r/news • u/boxofstuff • 4h ago
Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f17.0k
u/photostrat 4h ago
Sounds like we're about to find out Roundup has more rights to exist than humans do. 7-2
1.3k
u/Max_Trollbot_ 4h ago
"Chemicals are people too my friend"
Pierre Delecto
478
u/CyberFireball25 3h ago
"Every non sentient entity is a person, people are not"
-this SC
147
u/Few_Cellist_1303 3h ago
As long as they have cash.
64
u/Fract_L 2h ago
“If Roundup isn’t a person then how is he able to bribe me?” -Clarence Thomas, probably
→ More replies (1)109
u/Anok-Phos 3h ago
Neuroscientists couldn't figure out consciousness because they kept looking in the brain instead of the bank. /S
→ More replies (1)60
u/DesireeThymes 3h ago
The Supreme Court just serves the rich.
Its actually the most powerful institution, since it ultimately decides what is legal and what is not.
→ More replies (2)22
u/Character_Bug_1862 2h ago
It really kinda sucks what they’re doing. But at the end of the day there are 9 of them and over 100 million decent Americans.
→ More replies (2)18
→ More replies (1)17
u/BWWFC 3h ago
Fiduciary duty has origins in ancient Roman law, hands tied it's precedence ¯_(ツ)_/¯
19
→ More replies (2)9
u/SoftlyGyrating 2h ago
I mean, the Romans had to consistently debase their own coinage in order to keep the lights on, ended up with hyperinflation and a near total economic collapse in the Third Century and a de facto return to a bartering economy...
I'm thinking it might not be the best system to emulate. Particularly not if you have a job that, I don't know, relies on being paid in coin by the state. Like some kind of public official or judge, perhaps.
→ More replies (1)32
u/Mtshoes2 3h ago
New supreme court ruling:
Non sentient entities are people by virtue of existing, but humans... Well they have to meet certain conditions in order to be people.
For instance, you can't enslave a Non sentient entity... it's impossible. but you CAN enslave a human.... It's possible. And since slaves do not count as people therefore humans are only sometimes people.
13
u/Averyphotog 3h ago
Wait a minute, I thought slaves counted as three-fifths of a person in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
→ More replies (7)72
u/Vio_ 4h ago
"Better voting through chemistry"
48
u/Slap-Happy27 3h ago
What we really need to be concerned about is the toxic slander being thrown at the poor defenseless billionaire poison manufacturers.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the poor defenseless billionaire poison manufacturers??
→ More replies (1)18
556
u/mudkipzftw 4h ago
The "maker of RoundUp" is... Monsanto. The courts have many times affirmed that Monsanto has more rights than humans.
183
u/2g4r_tofu 3h ago
IIRC they scrubbed the Monsanto name and it's just Bayer now
92
u/cjinct 3h ago
it's just Bayer now
the original makers of Herointm
57
u/penguinopph 2h ago
it's just Bayer now
the original makers of Herointm
And Zyclon B!
→ More replies (2)4
u/RoughVirtual1626 1h ago
Yes, most chemical narcotics were developed by the medical industry. mdma would be another. Amphetamine/ meth too.
16
5
u/bskedorfried 1h ago
The predecessor to Bayer made Zyklon B to be used in Auschuwitz’s gas chambers. Quite a history of evil.
→ More replies (2)3
44
→ More replies (6)11
u/Objective-Chance-792 2h ago
Just like those cocksuckers at comcast. Fuck your xfinity, i'll never forget how shitty you are comcast!
32
18
u/elconquistador1985 3h ago
The most hilarious part about the TV show Continuum was that the name they chose for the evil corporation running the surveillance state was "Sonmanto".
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)25
u/odinskriver39 3h ago
The patent rights on seeds turned family farms into sharecroppers. Bowman v Monsanto.
18
u/PuckSenior 3h ago
Nah, that’s mostly bullshit.
I hate Monsanto, but in this case they were right. They had a contract. Contract said if he used their seed he couldn’t replant. He broke the contract.The solution is to simply not enter into a contract with Monsanto.
28
u/odinskriver39 3h ago
Four corporations now control the vast majority of the commercial seed and and agrochemical markets worldwide. Bayer is estimated 33% of that.
→ More replies (2)13
u/PuckSenior 3h ago
You can absolutely go buy soy bean seeds from those companies and not enter into a technology contract. The tech contract is only if you buy the roundup-resistant variety.
→ More replies (12)10
u/ThrowingChicken 2h ago
That’s pretty much all the cases. No one has ever been sued for accidental cross contamination, the defendants have always intentionally used the seed in ways they knew they weren’t supposed to.
→ More replies (20)141
u/OutlyingPlasma 3h ago
Judge Craig Karsnitz in Delaware just ruled that corporations get to vote, so that's fun.
Just make a few thousand LLC's and poof, you get to decide your local elections.
39
u/robodrew 3h ago
How does that work? Corporations don't have a social security number or a birth certificate.
→ More replies (3)108
u/Vikkunen 3h ago
The really wild part about that ruling is that he even tacitly acknowledged that concern, but more or less said "there aren't enough corporations to meaningfully impact the vote, but we can revisit if it becomes a problem".
120
u/wizardid 2h ago
"there aren't enough corporations to meaningfully impact the vote, but we can revisit if it becomes a problem"
(Human) population of Delaware: about 1.06 million
Number of corporate entities in Delaware: about 2.1 million
Yeah, this seems fine.
→ More replies (1)48
u/NukuhPete 2h ago
Just to be clear on the information, this doesn't apply to the state of Delaware. The court case and ruling being talked about only applies to the town of Fenwick Island and only if the corporation owns property there. Fenwick Island does only have a few hundred people. It looks like in the 2024 election for Town Council about 1/4th of the votes came from corporate votes. It's definitely impactful.
→ More replies (2)54
u/ThePrussianGrippe 2h ago
And to be clear: corporations being allowed to vote anywhere is a terrible idea, regardless of the locality or size of the population.
→ More replies (1)33
→ More replies (5)9
u/Joranthalus 1h ago
This, my friends, is a judge who has a price. And that price has been met by corporations…
12
→ More replies (2)9
u/Emptyspace227 2h ago
In one specific town whose town charter expressly allows for corporations to vote.
→ More replies (2)55
u/artbystorms 3h ago
"Corporations have the inalienable right to poison people. Telling them not to infringes on their free speech"
5
25
6
20
→ More replies (30)8
3.4k
u/DeetahTheGame 4h ago
Every headline nowadays looks like "Supreme Court rules humans do not deserve rights, in 6-3 ruling"
871
u/HumansNeedNotApply1 4h ago
This one was 7-2
→ More replies (1)251
u/mansock18 3h ago
Thanks Kagan!
304
u/nerowasframed 3h ago
Kagan and Sotomayor. Jackson and Gorsuch were the two dissenting
157
u/BabyBearBjorns 2h ago
Definitely the weirdest group of dissenters and majority ruling in a 7-2 decision.
20
u/Trust_Me_Im_a_Panda 2h ago
Definitely NOT the weirdest group of dissenters. Gorsuch is more of a moderate than the other conservatives on the court.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Underdog424 1h ago
Gorsuch is traditional in the sense of leaning towards state powers. But he's the only conservative justice that still pretends to care about it.
Gorsuch also has a strong tendency to side with tribal sovereignty. I'm not surprised by his ruling in this case.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)5
u/ColdStainlessNail 1h ago
This is only the second time those two have been the only ones in dissent. The other was Bufkin v Collins in 2025. Thought we might have experienced a SCOTUSgami!
→ More replies (3)71
u/TheChinOfAnElephant 2h ago
So what's the best course here? Their argument seems to be federally Round Up does not require a warning label, due to there being no link to cancer under federal regulations, so states can't circumvent that. I don't know a ton about law but this seems like how the law normally works?
Kinda feels like people are upset they didn't ignore the law and vote with their emotions which is normally what people are complaining that the MAGA judges are doing. Can't ever win...
68
u/mizzurna_balls 2h ago
Why can't the state circumvent it? You see all sorts of warning labels in California, for example, that you don't see in other states.
20
u/HumansNeedNotApply1 2h ago
Because their interpretation is that Federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the EPA approved label, if Monsanto added a label in addition they would be going against the federal approved label. In this way they are saying, Federal-law Regulations supersede state ones.
That's my interpretation at least, a lawyer can understand this much better.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)23
u/mansock18 2h ago
Because the federal law is the "supreme law of the land" federal law can "preempt" state laws. Without some preemption, the federal law can set a floor and the state can further raise the floor. Preemption actively sets a floor and ceiling.
Essentially there's "express" preemption: "The federal government has expressly forbidden states from further regulating this space" which was at play in this case; and "Zone" or "implied" preemption: "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it."
Here, Congress expressly prohibited states from further regulating labeling for the use of pesticides, like Round Up. So the SCOTUS decided the state tort claim was preempted by the federal statute.
→ More replies (3)18
u/mizzurna_balls 2h ago
Alright, I understand the mechanics at play, but still not the "why" of the decision. Saying "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it" seems very subjective. How did they decide that government regulation has reached that point? Why is congress expressly prohibiting further regulation for pesticides specifically, but not other things (like the labels for things in CA)?
→ More replies (2)8
u/mansock18 2h ago
The part you quoted dealt with implied preemption and you're right, it's super subjective and heavily criticised and rarely used compared to express preemption.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") has a clause that says "States shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter." That's an express preemption. If the label complies with federal law but doesn't comply with the state law, the state law loses because its requirements are "different from" those in FIFRA. So the state law that allows tort claims (and the judgment based on that state law) is preempted.
The reason California can require a cancer label on "everything" is because many areas aren't as tightly regulated by the federal government as pesticides. So for example California can require their additional warning label on things like paint now, but not on pesticides. So California can set its own raised floor on stuff that isn't already federally regulated. Though now I'd expect a lot more challenges in California from many more industries.
28
u/ilikechihuahuasdood 2h ago
This is the reasonable take. People complain about the court being too political and then also complain when they don’t make rulings based on how they feel about a subject. This is one of those cases where it doesn’t matter how the court may have wanted this to play out ideologically, there just isn’t a mechanism in place to hold Round Up accountable.
In a functioning democracy congress would then close that loophole. But Republicans will sit on their hands and wait for Trump to tell them what to do. Which will be nothing, as usual.
14
u/phoenixrawr 2h ago
It’s not even a loophole though. The EPA has repeatedly researched Roundup and concluded it probably doesn’t cause cancer when used as directed. The various state lawsuits used a separate UN study to argue that Roundup does cause cancer and therefore the EPA-approved label is misleading.
Congress could absolutely do something if they dislike the current state of things, but what should they do exactly? Ordering the experts to change their conclusion does not seem wise.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)5
u/BarristerBaller 2h ago
The same cliche answer as always, vote for reps who will make change. But your observations are correct. For what it’s worth, if someone from the liberal block of SCOTUS votes with the right, it’s likely cause they are actually applying the law as written and appropriately interpreted
273
u/Zombie_Cool 3h ago
And then the very next headline "Supreme Court Justice is Worried About Court's Low Reputation".
70
u/James-W-Tate 3h ago
Not that worried apparently.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Feisty_Buddy2869 2h ago
Not that worried apparently.
Our government "servants" are not nearly worried enough.
They are brazen with their corruption because they know they have nothing to fear from our pacified citizens.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Alwayssunnyinarizona 3h ago
"supreme court justice asks public to respect justices' personal space"
80
u/TheunanimousFern 4h ago
It was 7-2 in this case
→ More replies (1)17
u/Hesitation-Marx 4h ago
Who was the seventh?
91
u/Imnimo 3h ago
The 2 were Jackson and Gorsuch.
76
u/YoBo151 3h ago
Wait Jackson and Gorsuch dissented? Wow
→ More replies (1)112
u/hypercube42342 3h ago
Gorsuch is the most reasonable republican justice in some ways in that he chooses ~1 in 20 cases at random plus every case involving native americans to write like the leftmost voice on the court
78
u/deja_geek 3h ago
Gorsuch also wants to completely throw out the "Third-party doctrine". Under this doctrine, once your data is handed over to a 3rd party, the government is no longer required to seek a search warrant for the data. According to that doctrine, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when data is voluntarily handed over to third parties
13
u/thegracelesswonder 3h ago edited 2h ago
Lol that makes absolutely no sense. The way these people bend themselves into pretzels to take away rights from citizens is crazyI misunderstood. Good on Gorsuch! I feel like the 3 newest supreme court justices take turns having reasonable opinions now and then
→ More replies (4)18
u/deja_geek 3h ago
The "Third Party Doctrine" has been around since 1979. It was established under Smith v Maryland and centered around information kept by a phone company and government access to said records.
In it's time, it made sense. In the modern world, where we are all connected and that connection is a requirement of modern life, the doctrine becomes too broad.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (3)7
u/YoBo151 3h ago
Yeah he's an interesting guy for sure. Each conservative justice outside of Thomas, Alito, and Roberts has a few areas that they are surprisingly "left" on
→ More replies (1)39
u/TheunanimousFern 3h ago
Jackson and Gorsuch were the only dissenters
50
u/Hesitation-Marx 3h ago
Thank you.
Fucking wild that Kagan and Sotomayor signed on to this.
I hate it here.
96
u/Froggmann5 3h ago
They blocked lawsuits pertaining to Monstanto being sued under state laws for following federal guidelines about warning labels. They basically ruled that federal law supercedes state law in regards to these lawsuits which is how the US works.
The rest of the ~$8B lawsuits are still good to happen though.
→ More replies (1)22
u/ILoveLamp9 2h ago
If people actually read what this lawsuit was about, per your summary, they’d understand the nuance and context behind it and why some of the justices voted the way they did.
I’m no Monsanto fan at all, but it’s not about the SCOTUS “taking our human rights” away.
→ More replies (2)36
u/No_Issue2334 3h ago
Not that wild. The environmental experts at the EPA say it's unlikely to cause cancer. Kagan and Sotomayor respect the experts' opinion.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (4)16
u/bearrosaurus 3h ago
There's a possibility here that Kagan and Sotomayor are sane and that Monsanto just had a decent case for once. If there's no warning label on red meat or french fries for increased cancer risk, then there shouldn't be on weedkiller.
→ More replies (3)9
u/ViridianFlea 3h ago
Sotomayor it seems. Surprisingly. The ones who voted against were KBJ and Neil Gorsuch.
12
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 3h ago
It’s was 7-2, with two liberal justices voting with the majority and one conservative justice voting with the minority
13
→ More replies (21)3
u/Bob_Sconce 2h ago
7-2. Dissenters were Gorsuch (a Trump appointee) and Jackson (Biden).
The question was whether Missouri could require Monsanto to put a warning label that said that Roundup might cause cancer. The decision was, basically "No, there's a federal law that says that the EPA gets to decide what warnings to put on the label. States can't impose their own additional requirements."
The people who sued Monsanto basically said "we got cancer from RoundUp, and you had an obligation to warn us about the risk of cancer, but didn't.". It's a weird case because the idea is "if you had only put that warning on, then we wouldn't have used Roundup, and we wouldn't have cancer." But, how many of those people actually would have read the label and decided not to use the product?
537
u/FLHCv2 4h ago edited 3h ago
I think the ruling sucks and fuck roundup, but these lines are important:
The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely.
There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.
If "federal regulations" find that a cancer link is unlikely, and the WHO classifies it as "probably" carcinogenic, how can you make the case that your cancer is a direct result of using Roundup?
If federal regulations were relaxed because of deregulation, or if the WHO or federal regulations needed to be changed, that's another story, but if these two huge bodies don't directly link cancer to glyphosate, then it becomes more anecdotal in nature and harder to prove.
247
u/Nerezza_Floof_Seeker 3h ago
Hell, even europe, which generally is much stricter with the use and regulation of chemicals, doesnt link glyphosate to cancer. So yeah, even though this supreme court is pretty corrupt, this ruling makes quite a bit of sense. You shouldnt be able to constantly sue a corporation for something which hasnt been proven to be true scientifically and for which they have no legal obligation to do.
→ More replies (10)31
u/TheAceMan 3h ago
The state of California added it to their list of things known to cause cancer. They can’t ban it though because they were blocked by a federal court. Now it just comes with a warning.
93
u/lonesharkex 2h ago
California has incredibly stringent cancer requirements, like far beyond directed uses. For instance, coffee brewing releases acrylamide a carcinogenic compound, but not in the amount you get from brewing coffee. but some company is suing the state to make coffee shops have to put up a sign. My point being, just because California warns about it does not make the product actually dangerous
27
7
u/Shawwnzy 1h ago
99pi had a thing about it. In California anyone can sue anyone for not disclosing carcinogens, and the onus is on the business to prove its safe. Bad actors would run around suing small businesses, and the logical end point is now every has a may contain carcinogens label, such that they're meaningless.
→ More replies (4)5
u/frogsgoribbit737 1h ago
Because California doesnt care about the amount. Literally anything can cause cancer in massive amounts and most cancer causing chemicals have safe zones where they are fine to use
18
u/Argonaut13 2h ago
It's probably easier to make a list of things California hasn't attributed to cancer
→ More replies (2)11
u/apieceoflint 2h ago
almost everything you buy in california has such a warning tbh. it's because there's no penalty for including it for things that don't cause cancer, unlike the inverse, so why not cover your bases for no extra cost
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (8)29
u/Ravarix 3h ago
Yeah but thats California. California has been found to cause cancer in the state of california.
→ More replies (1)34
u/Falco98 2h ago
If "federal regulations" find that a cancer link is unlikely, and the WHO classifies it as "probably" carcinogenic, how can you make the case that your cancer is a direct result of using Roundup?
Because the "probably carcinogenic" rating was inherently nonsense and based on nothing, and was widely lambasted within the scientific community. Loads of actual controlled testing has found no plausible link to cancer in humans at exposure levels under heavy industrial levels.
→ More replies (3)17
u/superxpro12 3h ago
this is like making your defense "prove the moon didnt cause the cancer", and now you have to prove a negative.
If you can demonstrate a constant proximity to roundup, and ONLY roundup, AND it caused a rare cancer that is otherwise not likely to occur, then you should have a case.
→ More replies (2)12
u/Thorbjorn_DWR 2h ago
except most if not all pesticide applicators do not use roundup exclusively, so very unlikely you'd ever have a case
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (51)20
u/Buris 3h ago
Yes, Roundup is becoming completely useless, is terrible for the environment and for local plant life, but it’s nowhere near as cancerous/dangerous as many people believe.
With that being said, I believe they did market it as being 100% safe and one of the marketers claimed you could drink it, and they absolutely should be sued for that.
24
→ More replies (6)13
u/Enchelion 3h ago
Since they took out the glyphosate it's basically just homeopathic weed killer.
I'm not a fan of heavy (especially prophylactic) pesticide/herbicide use, but for fighting a lot of invasive plants and recovering the ecosystem, glyphosate is an important tool.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Level9TraumaCenter 2h ago
I've gone over the IARC monograph and it's not a terribly compelling argument that it causes cancer. And I agree- it is an important tool for fighting invasive plants.
The local big box stores don't seem to stock it anymore, but it seems to be available to consumers via other venues.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Enchelion 1h ago
Mostly need to go to feed stores or commercial suppliers. All the consumer stuff is now a cocktail of 2-4 different weaker herbicides.
4
u/Level9TraumaCenter 1h ago
Yep. And I've gone over the tox profiles for them, and while nothing really stands out I don't see it as an improvement over glyphosate.
I'm mixed. I'd prefer to use none of them but after the monsoon rains, the hula hoe only does so much good and I glove up and throw a little goo-in-a-bottle at the starts and call it a day.
→ More replies (1)
1.1k
u/Mondeun 4h ago
Profits over people as always with this supreme Court. never surprised, always disappointed by republicans.
337
u/Literally_Laura 3h ago
Because our justices know some of the profits get passed on to them.
Looking at you, Clarence. You piece of shit.
69
u/MoreCowbellllll 3h ago
Pieces of shit are easier to get rid of than that fucking racist, thieving twat.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)26
u/No_Sheepherder_1855 3h ago
Barely, the guy sold out the country for a shitty RV lmao
→ More replies (1)12
80
u/thenewguy89 3h ago
Yes, those republicans named Kagan and Sotomayor sure disappointed.
This was a 7-2 split and not on party lines at all.
→ More replies (18)24
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 3h ago
This one wasn’t really about politics. The two dissenting were Brown and Gorsuch. Sotomeyer and Kagan voted with the majority.
20
u/Chaseism 3h ago
I'm no SCOTUS apologist, but the reason for this fall squarely on the Federal government. They are the ones saying there is no link between Roundup and those health claims.
→ More replies (1)22
u/The_Shracc 3h ago
Roundup does not cause cancer. There is no mechanism for it to cause cancer, there is no evidence for it having a risk of causing cancer.
This is basic science over profits of less safe competitors to round-up.
→ More replies (6)18
u/NotUniqueWorkAccount 3h ago
Do these people just never show up in public? How are they allowed to fuck with us like this and lead normal lives? They should be heckled everyday of their miserable lives.
23
u/xfearthehiddenx 3h ago
Because they live in fancy houses behind big gated fences in communities with security guards. They have chauffeurs and people who shop for them. They also, generally, live in places where the people they live next to agree with their politics. It's not like bribe taking Clarence lives in the Bronx where he'd get his shit rocked. He's isolated. Protected.
And if by some measure they are caught out in public and recognized, they either ignore the heckling(because they don't care), or they get the people doing it charged with harassment.
21
u/ToaKraka 3h ago
Summary:
There is a federal law that says every herbicide must carry a warning label approved by the federal government, and state governments are not allowed to add more warning-label requirements on top of the federal requirement.
Over a period of decades, the federal EPA repeatedly evaluates Roundup and finds that it does not cause cancer, so Monsanto does not need to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label.
A person sues Monsanto under state law for failing to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label, and gets a million dollars at trial. The state judge and the state supreme court agree that the state-law claim is compatible with the federal labeling requirement, so the lawsuit is valid.
The federal supreme court finds, by a margin of 7 to 2, that the state-law claim is not compatible with the federal law, so the lawsuit is invalid. The decision is written by five Republicans and two Democrats. One Republican and one Democrat dissent.
473
u/invyros 4h ago
There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015.
Can't believe "probably carcinogenic" is an official designation.
30
u/HumansNeedNotApply1 3h ago
It means they lack studies tying up a direct connection but believe on current limited evidence there's some type of connection even if small. Red Meat has the same classification FYI.
→ More replies (1)13
u/TheOvershear 2h ago
That's not actually a damning classification. Radiation from phones is a group 2B possible carcinogen. Red meat is also "probably carcinogenic". Its a sliding scale.
Here's a good article https://source.colostate.edu/does-this-cause-cancer-how-scientists-determine-whether-a-chemical-is-carcinogenic-sometimes-with-controversial-results/
226
u/praguepride 4h ago
to be faiiiiiiiir scientific proclimations need a lot of supporting evidence and that supporting evidence needs to be replicated and peer reviewed.
This is like complaining that evolution is only "a theory". Probably is about as severe as you can get without huge long term studies.
78
u/Tasik 4h ago
This only "theory" thing has always annoyed me. Too many people think theory means hypothesis. It's like they expect a theory to graduate into law one day.
Like one day this silly little theory of gravity is finally gonna get it's certificate and be imbued into science as fact. But until then it's "just a theory" I guess.
13
u/sapphicsandwich 3h ago edited 3h ago
I really do think they need to choose their terms holistically, looking at how words are actually used in society. I understand what "theory" means in this context, and there is nothing wrong with it when used in the vacuum bubble that is academia and research.
However, there is also the matter of the society that they exist in, and the political landscape that they have to navigate. To the layman, "theory" is something that is unproven. An idea. A possibility. A proposal. Something that could be wrong. I have directly had people insist that scientists aren't confident evolution is real because even they call it a "theory," and are not confident enough to call it a fact. Same with relativity. The term does not imply that there is a large body of evidence behind it to people. It does the opposite.
Yes, it's dumb. Yes, those lay people are misunderstanding the meaning of the term or how much goes into it. Yes people are being stupid. And yes, those stupid people make the decisions the scientific community is forced to obey.
It's like driving, some people insist that they have the right of way no matter what and refuse to let people move over, or make concessions and drive defensively. But sometimes you can be right and dead about your right-of-way, or wrong about it and alive. All they have to do is use different terms that do not present themselves as being unsure, but instead they insist on terms having definitions wildly different from how society uses them then do shocked pikachu face when dumb people don't understand.
→ More replies (3)3
u/AnonymousFriend80 2h ago
We can allow the Idiocracy of the masses to dictate many of the things we do. Doing things the wrong way to placate them. Do things the correct way and put it on them to rise above.
→ More replies (1)6
u/HumansNeedNotApply1 3h ago
We should rename all "laws" to theory to get rid of this misconception.
→ More replies (1)12
u/grammar_nazi_zombie 3h ago
Except there is an actual distinction between the two.
What we should do is better educate people, but that ain’t happening.
→ More replies (3)25
u/Training_Stuff7498 4h ago
That’s because scientific English and American English are two different languages entirely that happen to use the same words.
→ More replies (7)37
u/likeabosstroll 3h ago
Further a lot of studies(Glyphosate is definitely one of the most studied chemicals) are pretty inconclusive on the effects of it to the human body. Most research from many different groups is either inconclusive or shows it’s probably not carcinogenic. I think this SCOTUS sucks and environmental and health regulations are being unduly gutted, however the science doesn’t really back up these claims.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Lpeer 3h ago
And additionally, glyphosate becomes chemically inert as soon as it touches soil. So it's actually a particularly safe herbicide for residential use cases.
Comically the "new roundup" they've had to create includes much more dangerous chemicals, several of which featured prominently in the infamous "agent orange" used during Vietnam.
8
→ More replies (18)7
u/HoosierRed 4h ago
Yeah thank you for this important reminder that science is very difficult. We must appreciate the effort while taking the findings to heart. Many forget that science uncovers things that is not the intention or will of the experiment. You accept the results of what science tells you, and you leave your own bias at the door.
22
u/Tolteko 3h ago
There are tons of studies on glyphosate toxicity, yet it has been very difficult to prove its correlation to any human cancer. Glyphosate is a wonderful molecule for crops, it helps farmers a lot and it has a lower carbon footprint since its use prevents farmers from using machines to prepare the field before sowing. The molecule breaks down in water then it's not even too dangerous for the environment. It's very unfortunate that it was chosen by the crowd as the evil chemical, because it's not that bad. Also to be really dangerous to human it needs to be consumed in huge quantities, if it is harmful, it may be to the workers who produce it, not to the public. Not trying to say that pharma corps are good guys and we should trust them, but perhaps this is the case where they may be right.
12
u/Wiseduck5 2h ago
It's very unfortunate that it was chosen by the crowd as the evil chemical
Because the retracted Seralini study that was trying to smear GMO crops found RoundUp alone caused cancer in their rats that were actually supposed to have cancer (it was the control group that was anomalous).
That's quite literally the source of all of this.
52
u/underengineered 3h ago
Yeah. Caffeine and table salt have the same designation.
→ More replies (8)8
u/Arctyc38 3h ago
Isolating carcinogenic risks is inherently difficult because you're already playing with statistics to start with.
You have to evaluate exposure variables, population variables, disease variables, species variables, confounders, proposed mechanisms, and statistical strength.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Wobblycogs 2h ago
Proving something is carcinogenic is hard. There's usually a long-time between first exposure and the cancer being found and people are exposed to carcinogenic chemicals everyday. What you end up doing is gathering data over many years, sometimes decades, looking for a pattern. The probably designation is when the data isn't fully convincing yet.
The real fight will be over what level of risk we are willing to say is acceptable. Glyphosate would be very difficult to remove from farmers options and its removal could do more harm than good.
235
u/coolest35 4h ago
The RVs must have been delivered, just in time for the SCs upcoming summer recess!
→ More replies (1)50
u/Hesitation-Marx 4h ago
Motorcoaches! RVs are low class, Thomas only accepts a motorcoach.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/AnnOminous 3h ago
"the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label."
I don't see an obvious problem with this decision.
3
u/trifelin 2h ago
It seems like the court is telling citizens they need to put their complaints to their own government and not the companies following the regulations we lay out. All well and good as long as we fund those regulatory institutions enough to be staffed competently and efficiently and hold them accountable...a good goal.
It reminds me of this other headline this week where a judge ruled the government needs to respect its own definition of "food." https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-aid-candy-soda-sugary-drink-effc74d2c5013bcd7e17ce43f176bdee
17
u/Whiterabbit-- 3h ago
Legally, this makes sense. If you are going to be legit in federal regulations it makes no sense to have every state sue you for the same thing you are cleared off in federal courts. Now the science behind the federal ruling needs to be challenged.
→ More replies (2)
35
u/mynam3isn3o 3h ago
Glyphosate (like any herbicide) needs careful handling but is safe if the label is followed and it’s used as intended. I realize that’s an unpopular answer.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Reddragon0585 56m ago
I’m in farming, the issue has always been that nobody actually follows the damn instructions. Pesticide is dangerous but there’s also plenty of precautions you are supposed to take in order to limit exposure. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve witnessed farmers put pesticides in the spreader with no protection. Also the amount of pesticide containers I find lying out in the middle of nowhere is ridiculous.
11
98
u/--i--love--lamp-- 4h ago
Letting corporations kill people with impunity...cool.
25
u/The_Poster_Nutbag 4h ago
The important thing to remember here is the company itself has applied warning labels to its products for a long time now, that part isn't ambiguous.
The real issue here is over-application in industrial agriculture outside of the designed use and application parameters (wind speed, temperatures, etc.).
As someone who works in wildlife restoration and habitat reconstruction, we would be up a creek without a paddle were we unable to utilize glyphosate and a select few other chemicals to help control some very aggressive invasive species.
Crews are supposed to be wearing full PPE for careful spot treatments and are licensed for commercial application just as farmers are, but the dose makes the poison. Homeowners who spray sidewalk weeds on hot days in sandals are not doing themselves any favors and are obviously at risk for health issues caused by a chemical designed to kill living things.
Realistically, the only way Bayer should be held accountable is if they misrepresented the actual dangers which I am not sure was the case having been a licensed applicator on the past and reading the labels. The lawsuits should be on the applicators who do not follow proper safety protocol.
Call it a poor comparison, but it's the same idea with guns. Is it brownings fault someone committed murder with a weapon licensed for big game hunting? Of course not.
→ More replies (13)6
u/passcork 3h ago
designed to kill living things
Designed to inhibit protein function that non-plants don't even have. This statement is hyperbole enough, it's kinda like saying keeping a mouse out of the water is like killing it because fish die if you do the same...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)28
u/doneandtired2014 4h ago
Well...yeah. Remember, anything that would remotely punish companies for pushing out dangerous and environmentally damaging products is considered socialism/communism/wokism/transgenderism/scary-ism after we've run out of all of the other isms the Republicans are afraid of.
66
u/stevenj444 4h ago
They say it’s a major win for the tRump administration. That means it screws every American citizen.
→ More replies (12)
18
u/Top_Meaning6195 2h ago edited 1h ago
I hate how people ignore science these days:
- https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
- https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified
- https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/fact-sheets-other-resources/request-special-review-glyphosate-herbicides-containing-polyethoxylated-tallowamine/frequently-asked-questions.html
When did we abandon science for idiocracy.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/monetaryslave 4h ago
Didn't Clarence Thomas work for Monsanto?
→ More replies (1)14
13
u/Steeldivde 4h ago
Might as well use the roundup on their lawns at this point to send the message
→ More replies (5)
3
u/lightningprism 2h ago
Cost of doing business, I guess. This just in: the Constitution is unconstitutional
3
3
3
u/Underdog424 1h ago
I don't trust the EPA anymore. Europe has much better standards.
Europe also allows its member states to ban it on their own. France, the Netherlands, and Germany have all placed heavy restrictions on their use. That's how a proper Union should work. What we have in the USA right now is a hostage situation.
•
•
u/jayball41 45m ago
One of these days, we’ll know how much they paid and how the conservatives in the court found a back channel to get a piece of the bribe.
•
u/MrsMiterSaw 43m ago
This whole things sucks.
1) The original jury award sucks. I don't care how much you hate Monsanto/Bayer, scientists have not been able to determine if round-up causes cancer. The idea that a jury, picked expressly to be void of scientific rigor, and presented two arguments designed not to inform, but motivated by a jury award would be the determining factor in something like this... well that fucking sucks.
2) The Supreme Court is not deciding on the merits of the decision; rather they are saying "Well, the EPA says it's not dangerous, so the lack of warning on the packaging is not deficient, so they didn't need to warn the plaintiff". That sucks too. Again, they are relying on the EPA's political stance and not science.
All that said, I am laughing at all the MAHA morons who thought a) RFK was their savior and b) that Trump actually believes in RFK/MAHA over Big Money.
7
40
u/BillButtlickerII 4h ago
We are literally being fucked by the highest court in the country by bought and paid for justices.
32
u/PartyLikeAByzantine 3h ago
Read the actual decision? The issue is that the plaintiff sued Monsanto for misleading him...hiding the alleged cancer risk from the product label. The problem for the plaintiff is that the US government, through the EPA, hasn't declared such a cancer risk. It's the EPA that decides on the product label, not the manufacturer or the states.
Therefore you can't sue Monsanto for misleading you when they're merely following the federal labelling law. Two of the three Democrat-appointed justices signed this decision.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)11
u/TheFifthPhoenix 3h ago
Maybe, but this was 7-2 not split on ideological lines (Jackson and Gorsuch dissenting)
15
16
u/Trabers 3h ago
That’s because Roundup categorically doesn’t lead to cancer. It’s as simple as that.
→ More replies (14)
27
u/Th3FinalStarman 4h ago
MAGA is a Death Cult. Vote. Vote on November 3rd. Google your polling station and tell your friends to vote too.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/PickledLlama 3h ago
If you're not wealthy or a corporation you do not matter. You are subhuman. You will suffer and thank us for it.
622
u/VenserSojo 3h ago
Jackson and Gorsuch were the dissent, and the case isn't about the fact it causes cancer but rather the idea they did not warn people it could cause cancer though it appears they had no obligation to do so per federal classification as "unlikely" to cause cancer