Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rounding Up the Science Behind the Monsanto Glyphosate Ruling

"Irrational and even hysterical” reporting about glyphosate has served to poison the well of public opinion, says one researcher

Plaintiff DeWayne Johnson looks on at the start of the Monsanto trial in San Francisco, California, U.S., July, 09, 2018. OOL New/REUTERS/NewscomPlaintiff DeWayne Johnson looks on at the start of the Monsanto trial in San Francisco, California, U.S., July, 09, 2018. OOL New/REUTERS/NewscomLast week, a California state court handed down a $289-million verdict against Monsanto, the St. Louis-based agribusiness titan. The massive jury award to plaintiff Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper, comes after Johnson and his attorneys argued successfully that his repeated on-the-job use of Monsanto pesticides caused him to develop a terminal case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer.

Monsanto, now part of Bayer after a recent merger, has vowed to appeal the ruling. But Johnson's suit may be the first of thousands of similar lawsuits the company could face.

Johnson's case centered on his use of two of Monsanto's glyphosate-containing pesticides, Ranger Pro and Roundup, the latter the most popular pesticide in this country. Johnson's attorneys argued Monsanto failed to warn their client about the potential risks of using their products, namely that such use could cause harm, if not cancer.

Monsanto markets its glyphosate products as effective weed-killing pesticide for homeowners and other non-agricultural users. Roundup in particular is also commonly marketed to farmers raising Monsanto's GMO "Roundup-ready" seeds, which the company has modified to ensure they are resistant to glyphosate. It's also being used by farmers increasingly on non-GMO crops as a tool to kill and dry out crops in order to facilitate harvesting.

Does glyphosate cause cancer? The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." That conclusion appears to have been sufficient to sway jurors.

Indeed, if it's true that Monsanto's products caused Johnson's cancer and the company failed to warn him of the potential for its products to do so, then I am very confident the court was right to rule in Johnson's favor. (Reasonable people may quibble over whether the award of nearly $300 million is too high or, I suppose, not high enough.)

But that if is a big one. Indeed, critics of the ruling are sounding the alarm over the science that formed the backbone of the jury's ruling, noting the IARC conclusions are a controversial outlier when it comes to glyphosate research.

"Monsanto's attorneys disputed that study and said the product has been regulated for 40 years and is not listed as a carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," notes a Bloomberg Environment report on the California ruling.

But it's not just Monsanto that disputes the science. Earlier this year, Dr. Guy-André Pelouze, a medical doctor and surgeon who's done cancer research, wrote a lengthy piece defending glyphosate and lamenting that despite numerous studies' "failure to find any evidence of glyphosate's carcinogenicity," the media's "irrational and even hysterical" reporting about glyphosate has served to poison the well of public opinion.

Reason's Ron Bailey this week called the California jury's ruling "an injustice" because, he writes, it was based on faulty science.

"Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, it is well beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury has been badly misled into getting its verdict wrong in this case," Bailey concludes.

Just how overwhelming is the evidence?

"Today's decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews—and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world—support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer," said Monsanto vice president Scott Partridge in a statement issued after last week's ruling that also expressed sympathy for Johnson.

The mountains of studies Partridge cites place the scientific consensus about the lack of a link between glyphosate and cancer on par with the vast evidence demonstrating the safety of GMOs generally and with the overwhelming consensus that manmade factors cause climate change.

I have no idea if Monsanto products cause cancer generally or, specifically, whether they caused Johnson's cancer. Johnson's cancer is a tragedy, whatever its cause. If it's Monsanto's fault, then it's a tragedy for which Monsanto should be held responsible. But the scientific consensus around glyphosate seems to point overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. That makes it much more likely that this month's ruling against Monsanto is itself a tragedy—perhaps the first in a long line of others to come—and one that a California appeals court should reverse.

Photo Credit: Plaintiff DeWayne Johnson looks on at the start of the Monsanto trial in San Francisco, California, U.S., July, 09, 2018.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Food for thought.

    Too soon?

    Fuck the verdict, fuck the jury for being gullible, fuck the judge for not knowing better, and fuck the eco-freaks and their lying get-me-rich expert witness.

  • Aloysious||

    Nope. Not too soon.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Let me guess, before I scroll down. How does Baylen dare to compare the sound science of glyphosate research with the totally unsound science of climate change? Both sides only accept the science that bolsters their views.

  • TuIpa||

    GUT BACTERIA!

    By the way, you just made me 100 bucks, I knew I'd see you mewling on this thread you fucking luddite retard.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck man, I still remember that joke of a geocities page that you suggested as evidence, it was a giant soup of retina destroying web design, and the science was even worse.

  • sarcasmic||

    Shut up Tulpa.

  • TuIpa||

    or what?

    you'll drink until your life falls apart and your wfie leaves you and takes your kids?

    do you really have to come tugging at my pants leg? just because i made a fool of you in a cop thread?

    jesus no wonder your wife left.

  • sarcasmic||

    Mary? Is that you?

  • TuIpa||

    holy shit I can smell the alcohol on your breath over the internet

  • sarcasmic||

    What a pathetic loser you are, to remember a conversation that I forgot because my life has moved on. Apparently yours has not. Your high point in life is an argument with a stranger over the internet? Jesus fucking H Christ you're pathetic! Tattoo an 'L' on your forehead already!

  • TuIpa||

    "What a pathetic loser you are, to remember a conversation that I forgot because my life has moved on. "

    You're the one who uses this board as your personal therapist.

    What's the matter sarc? Wake up in your own vomit again?

  • sarcasmic||

    Tulpa and Al Bundy, losers who revels in a past that no one remembers or cares about.

  • TuIpa||

    And let's be real. You haven't forgotten anything. Your drinking caused your life to fall apart, and your family to dissolve.

    If you actually forgot that, you're a sociopath.

    That you think you can lie about that being forgotten is litterally the most patheitc thing possible.

    Unless you have alcohol induced memory loss. Do you? Maybe get that checked.

  • sarcasmic||

    You get off on personally attacking strangers on the internet, and you call me a sociopath?

    That's funny.

  • sarcasmic||

    Anyway, I have a life to attend to. Have fun berating people on the internet, sociopath.

  • TuIpa||

    "sociopath"

    You know they're upset when they can't come up with an original insult and then flee.

    Go drink to forget. It apparently worked with your failed marriage/family.

  • Careless||

    You being the one who started calling people "sociopath", Tulpa, you senile goat.

  • TuIpa||

    "sarcasmic|8.18.18 @ 1:35PM|#

    Shut up Tulpa."

    How ironic.

  • TuIpa||

    "sarcasmic|8.18.18 @ 2:23PM|#

    Anyway, I have a life to attend to.(Ha!) Have fun berating people on the internet, sociopath."

    "sarcasmic|8.18.18 @ 2:21PM|#

    You get off on personally attacking strangers on the internet, and you call me a sociopath?"

    "sarcasmic|8.18.18 @ 1:35PM|#

    Shut up Tulpa"

    Ok I may have been premature, you do appear to have a problem with your memory.

  • Hamster of Doom||

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good Lord. You really are a disgusting human being.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tulpa sees a cry for help as an opportunity to be cruel, then calls the object of his cruelty a sociopath. As a wise man once said "Are you serious?!?"

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Why am I unsurprised that you can't tell the difference between RCT's with people documentation and controls from model projections which have failed spectacularly?

    Now tell me how all of the farmland is going to disappear, the clathrates are all going to sublime, the AMOC is going to stop, and our only hope is grasses. Cuz scienz!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    People=proper.

  • rxc||

    Erroneous conflation of "evidence" and "consensus". Real science depends on reproducible, falsifiable, measurable evidence. Social science depends on consensus. Not the same.

  • Claude Fenworthy||

    Glyphosphate is not a pesticide. It is a defoliant. It is used to kill weeds and plants. Reason? I thought the name of this site was "Reason"? Hmm, and they can't tell the difference between a pesticide and a defoliant.

  • SIV||

    Plants are just like...

    *hits joint*

    *coughs*

    animals, man...

    they can feel pain, ya know?

    science dudes have like, uh, recorded 'em screaming when they get pulled from the earth

    /Reason

  • ||

  • Rossami||

    If you're going to be pedantic, Claude, it is important to first be right in your pedantry.

    Definition of a pesticide - that which kills pests
    Definition of a pest - an injurious plant or animal, especially one harmful to humans.

    Pests are not merely animals or insects. Plants can be pests, too. And plants going where they are unwanted (that is, weeds in a farmers fields) would certainly qualify. So when used in that context, a "defoliant" is a subset of the greater class of "pesticides".

  • SIV||

    *hits joint*

    See above, dude

  • Presskh||

    The term "pesticide" is commonly used to describe chemicals that kill animals. Chemicals that kill plants are commonly referred to as "herbicides".

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Google it, dude!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    pes·ti·cide
    ˈpestəˌsīd
    noun
    a substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals.

  • ||

    Pests are not merely animals or insects.

    Not true.

    So when used in that context, a "defoliant" is a subset of the greater class of "pesticides".

    Wrong.

    If you want to remove leaves and ground cover.

    pest
    pest/Submit
    noun
    a destructive insect or other animal that attacks crops, food, livestock, etc.

    Regardless, in the trade vernacular, you don't use a pesticide to kill insects and vice versa. Biocides kill everything, herbicides kill plants, pesticides kill insects, grubs, worms and other pests, fungicides kill molds and fungus, etc. Broadleaf weed killers will kill all plants the same way broad spectrum plant killers do. The only thing that makes them broadleaf killers is that they're formulated to deliver a greater dose of herbicide to plants with larger leaf areas. Defoliants don't necessarily kill the plants, just cause the leaves to fall off.

    Technically, the surfactants carrying glyphosate are more of a pesticide than the glyphosate itself.

  • kc75081||

    more carcenogenic as well

  • ScottM||

    Aka herbicide

  • Priscilla King||

    It's effective as an herbicide, an insecticide, a ripening agent, and a poison that affects different individuals in a wide variety of ways. The general "neutral" term is "pesticide." Personally I prefer "poison." If it harms humans or domestic animals, that's the accurate word.

  • ||

    To Do: Head to the grocery store and pick up some poison for the kids. It's right there in the poison aisle, you know, the one full of poison. Make sure to pick up some frozen poison in the freezer section and maybe some poison in the brewed and fermented poison section on the way out. Also, maybe some lighter poison to start the grill later so we can poison some steaks for dinner. After that, head off to the poison station and get your car topped off with poison. Maybe next week stop by the poison change place and have the dirty poisons flushed and get it topped off with fresh poisons. Anyway, stop off at the hardware store pick up some house poison and a brush. Touch up some spots around the trim where the poison is peeling off. Oh, and pick up some poison and drain poison to poison the toilets and poison the sink the next time it backs up.

    Poison.

  • Priscilla King||

    Well, I chuckled.

  • The_Hoser||

    That ... girl ... is ...

  • Johnimo||

    Glyphosphate is an herbicide. A defoliant, on the other hand, is an agent used primarily to strip leaves from plants. At least that's what my dictionary says.

  • ||

    Pretty much this I'm afraid.

    And $300 million is absolutely way too high.

  • Cy||

    There are so many things wrong with this whole trial. But, it'll make for great publicity during the upcoming elections. Proggies just can't help themselves.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I'm continually amazed that it is only those on the right who get ridiculed (deservedly so) for anti-science beliefs like the earth being a few thousand years old. Meanwhile those on the left also believe in all kinds of anti-science junk and readily fall for hysterical reporting.

    As the Rev would say, there are just too many backwards clingers around. It is sad when they get the power to set energy policies, sit on juries, and otherwise influence others with their "real science is math-y and too hard" mindsets.

  • Brian||

    So, the scientific consensus is that glyphosate is non carcinogenic?

    Well, we should see a groundswell of support for Monsanto any day now.

  • iowantwo||

    In about a year, Monsanto no longer exists. I dont know if the leftist reactionaries will shift their blind ingorance to Bayer, or some other Science company. DOW would be the logical demon of choice, with their attachment to agent orange.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The term 'consensus' is misleading. And frequently misused. What we have here is ONE study that asserts that the chemicals in question cause cancer and several hundred that assert the contrary. I have no idea what political influences were brought to bear on the several hundred, although the EPA is rather famously quick to name pretty much anything carcinogenic. But the one story that supports the verdict is from a source that is part of the WHO, which in turn is part of the United Nations. That alone is a strong indication that it is almost certainly drivel.

  • Cy||

    Ugh... the whole "organic" madness is just as bad as the flat earthers.

  • ||

    I disagree. Flat earthers don't drive the cost of shipping up because ship captains take longer routes for fear sailing over the edge.

  • gah87||

    The leftwing mantra is the equivalent of "two legs, bad." Anything man*-made is inherently not to be trusted. Therefore, man-made climate change is bad, GMOs are bad, vaccines are bad, glyphosate is bad, fossil fuels are bad, guns are bad, plastics are bad, nuclear power is bad. Two legs bad implies individualism is bad. Therefore capitalism and property rights are bad.

    Anything made by nature is, on the other hand, inherently good. Ice ages, pestilence, disease, famine, asteroid strikes.

    Economic Darwinism is bad, because it's man-made. Natural Darwinism is good, because it's natural.

    God is bad because God is man-made. Therefore religion is bad. Nature is good, because it's natural.

    * Using "man" in it's sense of all humans... perhaps.

  • Paloma||

    I always wonder how the same people can believe that "natural is good" and "man made is bad" can also think a transgendered teenager should be perfectly normal.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Also "sad face deserves money"

  • See Double You||

    I would argue the anti-science beliefs on the left are far more dangerous and consequential than those on the right, if you limit rightwing anti-science* to evolution skepticism and flat-earth beliefs.

    *Skepticism of AGW, especially CAGW, is entirely warranted and not motivated by anti-science reasoning.

  • gah87||

    The left's dogma is that anything man-made is bad. The religious right's dogma is that God's word -- as recorded by man in certain documents -- is absolute. Scientific evidence is meaningful (valid) only when it is consistent with their respective worldview. The left can sometimes appear more objective and scientific because they do not explicitly invoke God at every turn. However, they implicitly base their worldview on an axiomatic deification of nature, making their argument no less theological than the right's; it just sounds more "scientific" because God is not directly invoked.

    Both are illogical and subjective. At least the right owns up to being so, and doesn't pretend to be objective and rational. But both suffer from starting from false premises, so can "logically" reach any conclusions they desire.

  • Iseethestrings||

    ^this

  • Curly4||

    It is curious to me that a school ground keeper should be affected by this product since it would not be necessary to spray the whole area. All that should have been sprayed is just the areas where the unwanted weeds were appearing. This is different that it being used in agriculture where the complete field is sprayed for economic reasons. Agriculture sprayers are using the product every day and not one or two times a year as the grounds keeper would.
    These award to my way of thinking is more on revenge against the chemical company rather than on science. There are something the juries need to think about is with a few awards as this one no chemical company will touch the chemical period and the cost of food will then dramatically increase.

  • See Double You||

    These award to my way of thinking is more on revenge against the chemical company rather than on science.

    That is absolutely what happened. There was no way for Monsanto to get a fair trial out of a San Francisco jury pool. This award is just state-sanctioned theft built on the irrational prejudice of jurors who where inculcated with anti-"chemical" and anti-Monsanto propaganda long before the plaintiff was diagnosed.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    There was no way for Monsanto to get a fair trial out of a San Francisco jury pool.

    Quit whining.

    (Whimpering, grievance-consumed right-wingers are among my favorite faux libertarians, though.)

  • Sevo||

    Shut up, asshole.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Stay irrelevant and bitter, you anti-social, right-wing loser.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Left is a problem.

    "Truth is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples"

    Civilization sucks when people lie. Throughout the legal system, the Left increasingly says "Fuck truth; my side wins. Gimme."

  • gah87||

    The plaintiff claims he was soaked twice on accident. Just clarifying.

  • Longtobefree||

    Then sue whoever caused the accident(s).

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    They don't have any money

  • ipsquire||

    If he worked for public schools, they have lots of money but have immunity from paying.

  • iowantwo||

    I have been using Roundup since its lableing in the late 70's. Daily for for a 2 month period every year since the introduction of Roundup ready soybeans in the early 2000's. While I use PPE, exposer happens. Baths? More than several. This is not my story only, but multiplied by 10's of thousands across the world. The data set is out there, but only if you care.

  • Priscilla King||

    Well, you may or may not be "luckier" than other people. Effects of glyphosate exposure vary perhaps more than for any other chemical studied, across species, depending on genetic and other factors. One document the EPA considered classified effects of exposure from hospital emergency rooms into eight general groups (nerve damage, skin damage, etc.) and still found a wide range within groups.

    Sometimes the people who have the obvious "allergy/sensitivity" reactions are the ones whose bodies wash out enough of a chemical pollutant so that they don't develop cancer.

    What even company-funded studies showed is that glyphosate is a factor in cancer when it builds up to high enough levels. When it was only sprayed on wheat, people could just go gluten-free and probably be at little risk for cancer. Since it's been sprayed directly on food that people don't even wash or peel, I think we can anticipate more claims of cancer in which glyphosate was *a* factor.

  • ||

    Since it's been sprayed directly on food that people don't even wash or peel, I think we can anticipate more claims of cancer in which glyphosate was *a* factor.

    Beyond dumb. I strongly suspect you can't even name a food that gets glyphosate sprayed on it but doesn't get washed or peeled before being sold.

  • Priscilla King||

    Figs. Strawberries. Tomatoes. Maybe you have to be sensitive to it to have noticed these things, but yes, they're confirmed in documents reviewed by the EPA.

  • Lajaw||

    Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide. It kills everything it gets sprayed on except for those plants genetically modified to tolerate it. There are no figs, strawberries or tomatoes that are GM. Roundup will kill these plants.

  • creech||

    Hey, if someone can be awarded $500,000 because they claimed they contracted cancer because they walked by a pipe joint that had an asbestos-containing gasket, then why not hundreds of millions for coming into contact with weed killer?

  • Cyto||

    This was exactly my take.

    Even if it were a carcinogen, his exposure should be very minimal. Not all that much more than a typical homeowner. As Curly4 said, you only spray the actual weeds that you want to kill. And you only have to spray them once... then they just die. A couple of times around the facility each year would cover it.

    Aside from that... the notion that "I was near this product.... I got cancer" is enough to "prove" liability in court is terrifying.

    If that standard was applied anywhere else, we'd all be in trouble. "I got hit by a car on a public street in front of Walmart. Therefore Walmart is at fault. Gimme money!"

    Even if you make every single assumption in this guy's favor, there is absolutely zero chance that you could prove even partial culpability for this particular case of cancer - one that is notably not in any way associated with environmental exposure to glyphosphate.

  • ||

    Aside from that... the notion that "I was near this product.... I got cancer" is enough to "prove" liability in court is terrifying.

    93 million miles from the sun and people get cancer from it all the time. Duh.

  • Priscilla King||

    The guy holding the spray gun is the one most likely to feel minor effects of poisoning that probably contributed to his cancer, so that makes sense. Someone operating a mechanical sprayer out of a plane or train car wouldn't notice the effects so directly. The children at the school, families living near the railroad, etc., would feel them all right but they'd have no idea why they were feeling them.

  • ||

    the cost of food will then dramatically increase.

    That's completely untrue. We'll just go back to using atrazine, dicamba, 2,4-D, paraquat, etc. The stuff we *know* is toxic and will kill *acutely* in sufficient/reasonable doses.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The mountains of studies Partridge cites place the scientific consensus about the lack of a link between glyphosate and cancer on par with the vast evidence demonstrating the safety of GMOs generally and with the overwhelming consensus that manmade factors cause climate change.

    I have no idea...

    The last four words of that passage are fitting. Linnekin clearly demonstrates what he doesn't know when he conflates the junk science of the debunked "97%" with the real science of glyphosate and GMO safety. The former relied on subjective interpretation and hidden "data" while the latter followed sound methodological practices using controls and RCT's. In fact the only "studies" which caused concern about either GMO's or glyphosate are those that used the same shoddy practices as the Cook 97% paper, i.e. the IARC finding.

    Stop equating real science with so much of the junk that is orbiting the global warming money trough.

  • Adam Wildavsky||

    Quite so. Linnekin, I presume unintentionally, participates in a shell game. He links to a NASA page claiming that it shows an overwhelming consensus that "manmade factors cause climate change" but the page itself asserts only that there is a scientific consensus that "Earth's climate is warming."

    Almost every climate scientist agrees that our climate has been warming since the end of the "little ice age" around 1850. The question of the cause, and how it varies over time, is what is in dispute.

  • markm23||

    The other question is, "how much"? The consensus is that there is _some_ warming due to human activities, not that it's sure to suddenly accelerate to several degrees a century. There's pretty good evidence for a mild warming of less than one degree in the last century, and a mechanism to explain it as a result of CO2 and methane emissions.

    The alarmist projections of several degrees warming come from computer models that have a baked-in assumption that the climate is inherently unstable. After more than 20 years since the first models, NOT ONE of them has been accurate, but the activists like to pretend that the consensus supports these models.

  • turco||

    ". There are something the juries need to think about is with a few awards as this one no chemical company will touch the chemical period and the cost of food will then dramatically increase."

    Basic knowledge of economics is very lacking in the general public.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    American illiteracy means we can make fun of their innumeracy right to their face.

  • Longtobefree||

    Just like no one ever publicly connects the malaria deaths with the banning of DDT.

  • wootendw||

    Whether or not glyphosate causes cancer or GMO foods are harmful in other ways, the food-growing part of the GMO industry likely wouldn't survive without the ability to patent GMO organisms, even though they reproduce on their own. Monsanto has filed over 100 lawsuits against farmers found to have its GMO crops growing on their land while claiming that it does not go after farmers "where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."(Wikipedia). Most lawsuits are settled out of court but these do not include cases where the farmer receives a letter from Monsanto's lawyers and gives up with out a fight.

    Actually, if Monsanto claims an organism's genes as its property, farmers should be able to sue Monsanto if the GMO crop ends up in their respective fields if the GMO crop does so by any other means than consciously planting it. The right to use and dispose of one's property comes with the responsibility to control that property. If you crash your car into someone else's property, you are likely to be charged with failing to control your vehicle. Organisms that reproduce on their own should not be patent-able.

  • See Double You||

    Actually, if Monsanto claims an organism's genes as its property, farmers should be able to sue Monsanto if the GMO crop ends up in their respective fields if the GMO crop does so by any other means than consciously planting it.

    Agreed.

    Organisms that reproduce on their own should not be patent-able.

    Why not?

  • wootendw||

    Organisms that reproduce on their own should not be patent-able.

    "Why not?"

    Intellectual property rights pertain primarily to reproduction, that is, you violate someone's intellectual property rights by copying and distributing his ideas. By reproducing themselves, the created organisms are the one's violating the rights of their creator.

  • See Double You||

    Just to be clear, I'm agnostic as to the moral and logical propriety of intellectual property rights. That said, I don't think your logic is sound. A product cannot violate someone's rights; only people can.* Since you cannot violate your own rights, a self-replicating product per se cannot violate the rights of its patent holder. A non-owner could do so, however, simply by planting the product and allowing it to multiply.

    But as I noted, I agree with you that the patent holder's rights would not be violated if the holder allowed, either knowingly or negligently, the patented product to reproduce on other people's lands. In fact, the landowner would have a colorable argument that the patent holder violated the landowner's rights via trespass.

    *Obviously, a product can cause harm. However, the law doesn't find the product itself liable, but whoever is responsible for the product, which is typically the owner, or, in this case, the patent holder.

  • perlchpr||

    Trespass or possibly pollution.

  • Cyto||

    You don't get a field full of roundup-ready soybeans by accident.

    You might get a few by mistake. But not a field full. Especially not if you are spraying that field with roundup.

    That would mean that you knew it was the patented seed and you were trying to get it on the cheap.

    The notion that farmers are being taken for a ride because some pollen blew on to their field is nonsense. Sure, some of the seed in your lot could be contaminated with roundup pollen. But the plants should not be.. Testing the parent plant would put the whole thing to rest. As would testing for the presence of roundup, if they get there before it breaks down.

  • RAHeinlein||

    And those who have been sued were reusing seeds - these weren't cases where the crops "ended-up" in their fields. Who cares if they "received a letter" - that is warning that your so-called "inadvertent" Monsanto seeds cannot be used for further crop production.

  • Sevo||

    And they've filed 'over 100 lawsuits!!!!'
    Probably missing several hundred hypocrites claiming to hate GMO crops while stealing them like that scumbag in Canada.

  • Sevo||

    "Monsanto has filed over 100 lawsuits against farmers found to have its GMO crops growing on their land while claiming that it does not go after farmers "where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."(Wikipedia)."

    That's a luddite talking point which got posted on Wiki, and you're a luddite using it.
    Stuff your gaia crap up your butt.

  • wootendw||

    Nothing wrong with being a 'luddite' although I happen to have degree in computer science and have written telemetry and command software for satellite systems.

    Given this publication is 'Reason', perhaps you should offer something a little more intelligent in the way of comments.

  • TuIpa||

    "Given this publication is 'Reason'"

    Drink!

    "perhaps you should offer something a little more intelligent in the way of comments."

    You first.

    And, pro-tip this is the internet, no one cares about your made up bonafides.

  • Sevo||

    wootendw|8.18.18 @ 12:19PM|#
    "Nothing wrong with being a 'luddite'"
    Yes, there's plenty wrong with being luddite.

    "although I happen to have degree in computer science and have written telemetry and command software for satellite systems."
    So, what, luddite?

    "Given this publication is 'Reason', perhaps you should offer something a little more intelligent in the way of comments."
    You who cites lies from Wiki is griping when you're called on your bullshit?
    Stuff your gaia crap up your butt.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Computer "science." And you're bragging about coding astrogation and, ooo, TELEMETRY (aka a bit stream). Orbital mechanics has only been a canned app for about 60 years.

  • iowantwo||

    Monsanto only goes after farmers that save soybeans, and SELLS the seed to other farmers.

  • BYODB||


    Organisms that reproduce on their own should not be patent-able.


    Which is one of the many reasons why many GMO crops can not reproduce on their own, they are sterile. Another reason being people's fear of them, and legislation. Herp-a-derp.

  • Tankboy||

    Who needs all the paid-for scientists colluding with the evil giant corporation Monsanto to prove glyphosate is safe? A man who used glyphosate got cancer, isn't that proof enough? Using the well-known principle of correlation = causation and parading a cancer-stricken victim in front of a California jury should be all that is needed to stop Monsanto from poisoning the planet and killing everyone just to make a profit.
    Just writing this caused my brain to shrink. Hope reading it doesn't give you shrinkage too.

  • Duelles||

    It merely pissed me off that there are idiot juries and consensus =science. Hoo boy!

  • Longtobefree||

    Correlation = causation.
    In the summer, ice cream sales go up. In the summer rapes go up.
    Outlaw ice cream?

  • El Oso||

    'The mountains of studies Partridge cites place the scientific consensus about the lack of a link between glyphosate and cancer on par with the vast evidence demonstrating the safety of GMOs generally and with the overwhelming consensus that manmade factors cause climate change.'

    I really should feel sorry for Ronny and his lack of logic, but I don't. One consensus has nothing to do with the other. Ronny should find another line of work. Hah, hah - 'overwhelming' - overwhelming BS - common on, Ronny Baby, I challenge you to present one little proof that CO2 causes any significant warming of the atmosphere. Don't just parrot others. Common on, Ronny, earn your keep, or just shut up....

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Look, the consensus among humans about the cause of illness and death has evolved from malevolent spirits to spells cast by a witch doctor neighbor to vengeful gods to evil corporations.

    Progress!

  • scJazz||

    Something missing from this discussion is the fact that the Scientist who gave the expert opinion... a member of the IARC was an anti-glycophosphate crusader before he joined. The IARC study was commissioned with one purpose... create the cancer link. Pretty dodgy if you ask me.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Bingo.

  • Cy||

    Dodgy, but profitable.

  • Horny Lizard||

    What kind of cancer does eating and bathing in weed killer allegedly cause? Fuck man, I think it's understandable to get freaked out when you find out you've been eating weed killer for breakfast everyday. They should be required to list weed killer as one of the ingredients in the food if it's in there.

  • ||

    I think it's understandable to get freaked out when you find out you've been eating weed killer for breakfast everyday.

    Grass-fed beef = weed killer, no?

  • RandomWalk||

    Pardon the nit-picking, but isn't Glyphosate an herbicide, not a pesticide ?

  • See Double You||

    Yes, and it's pretty effective, which means it must be evil.

  • JJANAVYVET||

    Agent Orange was/is a herbicide!

  • Shockerengr||

    Technically both herbicides and insecticides are considered pesticides, although insecticides and pesticides are used interchangeably more

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Herbicides only kill plants. Insecticides only kill insects. Pesticides only kill pests (insects, mammals, amphibians) not plants.

    Letting people use definitions incorrectly is confusing for everyone. Its deceitful when the incorrect definitions are used politically. It should be nipped in the bud each and every time.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Here

    pesticide

    noun
    a chemical preparation for destroying plant, fungal, or animal pests.
  • loveconstitution1789||

    pes·ti·cide
    ˈpestəˌsīd
    noun
    a substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals.

  • perlchpr||

    Do you think that plants are not organisms?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clearly you people want a pesticide to mean something that its not.

    Farmers use pesticides to kill bugs trying to eat their crop plants.

    Farmers use herbicides to kill plants that steal water and soil nutrients from crop plants.

  • ||

    Do you think that plants are not organisms?

    So, if it doesn't kill animals, it's not a pesticide?

  • ||

    Here

    pest

    noun
    1. an annoying or troublesome person, animal, or thing; nuisance.
    2. an insect or other small animal that harms or destroys garden plants, trees, etc.
    3. a deadly epidemic disease, especially a plague; pestilence.

    But why not play fast and loose with the definitions, huh? It's not like we're talking about one poison that's designed to kill animals and one that's (successfully) designed only to kill plants. I say "carpenter's hammer" you say "war hammer", what's the difference? A hammer's a hammer, right?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Fifty years ago, I played baseball in the parking lot of a nuclear research and production facility most weekends, with dozens of other children. Sometimes we "snuck" into a building to use the drinking fountain or, if lucky enough to have a dime, a vending machine. My Little League uniform bore the name of an "atomic" manufacturing company.

    There were 22 students in my sixth grade class. Two went to college, one graduated. Nine have died, before the age of 60, from cancers, at least a half-dozen from a particular form of cancer.

    Nobody in my hometown was knowledgeable or effective enough to question, let alone challenge, those who brought radiation and chemicals to our community. During college, I attended several lectures and debates about ostensible dangers associated with nuclear power and manufacturing. The commercial interests, and government, engaged polished speakers and cooperative scientists to suppress skeptics. Some of the company scientists laughed at a university professor who contended public health was at risk.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Decades later, I heard the atomic facility closed. When I next visited my hometown, I drove past that parking lot. It had been fenced, with large signs featuring warnings and government threats. There was barbed wire atop the fence, and that fence surrounded the entire facility (a half-dozen buildings or more). The entrance to the facility had new gates and a small, manned guard station. Someone told me the guards were armed.

    People deriding the Roundup litigation remind me of the paid mouthpieces for the people who brought cancer to a small town and killed my classmates. What does that work pay these days?

  • See Double You||

    Shorter Rev.: herp herp, derp derp, *burp*

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your betters will continue to build a strong America -- on a liberal-libertarian foundation -- without and despite you and your fellow right-wing cranks, See Double You.

    Stand aside, or get run over. I'm content either way.

  • See Double You||

    Typical leftwing hack. First you stole the word "liberal". Now you attempt to do the same with "libertarian".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Open wider, goober. Your betters have more progress to shove down your whimpering right-wing throat.

  • Sevo||

    Shut up, asshole.

  • TuIpa||

    "Your betters have more progress to shove down your whimpering right-wing throat. "

    Wow, I had no idea you were also a homophobe who threatened rape.

    That's gross.

  • See Double You||

    Yeah, radiation poisoning, which has been demonstrated repeatedly, reminds you of criticism of the Roundup litigation, where the bulk of scientific studies finds no causal link between exposure to glysophate and cancer.

    Yeah, that's some objective reasoning from you. You're not totally motivated by an irrational hatred of corporations. Fuck off, asshole.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your position on the current dispute evokes that of the 'don't worry about the nuclear facility' voices of a half-century ago.

    You present as a relatively standard poorly educated, gullible, disaffected right-wing yahoo, See Double You. The conservative combo platter, with sides of bigotry and superstition, I expect.

  • See Double You||

    That you can't see the illogic in your initial post shows how stupid you are. You're just a bitter leftwinger who can't help but project his inferiority complex onto others.

  • TuIpa||

    "Your position on the current dispute evokes that of the 'don't worry about the nuclear facility' voices of a half-century ago."

    And yours evokes the "burn the witch!" level of thinking of 400 years sgo.

    Of all your obvious faults I never expected you to be too stupid to understand proper science. Shows what I know.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Never underestimate the lack of understanding among bigoted, disaffected, right-wing rubes.

  • TuIpa||

    Apologies, but as a reverend you should know I can't take your confession.

  • Sevo||

    You left out self-righteous, lefty assholes, self-righteous lefty asshole.

  • Mark22||

    Your position on the current dispute evokes that of the 'don't worry about the nuclear facility' voices of a half-century ago.

    Your position on everything evokes the "the scientific consensus is that the white race is superior" voices of a century ago, plus many other hateful and destructive misapplications of science by progressives.

  • sarcasmic||

    People deriding the Roundup litigation remind me of the paid mouthpieces for the people who brought cancer to a small town and killed my classmates. What does that work pay these days?

    On the other hand it has pretty much been proven that the DDT scare was baseless, yet the pesticide remains banned.

    How many millions of lives could have been saved from malaria and other insect born diseases if not for Rachel Carlson and other environmentalist assholes?

    How many more millions will die before politicians admit to making a mistake? If they ever.

  • See Double You||

    Ever notice how leftists never pay for the evil they lay on the world? In fact, they revel in it. It's how you know justice can never be had.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. Karma is indeed a bitch, because it never punishes evil.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Have you read Silent Spring? Not once does Rachel Carson call for government regulation in the book. The book basically promotes biological pest control over chemical pest control based on science and experience. As for claims that banning DDT caused millions of deaths, that has been debunked many many times. A quick google search will prove it to you. And DDT has been proven to be extremely harmful to wildlife, especially birds, and is very persistent in the environment. Do you want to live in a world without birds? DDT needed to be banned.

  • sarcasmic||

    "A quick google search will prove it to you."

    What about a quick Reason search?

  • Echospinner||

    What type of cancer? I ask only out of curiosity.

    There is no doubt that radiation exposure can induce cancer. That is proven. It is very well studied. The common understanding is there are stochastic events. They are random as the radiation source randomly induces mutations.

    Your experience is not surprising. Many of these facilities were loosely controlled.

    Monsanto is in a different position. There is controversy in published studies. It is unproven. All you have is epidemiology which can be misleading.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Leukemia is the most common cancer. So far. Someone told me a university is studying this "cluster" but I have not been contacted.

  • Jerryskids||

    Were you one of the ones who died?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Would explain the monotonic responses.

  • Echospinner||

    Found this. Just a review article. Might be of interest to you.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9pjnp24

  • RAHeinlein||

    Did you read the case? Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Please also review occurrence versus ubiquitous use of glyphosate.

    Based-on your comment re: "I have not been contacted" you pretend expertise in this area. Clearly not the case as a literature review appears beyond your scope.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I think he meant he anticipated being contacted due to known exposure, rather than being an expert to consult on the matter.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Based-on your comment re: "I have not been contacted" you pretend expertise in this area.

    My only expertise relevant to this context involved being an all-star and championship shortstop-pitcher in Little League.

    I figured, some years back, I might be contacted by academic or public health investigators for tissue or blood samples, or asked to complete a questionnaire. No one called, although I am easy to find.

  • Lowdog||

    Lol

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|8.19.18 @ 2:10PM|#
    "I figured, some years back, I might be contacted by academic or public health investigators for tissue or blood samples, or asked to complete a questionnaire. No one called, although I am easy to find."

    I figure you might be contacted to find out what causes someone to be an asshole, asshole.

  • Ron||

    maybe the real reason your friends died is because you are the cancer.

  • Dalepen||

    Please do not tout 'overwhelming consensus' as a rule to establish a scientific fact. Consensus science is pseudoscience. Scientific history is replete with instances of the consensus being totally wrong about cause and effect. As a great example look into the story of the discovery of the continental drift theory.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Continental drift theory was disproven long ago. I think you meant plate tectonics.

    One of the most important books of the 20th Century was Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn showed that science experiences a paradigm shift when the old generation dies out and new blood takes over. Even when proven wrong, those that devoted their life to a disproven theory will never let go.

    Here is a recent example.

    Only after Alaverez died were people allowed to question the bolide impact theory for the extinction of dinosaurs. Another example is Morley and origin of life research. Often, it is one old, authoritarian asshole that holds a field back.

  • Sevo||

    Chipper Morning Baculum|8.18.18 @ 5:11PM|#
    "Continental drift theory was disproven long ago. I think you meant plate tectonics."

    Pedantry was shown long ago to be the refuge of ignoramuses who have nothing else.
    I think you meant Chipper Morning Baculum is an ignorant pedant.

  • markm23||

    @Chipper: "Continental drift theory was disproven long ago. I think you meant plate tectonics."

    Pretending that plate tectonics had nothing to do with Wegener's continental drift hypothesis always struck me as the response of a**holes unwilling to admit that they had made a mistake. Wegener's hypothesis was incomplete in that he had no mechanism for the continents to move, but he had plenty of evidence to show that they _had_ moved - not just using continents as jigsaw puzzle pieces, but matching rock formations on the opposite side of oceans. That is the same evidence plate tectonicists use to establish how the plates (and the continents riding on them) moved long ago.

    If physicists worked the way geologists have, we'd be claiming that Newton had it all wrong because he hypothesized "gravity" rather than "general relativity".

  • Hank Phillips||

    Gosh, it seems like only yesterday paraquat was the Republican First Responder™ chemical to save the children from Satan's plant leaves. And Bayer, after acetylizing salicylic acid into Aspirin, acetylized morphine into Heroin sold as the miracle cure for morphine addiction. Has schadenfreude completely replaced gratitude?

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Roundup is an herbicide not a pesticide

  • Priscilla King||

    "Herbicide" means one specific type of "pesticide." Actually glyphosate is pretty effective on many insects too. And on the animals that eat them, and/or the poisoned plants, all the way up the food chain. If you're a racist who considers people of Irish descent to be pests, it's slow and painful, but quite toxic, to us too.

  • ||

    "Herbicide" means one specific type of "pesticide."

    No. It doesn't.

    Actually glyphosate is pretty effective on many insects too.

    No. It's not. Not even comparable to actual pesticides. Not even comparable to other herbicides known to be acutely toxic to other organisms.

  • Saorla||

    The absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence. Even now, cancer is poorly understood and its causes are largely unknown. As we learn more, advancements in research and medical technology may very well demonstrate harm in substances and practices once deemed safe. Furthermore, chemicals such as glysophate are generally studied in healthy subjects, and so their effect on unhealthy subjects is completely unknown. It is perfectly possible that glysophate is safe for healthy individuals, but not to those with chronic illness or a genetic predisposition for cancer.

  • See Double You||

    Anything is possible. But whether something is possible should not be the standard of proof.

  • Sevo||

    Saorla|8.18.18 @ 1:24PM|#
    "It is perfectly possible that glysophate is safe for healthy individuals, but not to those with chronic illness or a genetic predisposition for cancer."

    So what?
    Should the guy sue his parents?

  • TuIpa||

    there's a word for the principle you're espousing... it'll come to me...

  • Jerryskids||

    I read this thread and now I have cancer. Who should I sue on the grounds of "you can't prove this thing wasn't the cause of my cancer"?

  • sarcasmic||

    Tulpa.

  • TuIpa||

    sarcasmic|8.18.18 @ 2:21PM|#

    You get off on personally attacking strangers on the internet, and you call me a sociopath?

  • Longtobefree||

    The Rev & Tony

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Libertarians are so quick to point out unintended consequences, that which is unseen, complex interdependencies, and the pretense of knowledge when it comes to the economy and so-called experts, but when it comes to biology, they throw those kinds of concerns right out the window.

  • sarcasmic||

    but when it comes to biology, they throw those kinds of concerns right out the window.

    It's more like libertarians reflexively suspect the motives of those who seek to use force on others, especially those who claim to be motivated by altruism. Like environmentalists. Altruists pave the road to hell with their good intentions.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unintended consequences like preventable deaths from insect born diseases?

  • Sevo||

    Chipper Morning Baculum|8.18.18 @ 5:18PM|#
    "Libertarians are so quick to point out unintended consequences, that which is unseen, complex interdependencies, and the pretense of knowledge when it comes to the economy and so-called experts, but when it comes to biology, they throw those kinds of concerns right out the window."

    Lefty ignoramuses are likely to grasp at any straw they can find in the hopes of justifying their imbecility, right, lefty ignoramus?

  • Mark22||

    The absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence.

    Yes, but in this case it is. If glyphosate posed a significant cancer risk, we'd see it show up reproduciblly in the numerous epidemiological and experimental studies that have been conducted. Even cancer from air travel shows up in those studies.

    Glyphosate (or RoundUp, which is different) may pose a slight cancer risk, but if it does, it is so small as to be legally and medically not relevant.

  • Saorla||

    *glyphosate

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    with the vast evidence demonstrating the safety of GMOs generally and with the overwhelming consensus that manmade factors cause climate change.

    Wait a sec... WHAT THE FUCK!!!... to the second part.

  • Priscilla King||

    There's overwhelming *evidence* that man-made factors cause *local* climate change. You could test it by checking reported temperatures in the inner city, suburb, and surrounding rural area near you. Your inner city probably runs up to 15 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than rural areas to your south.

    *Global* climate change is still a field full of speculation. There's enough evidence to justify alarm, but proof of serious scientific projections will be available in another 100 years.

  • freedomscribe||

    Reason has increasingly been light on reason and heavy on knee-jerk writing more familiar from leftist and reactionary publications. If the "roundup" of scientific evidence had been less of a sketchy glance, you would have noticed the Ramazzini Institute paper on glyphosate:
    https://tinyurl.com/y73no4u8
    or other evidence of serious risk. And of course the frosting on the cake is the stupid echo of the alarmist nut cases that clamor on about the oxymoron "scientific consensus". In an era when 40-60% of peer reviewed studies cannot be replicated, every claim needs to evaluated on its own merits. The "science" supporting glyphosate safety is deserving of a far more skeptical treatment than this piece of hyperbolic fluff.

  • Mark22||

    If the "roundup" of scientific evidence had been less of a sketchy glance, you would have noticed the Ramazzini Institute paper on glyphosate: https://tinyurl.com/y73no4u8 or other evidence of serious risk

    The question here is whether it causes cancer; your article also points out that it does not.

    "Disrupting the microbiome" is something completely different, and usually not serious. You "disrupt your microbiome" when you take an antibiotic, when you eat yoghurt, when you travel overseas, or when you start dating someone.

    The article you point to is full of unwarranted inferences, suppositions, and guesswork.

  • Eddy||

    Not having studied this trial, I will just make a general comment about expert witnesses - I presume the jury relied on some.

    Expert witnesses are a special class of witnesses who get to give hearsay and opinion testimony - the kind of stuff that would get shot down if a regular prole witness tried it.

    These superior privileges given to experts are because they're experts. There's a bit of a dispute in the courts as to how to prove you're an expert.

    It proves too much to say "let the jury sort it out," that's an argument for opinion testimony and hearsay, and such an argument can't be confined to putative experts.

    So *if* we have a general rule against opinion testimony and hearsay, and make an exception for experts because they're more reliable, what tests do we use to make sure the expert actually *is* more reliable than Gomer from Gooberville when it comes to discussing scientific subjects?

    I know there's a buttload of literature on this very subject, but if this verdict as as shocking as the post makes it sound, apparently they haven't quite got it right yet.

  • Eddy||

    I just got a cease and desist letter from the League for the Defense of people Named Gomer.

    Ha ha, it's full of misspellings.

    Now I've gotten another letter...

  • Eddy||

    And a letter from the Gooberville Chamber of Commerce...

  • sarcasmic||

    How did Tulpa get your address?

  • Eddy||

    He's either off his meds on really into them.

  • Eddy||

    or

  • Lowdog||

    Are u the originator of the Rev sock? If not, why the use of the term "goober"?(Or a derivative thereof.) God damn it, but if that isn't one of the stupidest words I've ever read...universe help me if I ever hear it spoken aloud.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I would argue that if the scientific evidence supports the notion that roundup doesn't cause cancer, then Monsanto is not liable for failing to warn. Even if we later learn that it DOES cause cancer.

    Monsanto can't warn against things it doesn't know to be true.

  • Claude Fenworthy||

    I'm so terribly sorry to have to point this out. Roundup and glyphosphate are defoliants. They kill WEEDS and PLANTS. They are not pesticides.

  • Claude Fenworthy||

    I'm sorry you have to resort to profanity. The basis for this article is flawed on the face of it. It says that glyphosphate is a pesticide. Hmm? I was always taught that glyphosphate was a defoliant. It is now and ever has been sold to defoliate and kill plants, weeds, and other non-animal things.

    POP QUIZ

    Q: Why did Monsanto decide a few years back to put a synergist and stabilizer into Roundup?

    A: Roundup has a half-life that is so short, their residential customers were complaining that Roundup wasn't preventing the weeds in their yards from coming back. Yeah, Roundup has a half-life that is so short, it has broken down into phosphorous and glycerin before the summer is over.

  • Sevo||

    Claude Fenworthy|8.18.18 @ 6:14PM|#
    "I'm sorry you have to resort to profanity. The basis for this article is flawed on the face of it. It says that glyphosphate is a pesticide. Hmm? I was always taught that glyphosphate was a defoliant. It is now and ever has been sold to defoliate and kill plants, weeds, and other non-animal things.
    POP QUIZ
    Q: Why did Monsanto decide a few years back to put a synergist and stabilizer into Roundup?
    A: Roundup has a half-life that is so short, their residential customers were complaining that Roundup wasn't preventing the weeds in their yards from coming back. Yeah, Roundup has a half-life that is so short, it has broken down into phosphorous and glycerin before the summer is over."

    POP QUIZ
    Q: Did you have a point other than pedantry?

  • Mark22||

    Indeed, if it's true that Monsanto's products caused Johnson's cancer and the company failed to warn him of the potential for its products to do so, then I am very confident the court was right to rule in Johnson's favor.

    Why? The majority of studies found no effect, and the information about them is publicly available. Why should Monsanto have a special obligation to disclose already public information about an effect that is unproven and likely negligible?

    Furthermore, even if it "is carcinogenic", the effect is so small that it doesn't show up easily in epidemiological studies. That's a pretty low bar: we can even measure the increased cancer risk from flying. That means that it is far more likely than not that Johnson's cancer was not caused by Roundup.

    That is, for legal liability, it isn't sufficient to find that Roundup is linked to cancer and that Monsanto knew about it, at a minimum, it needs to cause cancer at a sufficiently high rate that it actually makes a practical difference.

  • Cyto||

    unless you are in a court of law, aparently.

    I mean, if you can get an award from a talcum powder manufacturer because you got cancer in your ovaries and you used talcum powder.... I mean, really..... is there any standard at all? That one wouldn't have passed the giggle test if it had been full-on asbestos powder. And yet here we are.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I guess maybe the lesson here is that we libertarians should allow people to sue corporations when said corporation poisons another's property up to the point when the suer actually collects damages against some corporate entity. That last bit is kind of a bridge too far for Trump loyalists like me.

  • Jerry B.||

    Apparently, if you think something gave you a medical problem, regardless of the scientific evidence, you should be able to sue the manufacturer and get a settlement.

    I'm trying to figure out which company is responsible for my hangnail, based on their quarterly earnings reports.

  • Priscilla King||

    I wish. Reality is that a lot of people have been documenting a lot of harmful effects from glyphosate exposure for a long time. I'm one of them; those who are seriously interested can find some posts about glyphosate spraying in my town, this spring, on days when I was in a public place watching the crowd. Many of the people who showed immediate, unmistakable reactions had no idea what they were reacting to...and a few that I know personally were skeptical or even indignant when told it might be Roundup, which they'd been spraying on weeds in their garden since, hey, around the time they first talked to a doctor about the chronic disease they've been living with...

    I wouldn't have made this stuff up. It doesn't even need exaggeration. As glyphosate builds up in our food supply and reactions progress in our bodies, people who didn't react noticeably to it in 1995 are showing melodramatic reactions now.

  • ||

    those who are seriously interested can find some posts about glyphosate spraying in my town, this spring, on days when I was in a public place watching the crowd

    So, they're either anecdotal posts about what you saw and what you think happened or they're outright fabrications. Considering a town wouldn't blanket it's own vegetation, let alone its own people, in a cloud of glyphosate for any reasonable reason, I'm calling bullshit.

    I wouldn't have made this stuff up. It doesn't even need exaggeration.

    Bullshit. You've made stuff up within this very thread and exaggerated for effect.

  • Priscilla King||

    Check facts much, mad.casual? It does not take a "blanket" of glyphosate to produce visible effects on people. It takes a *whiff* from what somebody probably thought was well controlled spraying directly onto specific plants.

    If you'd read the posts, you could dispute them intelligently rather than merely yelling.

  • Loup-Bouc||

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer finding was not an "outlier." The supposed glyphosate-supporting scientific "consensus" is a collection of largely Monsanto-induced fake science — including U.S. government agency findings that are results of direct of indirect agency capturing by Monsanto.

    Monsanto is infamous for capturing government agencies and buying or influencing GMO and glyphosate "research."

    Much truly scientific independent, unbiased research contradicts the faux findings or biased "research" that support glyphosate and glyphosate-bearing herbicide and pesticide compounds.

    I have amassed many proofs contained in reports of, or discussing, independent, unbiased, fully scientific research-results. But this comment-system will not permit my posting my proof-sources or rendering a more detailed discussion or greater set of proofs.

    How so?

    This system permits only three web-page links and 1500 characters. And this system would not permit the web-site proof-source links I tried to include, because the system read the links as impermissible "words" more than 50 characters long.

  • Loup-Bouc||

    CORRECTION OF FIRST PARAGRAPH OF MY MAIN COMMENT

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer finding was not an "outlier." The supposed glyphosate-supporting scientific "consensus" is a collection of largely Monsanto-induced fake-science sources — including U.S. government agency findings that are results of direct or indirect agency capturing by Monsanto.

    (The corrections are "fake-science sources" instead of "fake-science" and "results of direct or indirect agency capturing" instead of "results of direct of indirect agency capturing.")

  • Greg F||

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer finding was not an "outlier."


    For promoting junk science that is certainly true.

    The World Health Organization's cancer agency says a common weedkiller is "probably carcinogenic." The scientist leading that review knew of fresh data showing no cancer link - but he never mentioned it and the agency did not take it into account.


    Doesn't matter if they get the correct answer as long as proper procedure is followed.

    Previously unreported court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing U.S. legal case against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data would have altered IARC's analysis. He said it would have made it less likely that glyphosate would meet the agency's criteria for being classed as "probably carcinogenic."
  • Loup-Bouc||

    To Greg F|8.19.18 @ 7:56AM

    This comment-system's comment-length limit forces me to put this comment in 2 parts.

    PART 1

    Your *testimony* would not survive impeachment or rebuttal in any good court (PARTLY because it BEGINS with a proposition that reeks thought-tainting bias, "For promoting junk science that is certainly true").

    Among the passages of the Reuters article you reference, this paragraph begs fatal deconstruction:

    "Previously unreported court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing U.S. legal case against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data would have altered IARC's analysis. He said it would have made it less likely that glyphosate would meet the agency's criteria for being classed as 'probably carcinogenic'."

    With his assertion that his UNPUBLISHED research "would have made it less likely that glyphosate would meet the agency's criteria for being classed as 'probably carcinogenic'," Aaron Blair (a U.S. National Cancer Institute epidemiologist) impeached his assertion.

    EVEN IF his UNPUBLISHED research "would have made it less likely that glyphosate would meet the agency's criteria for being classed as 'probably carcinogenic'," that research could not have PRECLUDED the agency's 'probably carcinogenic' finding, for AT LEAST 4 reasons.

    See PART 2.

  • Loup-Bouc||

    To Greg F|8.19.18 @ 7:56AM

    PART 2.

    (1) The agency possessed much research (independent & agency-conducted) that indicated, strongly, its 'probably carcinogenic' finding. That research included studies and experiments PUBLISHED in respected PEER-REVIEWED journals.

    (2) Blair's "research" was that of only one individual.

    (3) Blair's research was UNPUBLISHED, hence not published in a peer-reviewed journal or subjected to reliable critical professional community review or comment.

    (4) Blair was a U.S. National Cancer Institute ["USNCI"] epidemiologist. The USNCI is captured by drug companies & genetic engineering firms & other corrupting influences. Often its opinions fail the test of later empirical experience, E.G., its assertion that human papillomavirus is THE cause of cervical cancer (though actually, a primary, if not dominant, cause is the cervix-area's pH & related internal-environment-chemistry).

    [According to the World Cancer Research Fund International, U.S. "medicine" — hence also USNCI) — provided the U.S. population the 6th-highest cancer-rate among the populations of all nations. Among men, the U.S. rate was 9th. Among women it was 2nd.]

  • Greg F||

    Blair's "research" was that of only one individual.


    Actually ... no it wasn't.

  • Sevo||

    Loup-Bouc|8.18.18 @ 10:40PM|#
    "...I have amassed many proofs contained in reports of, or discussing, independent, unbiased, fully scientific research-results. But this comment-system will not permit my posting my proof-sources or rendering a more detailed discussion or greater set of proofs."

    And you can't seem to post even one.
    You
    Are
    Full
    Of
    Shit.

  • Loup-Bouc||

    Fowl language and ad hominem attacks cannot substitute for legitimate argument.

    This comment-system will not permit me to reference web-pages with url links.

    But here are a few references, which may take you to proof-sources if you Google the references well:

    * "Roundup Ready Crops," published by SourceWatch (a publication of The Center For Media and Democracy)
    See especially, but not only, section 2.1 "Study Links RR Corn to Tumors in Rats"

    * Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,
    Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463

    * Monsanto's Herbicide Linked to Fatal Kidney Disease Epidemic: Could It Topple the Company?
    Jeff Ritterman (author)
    published by Truthout, July 10, 2014
    (addressing not only a fatal renal disease attributed to Roundup & glyphosate but also cancers associated with the same substances)

    * Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance,
    Interdiscip Toxicol. 2013 Dec; 6(4): 159-184.
    PMCID: PMC3945755
    PMID: 24678255

  • Loup-Bouc||

    To Sevo:

    This supplements the reply I posted a few minutes ago.

    I suppose that your brain may need my observing, for you, that my references address cancer among other diseases or disorders associated with Roundup & other glyphosate-bearing compounds, though some references focus more on health-troubles other than cancers.

  • sarcasmic||

    "This comment-system will not permit me to reference web-pages with url links."

    Use an anchor tag.

  • sarcasmic||

    I SF'd the link. Try this.

  • Sevo||

    Loup-Bouc|8.19.18 @ 3:27AM|#
    "Fowl language and ad hominem attacks cannot substitute for legitimate argument.
    This comment-system will not permit me to reference web-pages with url links."

    (followed by titles of papers which do not apply or are from outfits like "truthout"
    You
    Are
    Full
    Of
    Shit.

  • Loup-Bouc||

    Other than a risible, fowl-language ad hominem slur & an attempt of attacking a Truthout-published article by tarring the PUBLISHER's identity, not by putting a substantive criticism of the ARTICLE, your retort bears only the false assertion that I cited "titles of papers which [sic] do not apply."

    Truthout is a left-slanted journal. Many Truthout pieces are political diatribes. Yet some Truthout articles are not opinion pieces or left-slanted "news," but traditional journalism that puts fairly unbiased reports of findings or events. (Sometimes, Reason publishes actual news or fairly objective reports, rather than libertarian diatribes.)

    My Truthout reference is an objective report of scientific findings. It presents research, clinical work, and scientific findings of (a) Dr. C. Wesseling, regional director of the Central American "Program on Work and Health" & (b) Dr. C. Jayasumana, Dr. S. Gunatilake, and Dr. P. Senanayake, of Sri Lanka; AND it presents opposing views.

    My other references are:
    (a) 2 pieces published in scientific journals that present formal papers addressing biochemistry, physiology, toxicology, epidemiology......
    (b) 1 scholarly article that reports both scientific research that indicates glyphosate & Roundup & other glyphosate-bearing products threaten heath & research that suggest the contrary.

    ALL my references address whether glyphosate is a carcinogen & also whether glyhphosate associates causatively with other diseases.

  • Sevo||

    "I have amassed many proofs contained in reports of, or discussing, independent, unbiased, fully scientific research-results. But this comment-system will not permit my posting my proof-sources or rendering a more detailed discussion or greater set of proofs."

    OK, let's have a laugh at your expense:
    What have you found "proven"?

  • Loup-Bouc||

    Grow up, fool.

  • Sevo||

    Loup-Bouc|8.19.18 @ 5:13PM|#
    "Grow up, fool."
    So.....
    nothing.
    You
    Are
    Full
    Of
    Shit.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Loup is full of shit.

    Sevo is a bigoted, irrelevant malcontent.

    Great conversation!

  • Priscilla King||

    Loup-Bouc, the documents on the EPA docket last spring certainly didn't come from enemies of Monsanto. You may have summarized the first few as company-promoted propaganda and dismissed the rest. When I read *all* the PDFs on the EPA docket, which I'll admit was hard on the eyes, the more recent ones were damning...even when funded *by* Monsanto. They admit that, depending on the individuals involved, effects can range from nil through nasal discharge, diarrhea, and death. Some humans wash it off, no problem; some break out in horrific rashes. One patient was paralyzed for 39 days.

    I note that most studies used fairly dumb animals, and the human studies done by hospitals didn't have data on how badly glyphosate impairs brain function. Some of the defenses of glyphosate on this page definitely suggest cognitive impairment to me.

  • ||

    They admit that, depending on the individuals involved, effects can range from nil through nasal discharge, diarrhea, and death. Some humans wash it off, no problem; some break out in horrific rashes. One patient was paralyzed for 39 days.

    So, unlike cyanide, which generally kills everyone who ingests it, glyphosate may kill you, give you a runny nose, or do nothing at all? And in the cases where it kills people it mysteriously acts in a completely different mechanism than the cases where it causes diarrhea or paralysis? Sounds like the opposite of epidemiological research to me.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You have a great future as a scientific researcher at a fourth-tier, conservative-controlled campus with sketch accreditation and enthusiastic right-wing support.

  • Priscilla King||

    "You" meaning Loup-Bouc, mad.casual, me, or all three? :-)

  • Priscilla King||

    Yes. Exactly. The glyphosate studies are weird that way.

    They actually show that the test groups of animals were *less* likely to develop *some* cancers than the control groups--because the test groups were more likely to die from other things first!

    With humans, some reactions show genetic links. Such that, if diarrhea is the first one you notice, you may have identified with some other ethnic group all your life, but you're almost certainly Irish (also).

  • Tab Schweitzer||

    Paragraph three states that Round Up is a pesticide- it's an herbicide.

  • Sevo||

    Well, you get an award for pedantry, and another for imbecility.
    Weeds are pests; you lose.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Weeds are NOT pests. Weeds are weeds.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, goody. One more pedant.
    Get lost.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're wrong dude. As a farmer, I never call weeds 'pests'... ever.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    DUDE!

    pesticide

    noun
    a chemical preparation for destroying plant, fungal, or animal pests.
  • loveconstitution1789||

    What are You stupid?

    pes·ti·cide
    ˈpestəˌsīd
    noun
    a substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals.

  • Sevo||

    Do you really want to prove you are such an imbecile?
    I mean, I'll be happy to help, but you seem to be doing just fine on your own:

    "a substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals."

    "[O]ther organisms", like weeds?
    Other than Tony, I'm having a hard time remembering anyone who has spent that amount of effort proving they can't read.
    Fuck off.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Fuck off Sevo.

    You people have no idea what you are talking about with regard to pesticide.

    Farmers use herbicides to kill weeds that steal water and soil nutrients from crop plants.

    Farmers use pesticides to kill bugs that eat or otherwise destroy the crop plants.

    Farmers use insecticides to kill insects that would eat and/or destroy crop plants.

  • Priscilla King||

    Ah, the vernacular dialects of English...scientifically, bugs are one family of insects, and insects, weeds, and fungi are pests in a crop field. There are linguistic sites where people would be interested in finding out how you and your neighbors use these words.

  • ||

    You're wrong dude. As a farmer, I never call weeds 'pests'... ever.

    No farmer does. It's a hallmark of non-users and armchair experts.

    Even if you were moronic enough to think herbicides are a subclass of pesticide, it's still stupid. Cherry, vermillion, crimson, burgundy, salmon, blush, and coral are all shades of red. If I asked for a standard screwdriver and you said you didn't know which one was standard and I said 'the one with the burgundy' and you handed me a salmon or pink-handled phillips screwdriver, we'd all know you were a moron who didn't know how to use a screwdriver or what the color burgundy looked like.

  • ||

    It's the same bullshit as 'semi-automatic' when referring to firearms. 'Semi-automatic' refers to firearm technology that's more than 150 yrs. old and was considered acceptable under the NFA, but people like to use it because it sounds similar to or implies 'fully automatic'. Even though a semi-automatic would usually require serious modification to be fully automatic and the two are not really at all comparable except that they are both guns.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • Loup-Bouc||

    I did not say Glyphosate is a pesticide. I said is is in "glyphosate-bearing herbicide and pesticide compounds." And so it is: Google, E.G., "Glyphosate | Ingredients Used in Pesticide Products | US EPA" This comment system will not permit me to put the link, because the comment-system thinks the link is a "word" of more than 50 characters.

  • Loup-Bouc||

    This note clarifies that my 8.19.18 @ 1:39AM comment (re: "glyphosate-bearing herbicide and pesticide compounds") was addressed to Tab Schweitzer|8.18.18 @ 11:48PM.

  • Loup-Bouc||

    This note responds further to Tab Schweitzer|8.18.18 @ 11:48PM.

    In "Glyphosate | Ingredients Used in Pesticide Products | US EPA," click on "Chemical Search." You will reach an EPA Office of Pesticides Programs page titled "Pesticide Chemicals Search." In the top box, labeled "Chemical Name," type "glyphosate" and click on "Go."Another page will open; it lists glyphosate-bearing molecules included in various pesticide compounds (and also glyphosate-bearing herbicides and, perhaps, fungicides).

  • Sevo||

    So you still have nothing of which Round Up is "proven" to cause, even after I called you on the bullshit and then asked for specifics?
    Are you now claiming glyphosate contains KEMIKULZ!!!??? THAT's what is "proven"?
    You
    Are
    Full
    Of
    Shit.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I miss Agile Cyborg. He was fun.

  • sarcasmic||

    He was like Bull on Night Court. Never understood what he was saying, but it was always entertaining.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Exactly.

    You = fucking awesome.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic is always fucking up awesome alright.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    We all miss Agile. He was a treasure. And I did understand him at times.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dont miss him.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis
    Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis
    Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis

    Having said that, everything *may* cause cancer. Life comes with risk. Our legal system has a real problem with this.

    Would a company be off the hook if they said "All our products *may* cause cancer. Use at your own risk."? Probably not. There's just no winning.

    Somebody gets sick. Sad face. Jury awards a bazillion dollars. It's a problem.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Anyone who has known Trump for years, and doesn't have a stake in his political career or the GOP, says the same. He is unwell and has been getting progressively worse over the past 18 months.

    Add Joe Scarborough to the list of respectable Republicans, along with David Frum and John McCain.

    If for some reason Mueller fails to produce the evidence that results in Drumpf's impeachment, he should still be removed from office on mental health grounds.

  • Eddy||

    The successive anti-Trump tactics give me a sort of Coyote v. Road-Runner vibe, but it's early days yet, maybe the Acme Corporation will finally come up with something.

  • Headache||

  • Sevo||

    So what?

  • Headache||

  • Sevo||

    So what?

  • Priscilla King||

    How much stock in this company does Sevo own, and how much do his parents own?

  • vek||

    "on par with the vast evidence demonstrating the safety of GMOs generally and with the overwhelming consensus that manmade factors cause climate change."

    I think you just weakened the case for this not being dangerous by saying it's as "settled science" as climate change! LOL Anybody who has ever looked into climate change knows full and well that mans contribution is MASSIVELY overblown by the media and governments. I'm sure we're adding a little icing on the cake there, but we're not the main cause.

    Bottom line is that science is messy. For stuff I don't care about I usually assume whatever the mainstream idiots are saying is true, but some stuff I look into and use my own brain to parse through the different sides of an argument... Often times the en vogue argument is total bullshit. Either through biased work starting with conclusions first, sometimes there have been corporate white washing, other times its just older scientists egos not wanting to accept a new theory... Any which way the "consensus" is VERY frequently wrong.

    Remember smoking was 100% safe, as was asbestos, BPA, etc... Until they weren't. The funny thing is sometimes things then swing the opposite direction to the point of being wrong too. The dangers of smoking are waaay overblown. At under 1/2 a pack a day there are basically no statistical differences in outcomes, but you don't hear that being quoted much... 2nd hand smoke, also negligible in most instances.

    So take everything with a grain of salt.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People with asbestos fibers in their lungs would disagree with you.

    People with growths in their lungs after years of smoking disagree would with you.

    There are direct correlations between certain substances and human injury. Sometimes the effects of the injury are not as severe from person to person but that does not completely negate the correlation.

    I have hearing loss from years in the military being exposed to sounds above 85dB on a regular basis. Even with hearing protection, I had hearing problems in my late 20's. After getting out of the military, my hearing ability stabilized. There is a correlation there between loud noise in the military and hearing loss.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What!?!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Correlation doesn't have fuck all to do with causality. A correlation may or may not be causal.

    A cause will always be correlated.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hey lc! He disagreed with you! Call him an anarchist and own him! Embrace your inner thirteen year old! Strut around like a peacock and claim victory! All you gotta do is call him an anarchist! You got this!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have no idea if he is an anarchist and that is irrelevant to his point. He was confused and assumed that I dont know the difference between causation and correlation.

    Sarcasmic, YOU are an Anarchist and it factors into most of your stupid comments. This does cause many posters to ignore you and the effect is that you get upset and run to your safe space while moving forwards and backwards. Mumbling that calling names like 'Anarchist' is hurting your FEELZ.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    At some point the relationship between the two variables that I mentioned (hearing loss) can become cause and effect.

    Minimal correlation does not negate causation. Its what you can prove.

    Smoking is not the only cause of growths in human lungs.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Minimal correlation does not negate causation.

    Umm...yes, it does. (You don't understand it as you claim)

    If it's causal...it happens EVERY time. By definition. A causes B. (a correlation of 1) A single exception disproves causation.

    Cigarette smoking does NOT cause lung cancer as there are people who smoke all their lives and don't develop the disease.

    You can say, however, that smoking causes an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Whether it is causal or not in a particular instance cannot be proven as some people develop lung cancer without exposure to smoke. Just as you don't know that the military caused your hearing loss, as some people lose their hearing without being exposed to loud noises. There is only a probability that the military was causal in your loss.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Minimal correlation just means there are outlyers to that causation.

    If you can prove one instance of causation then there is cause and effect. With hearing loss, there are people who dont have the severe hearing loss that other people do but they have hearing loss.

    As I pointed put, smoking is a bad example because there has been evidence that people who smoke never develop lung cancer. People who dont smoke, dont develop ling cancer at the levels that smokers do.

    Hearing loss can easily be tested when you experience noise above certain decibel levels.

    There is cause and effect that very high decibels cause hearing loss. There is high correlation that constant loud noise and hearing loss can lead to permanent hearing loss.

    People who dont want test results to impact their position claim correlation never can lead to causation and that is wrong. People who do wants test results to help their position claim correlation always leads to causation and that is wrong.

  • Echospinner||

    "Smoking is not the only cause of growths in human lungs."

    Sometimes it just begins with dinner and a movie.

  • Priscilla King||

    There's a dispute that prolonged exposure to loud noises can cause hearing loss?

  • ||

    Actually, hearing loss occurs naturally in humans with or without exposure to loud (or even any) noises.

  • sarcasmic||

    He does that a lot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I do use words correctly a lot. Thanks Sarcasmic.

  • sarcasmic||

    Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

    Hoooooooooooo ho ho ho ho ho!

    Good one!

    Whew!

    I'm out of breath!

    Got another?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're out of breath because you dont use words correctly a lot.

  • sarcasmic||

    More causation!

    Good one!

    You're a fucking genius!

    You gotta go and tell all those people who write dictionaries and stuff that they're wrong!

    You're the man!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your retardedness certainly causes people to effectively ignore you.

  • vek||

    LC, never said asbestos wasn't bad. That shit is horrible! Smoking, as I go into greater detail about below, is also bad for you... But small amounts of smoking are waaay less bad for you than anti smoking zealots make it out to be. It's like how eating smoked meats is technically bad for you too, and causes colon cancer and other issues, but the increases in cancer odds by eating lots of bacon is so small most people wouldn't give two shits about the tiny increase in risk.

    Let us also not forget that being a couple dozen pounds over weight will make you die earlier statistically than being a lifetime smoker... It's all relative. Surely people should avoid things that are bad for their health, but half of the awesome stuff in life is bad for your health! So picking and choosing the things one wants to avoid, or is willing to risk, is important.

    I don't by the dumb word games they're trying to play with correlation/causation either. If something increases your odds of something in a statistically valid way, that counts well enough for me. Something doesn't have to result in an outcome 100% of the time to be worth paying attention to IMO.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    At under 1/2 a pack a day there are basically no statistical differences in outcomes, but you don't hear that being quoted much

    Do you have a citation for this?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    He has one deep inside his ass.

  • vek||

    Google it. If you read into studies that are the main ones used by anti smoking pushers, you will see that in the actual hard numbers you don't see any significant effects of smoking until above half a pack a day.

    This trend has shown in basically all the studies ever done. IIRC off the top of my head half a back a day equates to something like a ~5% increase in the risk of developing lung cancer/etc. Keep in mind the percentage of people that get lung cancer is a single digit percentage as the starting base line... So it might increase your chances from 3% lifetime chance to 3.15% or whatever... Which is pretty negligible. Keep in mind those aren't real numbers, just an example of how small the difference is, I didn't bother to re look up the exact numbers.

    Once you get above 1/2 a pack a day the numbers start to go up FAST. And at over 1 full pack a day it's a massive increase in your odds of getting cancer. So it's not that smoking 8 smokes a day has zero effect, it's just that it's basically so low as to just be static/a rounding error.

    The anti smoking zealots can't consider that perhaps they should suggest people switch to snuff (which is also vastly lower chances of cancers), vaping, or even just cutting back to less than half a pack a day... They preach pure abstinence, and leave out all the subtle details the studies actually show.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The dangers of smoking are waaay overblown. At under 1/2 a pack a day there are basically no statistical differences in outcomes, but you don't hear that being quoted much... 2nd hand smoke, also negligible in most instances. So take everything with a grain of salt.

    Those are profoundly uninformed, false, stupid statements.

    No wonder you are such an out-of-step malcontent.

  • vek||

    No they're not retard. You've just never looked at the numbers in the actual studies. I'm not saying smoking 5 smokes a day is good for you, but it's a negligible amount of bad. Being 30 pounds over ideal body weight is probably more likely to kill you than smoking a few cigs a day...

    Just as being 150 pounds over weight is worse for your health than being 30 pounds over weight, smoking 40 cigarettes a day is also worse for you than smoking 5. It's a pretty logical and obvious thing really... Less nasty going into your lungs has less nasty results for your health. It makes perfect sense logically.

    I don't smoke anymore, but when I did I knew I was statistically likely to live longer than chubby non smokers. Statistics are a bitch!

  • Dadlobby||

    I'm calling on dihydrogen monoxide to be banned, regulated, and labeled as dangerous! Because nothing says I have an uninformed opinion more than a discussion of hazardous substances comparing multiple types and without reference to exposure and duration limits. Another law suit which will cause even MORE labelling resulting in fewer people noting any of the dangers alleged.

  • akita96th||

    Roundup is a watered down version of Agent Orange...Hmmm how safe was that back in the day...many died from being exposed from it...mostly Vietnam veterans...lots of them still suffer its effects. Took the VA a long time to except it mostly because of the lobbying of said poison factory.

  • Sevo||

    akita96th|8.19.18 @ 2:40PM|#
    "Roundup is a watered down version of Agent Orange...Hmmm how safe was that back in the day...many died from being exposed from it"

    Bullshit.

  • ||

    Go pant shit elsewhere pal.

  • Morbo||

    Agent orange was a mix of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D (2,4-D is still widely used, more so than glyphosphate, by the way).

    The chemical formula for 2,4,5-T is C8H5Cl3O3.

    The chemical formula for 2,4-D is C8H6Cl2O3.

    The chemical formula for glyphosphate is C3H8NO5P.

    It would be a bit hard for glyphosphate to be "watered down Agent Orange" given how different the molecules are.

  • NashTiger||

    Don't confuse him with your magic mumbo jumbo, it's like oramge water

  • Cy||

    No new links today? Damn, Reason may actually die on the "open borders" hill.

  • Sevo||

    Let's beat on the commies; they deserve it:

    "Venezuela's economic crisis: What you need to know"
    [...]
    "Caracas will begin issuing new banknotes after slashing five zeroes off the crippled bolivar.
    The new sovereign bolivar, named as such to distinguish it from the current strong bolivar (which has proven to be anything but), will be anchored to Venezuela's widely discredited cryptocurrency, the petro.
    Each petro will be worth around $60 (£47), based on the price of a barrel of the country's oil."
    https://news.sky.com/story/
    venezuela-crisis-11476739

    According to another source I read this morning, the cryptocurrency is 'guaranteed' by the oil reserves, but all proven reserves have already been used as collateral for loans from China and Russia. I sorta doubt either of those countries will let their property be used to support paper that's worth more for wiping your ass than it is as money.
    So the question now is: Will a So. American population finally decide that 'free shit' is too damned expensive, or will they vote in the next thug promising 'free shit' to replace the 'free shit' they didn't get from this collection of thugs?

  • Paloma||

    Do you really think Maduro was elected fairly and freely by a majority of Venezuelans?

  • Sevo||

    Of course not, but by now that's pretty much irrelevant.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    OT: New Service Promises to Manipulate Your Wife Into Having Sex With You

    For the bargain price of $29, husbands are sent an innocuous link that they, in turn, send via email or text message to their "target." It can be accessed on a computer or mobile device and looks like any other hyperlink to an article, joke or video. Once she clicks on this link, a small piece of code is dropped on and then through browser cookies, she will be fed a slow drip of content chosen for her with the express motive of encouraging her to initiate sex.

    Back in my day we used lunch at the Chinese buffet and a box of wine in order to put the wife in the mood - these millennials are lazy trash!

  • Eddy||

    Ah, the old Sublimininal Advertising game. It is shocking

    (give me money)

    that people would attempt to get away with such manipulation

    (bag of $30,000 in cash)

    of other people. What is this world coming to?

    ($10s and $20s)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    OT: Volunteer track coach , 41, is arrested after she was caught having sex with one of her student athletes, 17, by his father

    Oxford worked with the Fort Zumwalt East High School's boys track team two to three times a week from April through August, according to court documents.

    The two would meet up for sex, at times the student sneaking out of his house to visit Oxford's home, the teen said to St. Peters police.

    However their relationship was outed in May 2018 when the student left track practice with Oxford and they went to his home, where his father caught them having intercourse.

    Back in my day a father would have bought his son a beer for nailing some track coach cooze! Generation X is trash!

  • Rich||

    OT: White Woman Calls Someone N-Word on X2 Bus in NE D.C., Gets Beat Up

    The comments are wonderful. Hope Trump is paying attention. ;-)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fight, fight, niggers and a white!

  • Priscilla King||

    Well, the last time I called b.s. the report was confirmed, but I'm feeling lucky...Someone. That. Clueless. *Found* the X2?

  • MikeP2||

    The ruling is appalling. As a greenskeeper, he surely wasnt using only glyphosate-based products. You dont apply that to lawns and you have to wonder if his exposure was more related to the other, far nastier, selective weed killer chemistries on the market.
    The label warnings on those are extensive and workplace safety regulations would have required him to be educated in the safe handling of the materials. Read the SDS.
    All chemical products with potential human exposure undergo basic screening for cancer, mutagenicity. But screening never tells the whole picture and its certainly possible glyphosate has some longterm health issues. But that potential exists for a huge number of other chemicals that have far far less inustrial exposure history.
    Holding monsanto and glyphosate to a standard that is impossible to meet for 99%+ of the chemical products we use on a daily basis is the epitome of junk science and an appalling indictment on the ignorance of juries.

  • Ron||

    for those who don't know how they study for cancer causing elements they get mice that are bread to be cancer prone, then they give them such large quantities of the item in question that not only would nothing ever come in contact with those quantities but it is amazing that they don't die from the volume alone. its rigged system to force cancer. I'm not saying tht things don't cause cancer but the methods of testing will give you whatever results the tester feels like looking for.

  • Priscilla King||

    Whatever weaknesses were bred into the mice, control and test groups are supposed to be from the same breed. Also, some of the studies on the EPA docket involved rabbits, and one summarized experiments done with various type of "wildlife."

  • ||

    Whatever weaknesses were bred into the mice, control and test groups are supposed to be from the same breed.

    This isn't necessarily true. Moreover, frequently, the breeding itself doesn't cause tumors/cancer as much as predispose the mice to cancer, effectively rigging the experiment to throw false positives. It's not always the case, but there are times when false positives (along with actual positives) can be useful. Extrapolation to more robust examples of the species or even across species is generally not recommended in these situations. But good ideas have never generally stopped dumb people from doing stupid shit.

  • Priscilla King||

    I've been saying for a long time that people who *are* having verifiable reactions to glyphosate (and I'm one) should be talking about what we can prove. Cancer is hard to prove. Cancer seems to involve an interaction among lots of different factors that promote and deter cancer cell growth.

    The trouble is that some people are so evil that, when shown indisputable evidence that glyphosate causes painful, disgusting, definitely cancer-promoting reactions in various small groups of humans, people like Sevo are likely to whine, "So what? Those people are a minority." (And if Hitler killed only six thousand Jews instead of six million, then he'd be a good guy?)

    Same way with the "climate change" "debate." Things individuals do every day are altering the climate in our cities, producing extreme summer heat. People are dying of exposure to that heat. The more they hide in air-conditioned buildings, the harder the air conditioners work and the hotter the city air gets. We could be talking about these undisputed facts, but then people tend to whine, "So what? I can afford to get out of the city in summer anyway."

    So people want to go for big scary talking points. Glyphosate doesn't just kill songbirds and make people ill, it MAY CAUSE CANCER!!! Air pollution doesn't just make walking around town dangerous at this time of year, it MAY CAUSE THE POLAR ICE CAPS TO MELT!!! AAAGGGHHH!!! And then certain political lifeforms want to latch onto the tabloid-ish scare stories....

  • ||

    I've been saying for a long time that people who *are* having verifiable reactions to glyphosate (and I'm one) should be talking about what we can prove. Cancer is hard to prove. Cancer seems to involve an interaction among lots of different factors that promote and deter cancer cell growth.

    Your subsequent sentences conflict with your stated premise. You're rather blatantly making shit up.

  • Priscilla King||

    If you want to challenge specific facts, feel free. By now lots of sources are online so I can do research posts for $5, and somebody's paid for one...

    Otoh, if you're just in a foul mood because you or your parents own stock in Monsanto, maybe charcoal will help?

  • Priscilla King||

    ...We need a HUGE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL GOVERNMENT to save us from all these horrible things that MAY happen, and if global warming isn't happening, or if the fellow who got cancer from glyphosate exposure also happened to drink a gallon of diet soda a day and have had a contaminated vaccination in 1985 and have lost both parents and all four grandparents to cancer, we'd still need the HUGE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL GOVERNMENT to protect us from SPACE ALIENS! AAAGGGHHH!

    It can be kind of embarrassing to those of us who are just trying to educate people about the facts: Glyphosate happens to make me ill, in ways that might well have allowed me to develop cancer if I ate fewer antioxidants etc. etc., and even if it's not making you ill in any way I can see, glyphosate is not doing you any good. And also, if you want to keep a job in a city long enough to retire from it with a pension, it's in your best interest for you and your neighbors to do less driving and less air conditioning, and plant more trees...

    People who accept and respond to this kind of facts are the ones who *should* be libertarians--the ones who don't need a Nanny State, who are able to govern themselves.

  • FlameCCT||

    IOW Progressives once again deny science and rely on Progressive propaganda and lies.

  • WillPaine||

    Here's some research; video and interview of children and their parents south of here, where big ag is growing soybeans. They are GMO soybeans, designed to withstand Round Up. The children are forced to walk through soybean fields to get to school and back. They all Have second degree chemical burns on their legs. I made Eagle at age 14, so I can say this, of which is on a documentary out there. (I know, I shoulda' saved it, no?:-); but, and I've been trying to tell, anything that kills plants so quickly is not good for you to ingest; it's not even good for you to get it on your skin, yes? I used one bottle once between the base of my house and my driveway, where food would never be grown. And "weeds" come back in a season or two; please understand that even though we may use herbicides for convenience; there are millions of us; you can make a difference; don't use poisons.

  • Priscilla King||

    I'm not seeing a link, WillPaine. Youtube? Link (not video, please) on Twitter?

  • Enemy of the State||

    Herbicides are not pesticides. You screwed your own pooch genius...

  • Enemy of the State||

    Herbicides are not pesticides. You screwed your own pooch genius...

  • rferris||

    The author was doing good until the end of the second to last paragraph where the author destroys all credibility he has with the stupid climate change statement. He writes a science piece then ends it with an anti science comparison.. Science has zero to do with consensus and if human activity causes climate change then I am equally sure human activity causes the sun to revolve around the earth.
    Where is Reason getting these dopey writers????

    So is the author really saying that he is against GMO foods and thinks there is a vast amount of information proving them faulty??

    Bad comparison.

  • Priscilla King||

    rferris, despite the locker room language on this page, there is at least one female here :-)

    Please *don't* take my word on the local warming effects. Check with friends, as suggested, or log into Yahoo with accounts based in different zipcodes to see them right on your screen. Crunch your own numbers. Professional scientists will follow you if you post your data on Twitter.

    I distrust GMO food; that's not the same thing as having found, in my own personal body and in a growing body of medical data, that E. Coli or "Roundup Ready" corn and soy are making a lot of people seriously sick. Other GMOs may have different effects on different people. Some may turn out to be safe. I don't want to participate in any more experiments, thanks, but *you* have the right to do so, provided that the GMO foods are labelled so that only willing test subjects eat them.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Perhaps he should have continued driving to work in that Pinto, he might not have had to worry about developing cancer.

  • ||

    If it's 800-1 in favor of Monsanto were their lawyers incompetent? Explain the decision.

    "The jury is still out" on GMOs. This is one of the most complicated health issues ever tackled. Most GMOs may be quite beneficial, but it only takes one mistake, one under-tested gene manipulation. Companies do their own testing and the FDA goes along. Not a good way to protect the public. But the public is oblivious to govt. criticism.

    I've read the studies on climate change. If global warming is real it is a good thing overall, according to the stats. More dire effects result from a colder climate, e.g., overall weather-related deaths.

  • Priscilla King||

    voluntaryist, great screen name. DC Downsizer?

    What was 800-1 in favor of Monsanto? Sometimes I pay less attention to California than it deserves. What I read suggests that Monsanto has earned a lot of hate there, as it has in Alabama, West Virginia, and other places.

    About lawyers, two words: RFK Jr.

    About GMOs, see reply above. In condemning glyphosate and resistant/contaminated plants I'm saying nothing about other GMOs.

    About testing, yes: eager customers (some of whom volunteer to test experimental drugs) and greedy manufacturers rush onto the market things that may have long-term effects opposite to their reported immediate effects.

  • Matthias777||

    The "science" has been heavily altered, hidden, and doctored (ha!). We know Monsanto paid university scientists to ignore research and put out faulty studies. This is not to mention that some European studies clearly show carcinogenic activity, and were heavily fought by Monsanto.

    Also, we never got any human safety studies on this!! I want lifetime, VOLUNTARY human double blind, random placebo controlled trials of exposure at various levels of glyphosate (and every chemical artificially created really) in a controlled environment before any of it is unleashed into nature. We should treat chemicals like we do deadly diseases, bacteria, viruses, and prions at the CDC. Keep that shit under lock and key until we know exactly how to control it, remedy it, and extrapolate it's effects in the world on every part of the ecosystem.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online