, while you were writing this yesterday, the other user and I pretty much squared our differences, ended on fairly good terms, and they openly agree that it "probably" causes cancer within context of farmers with chronic use.
Third Lesson: End an argument that lives past its usefulness, ideally on the best terms possible.
I don't see more coming out of this discussion that bears fruit. I'll oblige you with the last word and go from there. Have a nice day.
Yeah, I've reached a point in my life where I don't mind too much. I'm sure it can be dangerous in the wrong contexts, everything is.
No interest in a sophomoric reference battle, it's not like anybody reads them.
I'm with you mate, it's the only stuff that'll actually get rid of Japanese knotweed so I'd rather use it than have my entire ecosystem destroyed by an invasive species
There are far worse things out there and of course people who spray without masks and gloves are going to get sick, but glyphosate is about as safe as we're going to get just now, so fuck it lol
Nor should it bother you. I was just laughing at the fact that this group did pretty much exactly what they were whining about. Its amazing how often we see ourselves in others.
So, when's the EPA finally going to ban it?
When we stop restricting them from doing anything to protect the environment
Hopefully soon, at least force them to reformulate without the extreme cancer chemicals.
They can't. The cancer causing chemical (NNG) isn't something they added, it's inherent to producing glyphosate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Nitrosoglyphosate
Well that’s unfortunate
$1.5b is barely a slap on the wrists, but hopefully the first in an avalanche of lawsuits for them. This is like one fiscal quarter's revenue for RoundUp, but hopefully the signal of the beginning of the end.Bayer gotta be really regretting that big Monsanto purchase.Now do insecticides.
ETA: I retract a bit of my previous statement, looks like they were up to $11b in payouts as of last year, and looking to surpass the $16b they set aside for these lawsuits. Keep slapping that wrist!
Yeah, I was thinking 1.5b sounded like nothing. But this is two people. So, I'm okay with this.
I'd like to point out, Alex Jones was sued for $1b for being a dick on the internet.
Split between about twenty people. So $50 million each vs $750 million each.
And I would also like to point out that Alex's being a dick on the Internet was directly linked to threats of violence made against Sandy Hook families. So his words were far from harmless and far more damaging than your average dick on the Internet.
A Monsanto shill claimed he would drink the stuff on TV in an interview to prove how safe it was, but the interviewer called him out on his bluff and he refused to do it LMAO. Guy's name was Patrick Moore, ex-greenpeace founder turned paid shill for whatever company is paying him, usually it's climate change denial.
How can you be an ex-founder of something? That's like being an ex-inventor or ex-murderer.
True story: When I was in grade school another kid bragged that a 2-4-D salesman told a bunch of loggers that it was so safe that you could drink it. Afterwards one of the loggers put a $50 bill next to a small cup of the herbicide and dared anyone to drink it for the money. The kids dad drank it and snatched the money. He died of cancer within 10 years.
He's also the one who called out Greenpeace for their anti-nuclear stance. Which was correct on his part, but it's sad to see that stance comes with so much other baggage.
In high school in the 80s our science teacher repeatedly showed RoundUp promotional materials over a period of about 6 months. It was super creepy, almost Leni Riefenstahl in production.