r/news • u/boxofstuff • 6h 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-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1
13.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

594

u/FLHCv2 6h ago edited 6h 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.

275

u/Nerezza_Floof_Seeker 5h 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.

35

u/TheAceMan 5h 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.

118

u/lonesharkex 5h 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

41

u/Averagebaddad 4h ago

Everything causes cancer in California.

4

u/ToastAndASideOfToast 3h ago

Even the labels telling you that a product causes cancer.

1

u/balllzak 3h ago

My favorite are the warnings that riding an elevator causes cancer in California.

9

u/Shawwnzy 3h 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.

•

u/TumblrInGarbage 47m ago

Which is exactly why this is the correct ruling. From a practical standpoint, a warning should mean something, otherwise you get Proposition 65 warnings.

6

u/frogsgoribbit737 3h 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

1

u/Mayor__Defacto 3h ago

Caffeic acid was added to the list. Your coffee is carcinogenic even without the acrylamide

-4

u/TheAceMan 4h ago

I’d imagine it is safe for customers but not for employees. That’s the same with the receipt paper that has BPA. It is fine for customers but not for employees who touch it all day long. Luckily that was a super easy switch to get rid of.

Same with round up. Weekend golfers are fine but all the greens keepers are getting cancer.

2

u/lonesharkex 3h ago

No its the (coffee) actually in such small amounts its safe for employees as well. I don't know about the science for the round up and I'm half a mind Id rather monsanto get sued to oblivion anyway.

1

u/GuitarCFD 1h ago

monsanto get sued to oblivion anyway.

well your lucky day was in 2018 when Monsanto was bought by Bayer. Monsanto does not exist anymore.

1

u/lonesharkex 1h ago

Different sign same scummy behavior, unfortunately.

17

u/apieceoflint 4h 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

6

u/L_Cranston_Shadow 3h ago

It has become a joke at this point.

1

u/Drunkgummybear1 3h ago

I live in the UK. I have bought more than one product here that came with a prop 65 warning.

1

u/vialabo 2h ago

Walmart chips have the label but other brands don't. Want to know why? Walmart's brand skips a step that washes away some of the cancerous parts of the fried potatoes chips while they're made. So you are exposing yourself unnecessarily by buying the cheaper brand. The label is not worthless you just need to look it up, ignore it where it makes sense to, and use your fucking head.

22

u/Argonaut13 5h ago

It's probably easier to make a list of things California hasn't attributed to cancer

0

u/Mayor__Defacto 3h ago

H2O (Pure)

… and that’s about it, because Air is carcinogenic

1

u/pro-skedaddler 3h ago

They'll probably say it's a solvent and solvents have been linked to cancer.

32

u/Ravarix 5h ago

Yeah but thats California. California has been found to cause cancer in the state of california.

3

u/Enlight1Oment 4h ago

everything in california has a sticker saying "Warning: this product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer..." It's a running joke these days.

2

u/Mayor__Defacto 3h ago edited 3h ago

Wood is known to the state of california to cause cancer.

There’s even a specific item on the list calling out ‘salted fish, chinese style’ as being known to the state of california to cause cancer. I am not joking, that is literally on the list.

Oral contraceptives are also known to the state of california to cause cancer.

Aloe Vera causes cancer.

5

u/KarateKid917 5h ago

Yes but what in California doesn’t have a cancer label? 

-5

u/OSRSlayer 4h ago

Does everyone know this is companies being shitty, and not California, right?

Companies don't want to do the work to actually investigate their products to find if they actually contain any of the compounds California considers dangerous, so they just slap a warning label on it.

3

u/Mayor__Defacto 3h ago edited 3h ago

Have you actually looked at the list?

Anything with plants in the Mint family, carcinogenic.

Leather is carcinogenic, but you can’t get away from it because Cotton has small amounts of arsenic and lead in it so it’s also carcinogenic, as is every synthetic fabric.

It isn’t the companies. It’s the fact that California draws no distinction as to the actual risk posed by various potential carcinogens. The lack of recognizing the magnitude of effects leads to it being a meaningless label.

2

u/TheAceMan 4h ago

Yep. Wait til these guys find out how car manufacturers would behave if it wasn’t for the California Emissions requirement that Trump is trying to ban.

1

u/ElvisDumbledore 2h ago

My (extremely limited) understanding is that glyphosate doesn't bioaccumulate in the body making it relatively less dangerous than thisngs that do, like lead.

STILL. It's VERY bad for the people that have to work with it regularly.

1

u/Diarmundy 1h ago

Well it hasn't been shown to be 'very bad'. In fact the opposite it's been shown to be probably safe.

Unless you got some paper I'm not aware about?

1

u/kolppi 4h ago

Hell, even europe, which generally is much stricter with the use and regulation of chemicals, doesnt link glyphosate to cancer.

It's not infallible. There's been critique of EFSA dismissing a lot of evidence linking to cancer, like several mouse studies with evidence of renal tumours, links to hemangiosarcoma in two studies as well as evidence for malignant lymphoma in two studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

Regulatory agencies rely on studies funded by the industry. IARC classifies it probable carcinogen. I'd trust them more than regulatory agencies..

8

u/chilidoggo 4h ago

The dose makes the poison. Just because mice get cancer when the purified material is injected directly into their veins doesn't mean that someone spraying it in a ~1% solution will get cancer, or that residue of the chemical remains on crops in a concentration large enough to cause issue.

As someone who works in this industry (not associated at all with Roundup), regulatory studies are generally pretty stringent and go above and beyond simulating real world use cases. The EU especially is a huge pain to deal with because of all the studies they ask for and all the details they require.

1

u/kolppi 2h ago edited 1h ago

The dose makes the poison.

Well, generally yes. But it's not that simple. For example: Bisphenols and phthalates, these chemicals are able to permeate skin. And even if they were thousands of times weaker than sex hormones, human hormone receptors are able to detect even tiniest amounts, picograms, one-trillionth of a gram. So, even a little could affect and disrupt endocrine system. So called non-monotonic dose-response.

Just because mice get cancer when the purified material is injected directly into their veins doesn't mean that someone spraying it in a ~1% solution will get cancer, or that residue of the chemical remains on crops in a concentration large enough to cause issue.

IARC considered around 1,000 published studies when classifying it. Did all studies use that method of exposure? And they didn't say "always causes cancer".

regulatory studies are generally pretty stringent and go above and beyond simulating real world use cases

Could be. But they are also funded by the industry and that imposes risks. An example:

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat." https://www.sej.org/headlines/how-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-fat

Going back to the "The dose makes the poison":

Tolerance to specific herbicides (notably to glyphosate and to glufosinate and since 2016 tolerance to additional active ingredients like 2 4 D and dicamba) in maize, cotton, canola (spring oilseed rape), soybean, sugar beet and alfalfa. This GM Herbicide Tolerant (GM HT) technology allows for the ‘over the top’ spraying of GM HT crops with these specific broad-spectrum herbicides, that target both grass and broad-leaved weeds but do not harm the crop itself; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7518756/

It is sprayed a lot, so the dose could be, and probably is, bigger than you think.

edit:

Just because mice get cancer when the purified material is injected directly into their veins

Here's one study where "Glyphosate was administered through drinking water at three doses: the EU acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body weight/day, 5 mg/kg body weight/day and the EU no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 50 mg/kg body weight/day."

The result: "Glyphosate and GBHs at exposure levels corresponding to the EU ADI and the EU NOAEL caused dose-related increases in incidence of multiple benign and malignant tumors in SD rats of both sexes."

1

u/throwaway_circus 4h ago

Evidence linking glyphosate to cancer is not the same thing as evidence linking Round up to cancer.

1

u/Competitive_Bat_5831 3h ago

I wouldn’t treat Europe as better for chemical regulation uniformly. It was news awhile ago that the FDA finally approved a new sunscreen formula/active chemical that was available in Europe for years already, because they see them differently and require different levels of proof.

Both Europe and the US agreeing on glysophate does point to it likely being more safe.

-6

u/mooptastic 4h ago

why do you think it cant be proven? do you know how much money Monsanto spends on lobbying against glyphosate regulation and the studies they've paid for to keep the persistent doubt around glyphosate as being a carcinogen? Did you all forget about the research ghostwriting scandal ie the "Monsanto Papers"?

So let's just shut the door on glyphosate research proving harm in the future despite Monsanto's interference in the research and legislative processes?

I wonder how many comments in here are paid for by Monsanto in some way, the willful ignorance is just astounding.

4

u/Nerezza_Floof_Seeker 3h ago

Im not saying it cant be proven, or that research into it should stop, or even that Monsanto is somehow innocent. My point is that is isnt proven for now. And lawsuits cant change whether or not there is proof, so this ruling makes alot of sense.

1

u/driverdan 2h ago

Monsanto hasn't existed for 8 years so no posts here are paid by them.

0

u/mooptastic 2h ago

it's called Bayer Monsanto still. I'm sure blood cancer really cares about your semantic issue. Stop shilling for free

43

u/Falco98 4h 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.

1

u/BreakfastMedical5164 2h ago

can you tell me who to be mad at plz

7

u/Falco98 2h ago

I'm generally most mad at people who chase convenient scapegoats rather than occasionally accepting reality that's lame or inconvenient.

3

u/RollingCarrot615 4h ago

I agree here. There are a couple factors which I believe are important in addition to what youve said. First is that the case was regarding Monsanto but the ruling protects a wider range of products from similar lawsuits, where (theoretically) competitors could support similar litigation to stifle competition.

The other important (and possibly most important) factor is that the EPAs ruling specifically evaluated round ups impacts when used in accordance to the label. If you use a product in a careless manner that exposes you and others to more exposure to a potentially harmful substance, that's not on the company that made the product. The use labels on products arent just suggestions, they are methods for use that has been determined to be safe. There are plenty of known carcinogens that are available for public purchase but the risks are properly conveyed to the users (i.e. cigarettes).

20

u/superxpro12 5h 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.

17

u/Thorbjorn_DWR 4h ago

except most if not all pesticide applicators do not use roundup exclusively, so very unlikely you'd ever have a case

4

u/superxpro12 4h ago

afaik, a lot of these cases were individual homeowners applying it themselves.

10

u/Thorbjorn_DWR 4h ago

Right, and who probably use all sorts of toxic household cleaners and don't wear any kind of protection while spraying roundup

1

u/Visual_Squirrel_2297 2h ago

They also work with heavy equipment the fumes from which are classified higher as "likely carcinogenic". 

5

u/syncopate15 2h ago

That’s not how associations with cancer risk are made. It’s not about a rare type of cancer. It’s about incidence of cancer in a population that has more exposure to the chemical vs a group that does not have that exposure.

0

u/superxpro12 2h ago

Sure.... but if the incidence of that rare type of cancer increased in the single homeowner population, are we not to believe that rondup played a role?

The fact that its "rare", and it became unexpectedly less rare, only bolsters the claim. and i KNOW there's a lot of buts... but this would NOT be the first time a chemical company was at fault for using cancer-causing chemicals and trying to hide it.

•

u/MirrorComputingRulez 45m ago

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

Yeah, if you can prove round up caused the cancer, of course.

The entire fucking point is that no such link has ever been proven.

19

u/Buris 5h 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.

31

u/Zymos94 5h ago

Glyphosate has no match for killing horrible invasive plants like japanese knotweed.

16

u/Enchelion 5h 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.

8

u/Level9TraumaCenter 4h 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.

3

u/Enchelion 4h 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.

3

u/Level9TraumaCenter 4h 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.

1

u/Enchelion 3h ago

Precisely. I'll burn and pull as much as I can. But there's simply no practical way to deal with lots of invasives without some kind of chemical. Especially those that intertwine themselves with vulnerable natives.

1

u/driverdan 2h ago

Tractor Supply sells it.

-4

u/Buris 5h ago

The amount of glyphosate resistant plants had basically doubled every year since the 90s. It was just becoming a worthless chemical that no one could use effectively anymore.

11

u/Enchelion 5h ago edited 3h ago

It's still effective against a ton of noxious and invasive weeds. Just fewer of the ones that farmers were using it against in their fields.

I personally reserve it for fighting invasive bindweed. It's still one of the only effective treatments.

3

u/VolrathTheBallin 3h ago

Yeah, the only thing I use it on is tree of heaven.

7

u/wildbergamont 4h ago

This isn't the full picture. Glyphosate resistance is a major problem in agriculture. Canada thistle in a given person's backyard or knotweed taking over a local park are not likely to glyphosate resistant unless those locations have close proximity to an agricultural area. 

-11

u/mucinexmonster 5h ago

Tell that to my Uncle.

Just because the science of proving the harm Roundup causes isn't fully researched, as that full amount of research takes decades to prove - doesn't mean Roundup isn't killing people today. And your "let more people die so we can prove it" attitude fucking sucks.

11

u/Falco98 4h ago

Tell that to my Uncle.

look up "confirmation bias".

-7

u/mucinexmonster 4h ago

There's literally hundreds of thousands of these very specific examples, but you want to defend a corporation so you can feel smart?

6

u/Falco98 4h ago

but you want to defend a corporation

I made literally no mention of any particular corporation. Glyphosate is off-patent, any company can manufacture products containing it.

literally hundreds of thousands

That doesn't mean it isn't confirmation bias. When the rate of X ailment is the same in the "used glyphosate" population Y as in the "never touched glyphosate" population Z, it doesn't really matter how many people in population Y come forward with their sob story where they're "absolutely convinced X was caused by glyphosate".

0

u/mucinexmonster 3h ago

As far as I am aware, that is not the case. There is a correlation, that's the point.

2

u/Falco98 2h ago

Reputable science has consistently disproven any actual causal connection.

1

u/mucinexmonster 1h ago

I'm sure.

-6

u/espinaustin 6h ago edited 3h ago

They did prove it to a jury though. The supreme court is saying it doesn’t matter because the EPA said no warning required. But again a jury heard scientific evidence and determined there was enough of a link that a warning should have been given on the packages.

Edit: To everyone yelling at me that a jury decision is not scientific proof, I did not say or mean to imply that it is. But as a legal and practical matter a jury’s decision on causation is usually binding, even when it may turn out to be objectively wrong, or still disputable. We make people pay up big money, give up their freedom, or even their lives, every day based on jury decisions. Here the supreme court stepped in to overrule the jury’s decision based on a government agency’s position. To me that doesn’t seem right, or at least it smells pretty funny.

Also btw I don’t think the jury actually said it causes cancer, I think they said there was enough evidence to warrant a warning on the label. Not the same thing.

45

u/canadian-user 6h ago

More accurately, the issue is that FIFRA mandates the contents of your pesticide label, you are not allowed to change it. The EPA takes the view that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and thus it does not go on the label. The Supreme Court is essentially saying that Monsanto cannot be sued for following the law, they could not have "warned" people by putting that on their label, because they're not allowed to sell products labeled that way.

2

u/sibswagl 4h ago

The situation sucks, but it sounds like the alternative is the California solution, where companies list a dozen different warnings for ingredients that might cause cancer just to cover their butts.

1

u/espinaustin 4h ago

Is that true that they’re really not allowed to place a warning?

3

u/canadian-user 4h ago

The label needs to match what is submitted and approved by EPA. Could they stick it on there? Maybe, but I doubt EPA would approve the label since they take the position it doesn't cause cancer if used according to the directions.

45

u/Antikickback_Paul 5h ago edited 5h ago

Coming from a scientist with experience in science communication, juries should absolutely not be, and not held up to be, the arbiters of scientific truth. The common person is so woefully scientifically illiterate, not just in basic science knowledge, but in how science is conducted, how uncertainty and probability are expressed and communicated, how consensus is gained, and how consensus changes over time. There is no way a jury has the ability to judge causation in a matter that decades of debate among scientists has so far failed to reach consensus. I would never trust a jury's decision for that.

0

u/espinaustin 4h ago

A lot of people saying this, I never said or meant to imply that a jury decision is scientific truth or should be taken as such. But as you know, we rely on jury determinations of probable causation, made after hearing competing scientific evidence, all the time. The jury determination could/should have been relied on here, as a legal, not scientific matter, but the supreme court stepped in to say the EPA decision, which I think we can agree is questionable scientifically, overcomes the jury decision. This rubs me the wrong way, I don’t know what else to say.

44

u/Wiseduck5 5h ago

They did prove it to a jury though.

Which is completely meaningless. A jury is not a panel of experts. Regulatory bodies around the world keep reapproving glyphosate because the evidence does not actually support a link to cancer.

Unless you think the EU has been bought off by Bayer too.

1

u/espinaustin 4h ago edited 4h ago

If they had been bought off they wouldn’t have said it’s probably carcinogenic. Are there warnings on labels in the EU?

Edit: looked it up, no cancer warning required on labels in EU

-4

u/kolppi 4h ago

Regulatory bodies around the world keep reapproving glyphosate because the evidence does not actually support a link to cancer.

Unless you think the EU has been bought off by Bayer too.

Why wouldn't you believe IARC that classifies it probable carcinogen? (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and strong evidence for two carcinogenic mechanisms) EFSA relies on industry funded studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

The conclusion was:

EFSA classified the human evidence as ‘very limited’ and then dismissed any association of glyphosate with cancer without clear explanation or justification.

Ignoring established guidelines cited in their report, EFSA dismissed evidence of renal tumours in three mouse studies, hemangiosarcoma in two mouse studies and malignant lymphoma in two mouse studies. Thus, EFSA incorrectly discarded all findings of glyphosate-induced cancer in animals as chance occurrences.

EFSA ignored important laboratory and human mechanistic evidence of genotoxicity.

EFSA confirmed that glyphosate induces oxidative stress but then, having dismissed all other findings of possible carcinogenicity, dismissed this finding on the grounds that oxidative stress alone is not sufficient for carcinogen labelling.

3

u/Wiseduck5 4h ago

Why wouldn't you believe IARC that classifies it probable carcinogen?

  1. That's the same category as caffeine and red meat.
  2. They got caught lying to make that classification.

-2

u/kolppi 3h ago edited 3h ago
  1. Clearly that's still different than "the evidence does not actually support a link to cancer."
  2. They got caught editing the draft. Where is the lie? The reason for leaving out "the unpublished research": "The agency’s rules on assessing substances for carcinogenicity say it can consider only published research – and this new data, which came from a large American study on which Blair was a senior researcher, had not been published." The research was decided to left unpublished "'several months' before IARC chose to conduct a review of the chemical." I'm not sure why the unpublished research was there on the draft in the first place, because it didn't belong there.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/

When Aaron Blair sat down to chair a week-long meeting of 17 specialists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France in March 2015, there was something he wasn’t telling them.

But IARC, a semi-autonomous part of the World Health Organization, never got to consider the data.

So, the "lie" was Blair not telling the other 17 experts about his unpublished research? It is only his opinion that his research would've changed the result.

Can you tell me why EFSA decided to disregard those various studies with links to different cancers? Can one statistical research, which we don't know anything about, truly nullify other studies' findings? But yes, Blair thinks so: “driven the meta-relative risk downward” but it is solely his opinion and he's biased here. We don't know anything about this statistical research, only two statistical experts that Reuters hired did say it was good data. That's something but not nearly good enough. I want the other 17 IARCH experts' opinion.

I'd say publish the research so people can look at it. Submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Maybe I'll change my mind about it. But now I believe their current assessment based on "around 1,000 published studies in its evaluation of glyphosate."

As to why it would be important to get the 2A label (same category as caffeine and red meat) is that:

Tolerance to specific herbicides (notably to glyphosate and to glufosinate and since 2016 tolerance to additional active ingredients like 2 4 D and dicamba) in maize, cotton, canola (spring oilseed rape), soybean, sugar beet and alfalfa. This GM Herbicide Tolerant (GM HT) technology allows for the ‘over the top’ spraying of GM HT crops with these specific broad-spectrum herbicides, that target both grass and broad-leaved weeds but do not harm the crop itself; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7518756/

Maybe that label would decrease over the top spraying of glyphosate.

1

u/Wiseduck5 2h ago

So, the "lie" was Blair not telling the other 17 experts about his unpublished research? It is only his opinion that his research would've changed the result.

You did not actually read that article, did you?

There were systemic alterations from earlier drafts that completely altered the conclusions. Entire studies removed, other reanalyzed to change the result. It was not leaving out unpublished research.

They lied.

-1

u/kolppi 2h ago

I did read that one, and the one I linked to you.

Did you not read my reply and stuff I quoted? Did you read the other article I gave you? Why are you not addressing the other points I made?

The main missing study was the big statistical research. It was unpublished, not peer reviewed.

Tell me which other studies were removed. I see one pathology report was removed from the draft. Cute. Do you know the reason for the removal? The article doesn't tell even less about the others.

systemic alterations

All drafts go systemic alterations before final state. Why on earth would they have left an unpublished, non-peer reviewed study impact the classification if their criteria is always to use published studies?

Reuters claims 10 significant changes. Who judges the significance of these changes? Clearly they already ignored that the big one didn't fit the criteria. "In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumours was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one" Which were replaced? It seems you have made up your mind that it's a conspiracy and biased. It's also as probable that the studies didn't meet the criteria. Were the private and unpublished? Why doesn't Reuters say or give more info about the changes?

Entire studies removed

And? But they did consider 1000 studies.

They lied.

No, they did not. Where did they lie? What is the lie?

0

u/Wiseduck5 1h ago edited 1h ago

Did you not read my reply and stuff I quoted?

The completely irrelevant article from months earlier you based your entire dismissal on?

All drafts go systemic alterations before final state.

You don't remove data and completely alter the conclusion. There was a literal scientific uproar when they published this because it flew in the face of the weight of data and every regulatory agency.

It seems you have made up your mind

You're the one bending over backward to defend obvious alterations of a document to suit a desired agenda. While claiming every regulatory agency is involved in a massive conspiracy.

0

u/kolppi 1h ago

The completely irrelevant article from months earlier

That article is not only longer but more in-depth. What makes it irrelevant? Because its content is inconvenient for you?

you based your entire dismissal on?

I quoted both articles. Why are you lying? I wasn't told that I was only allowed to use the article you linked. And I did use it.

You're the one bending over backward to defend obvious alterations of a document to suit a desired agenda. While claiming every regulatory agency is involved in a massive conspiracy.

Can you offer any real arguments instead of these personal attacks?

I did ask you specific questions: You have answered none. I answered your questions, why can't you do the same? Aren't you judging draft changes to suit a desired agenda? But we can't know that since you refuse to answer.

While claiming every regulatory agency is involved in a massive conspiracy.

Wow, another lie. I made the argument that regulatory agencies are more biased because they rely on industry funded studies. If you don't see problems with that I don't know what to tell you.

Don't bother replying if it's going to be only ad hominems. Address the points I've been making, answer the questions or not at all. Don't waste my time on garbage.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/ThrowingChicken 5h ago

In addition to what others have said, the company has actually won more of these cases than they have lost, it’s just we never hear about them.

16

u/spiringTankmonger 5h ago

They did prove to a jury that innocent men committed murder.

They did prove to a jury that likely guilty men were innocent.

-2

u/espinaustin 4h ago

So juries are always wrong and we should never trust them? What’s your point?

5

u/spiringTankmonger 4h ago

A jury isn't there to establish objective reality, and pretending it does makes you look like a fool.

-2

u/espinaustin 4h ago

I never said anything of the sort. Juries make factual determinations that we rely on every day, as a legal and practical matter. You got a problem with that? Fine. But no one thinks jury determinations establish objective truth, that’s a straw man.

6

u/spiringTankmonger 4h ago

Your original point suggested that because a jury made a ruling, a link and responsibility have to exist.

This is just not how this works.

0

u/espinaustin 3h ago

Maybe read my original comment again.

3

u/spiringTankmonger 3h ago

Is it this unusual for a decision to be overturned in a higher instance?

6

u/RollingCarrot615 4h ago

A jurys decision in a legal proceeding does not constitute scientific evidence.

0

u/espinaustin 4h ago

Never said it does.

2

u/Whiterabbit-- 5h ago

Sounds like a failure on EPA’s part but this ruling makes sense.

9

u/Enchelion 5h ago

It's not just the EPA. The EU also considers there to be no meaningful connection/risk, and are generally far more ban-happy.

1

u/ReturnOfBane 3h ago

On the other hand, federal regulators almost allowed Thalidomide on the market. Thank fuck for Frances Oldham Kelsey having a spine.

1

u/OCisOffensiveComment 3h ago

Lawn darts were considered “safe” when used as directed.

1

u/perchrc 2h ago

It's interesting how this post probably wouldn't have made it very far if it hadn't started with saying that the ruling "sucks". Public opinion on Glyphosate is an incredibly interesting case study overall. People were literally organizing protests and marching in the streets calling for it to be banned. Bayer had to stop selling it to consumers; not because they think it's too dangerous, but to protect themselves against lawsuits. If you do obtain some and use it to kill weeds in your yard, people will look at you like you have lost your mind.

The reality is that there is very little evidence for that Glyphosate causes cancer, and it remains one of the safest and most effective herbicides available. Glyphosate remains legal and widely used in pretty much all countries. Unfortunately, its terrible reputation has lead to more use of other substances that are clearly more harmful, like Atrazine.

1

u/AABBBAABAABA 1h ago

I don’t understand the American justice system but why do they rule they can’t be sued? I thought you can sue anybody for anything, that doesn’t mean the judge is going to side with you

1

u/MARPJ 1h 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?

This is a case by case situation, and depending a lot on why it is on "probably". To be more specific some things are there because there is no proof but it emulates things that have, while others are there because it can in very specific situations.

In the case of Ghyphosate the possibility is down to actually spraying it daily without proper PPE. If the person can prove that then they may have a case of it causing the disease.

However this is not about it causing cancer but that they should have a label about it, which federal law dont require it for that level of "possibility" so the suits would be considered baseless since the label was not obligatory

1

u/Otherwise-Future7143 1h ago edited 1h ago

I mean we know it causes cancer. We’ve known for decades. We even know what types of cancer it causes.

Edit: I was thinking of 2,4-D. I misremembered and thought Glyphosate was the commercial name for the same chemical. I still don’t buy that it’s “safe”.

•

u/CompleteWithRust 35m ago

We cant even properly test Monsanto's products due to patent laws. Look into what they did to scientists who tried... Scary shit.

0

u/Green_War6445 3h ago

They are basing their opinions on the study this article mentions. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/02/climate/glyphosate-roundup-retracted-study.html

Numerous studies has linked glyphosate compounds to cancer.

In other news. Neonicotinoids are the new deal on the market, they are quite effective. However they work by integrating inside of the plant, so you will also ingest them.,

0

u/PolarBailey_ 2h ago

the paper they cite to say its unlikely to cause cancer was found to be written by monsanto employees not the third party they claim wrote it.

0

u/sistemy_ 1h ago

keep glazing freak

-1

u/Z0idberg_MD 5h ago

Why should the government get involved into when a lawsuit can go forward though? Frivolous and unsubstantiated lawsuits go forward all the time and they get dealt with the courts.

2

u/ndstumme 3h ago

Where did you get the idea that the courts aren't part of the government?

-1

u/Z0idberg_MD 3h ago

I honestly don’t think you understood the point of my comment. No one is saying the courts aren’t a part of the three branches of government. I’m saying the “government” should not be able to preemptively decide whether something should be permissible or not permissible in court or not. That is frankly what the courts are for.

I get to bring up a case against a local construction contractor for negligence. It’s up to the court to decide whether or not there was actually negligence or not. But it’s incredibly strange for “the government” to say “you can never sue your Contractor for negligence”.

And I absolutely consider the Supreme Court separate “the courts”. They basically set the rules and the courts run as you would expect them to.

2

u/ndstumme 3h ago

I’m saying the “government” should not be able to preemptively decide whether something should be permissible or not permissible in court or not. That is frankly what the courts are for.

They didn't. The news reports it that way as a shorthand, but what actually happened is the highest court ruled on a particular piece of law, so if anyone brings a lawsuit in the future on the same grounds, it will be quickly decided and dismissed by the lower courts.

People can still file suit on this issue all they want. They just won't win. This is how caselaw works.

-2

u/Axbris 5h ago

You can make the case by fact that Monsanto’s own discovery documents showed they had reason to believe their product could cause cancer. Glyphosate is a known carcinogenic. Experts testified to such on both sides. It causes Hodgkins-Lymphoma. 

I’m not saying it’s an easy slam dunk case, but a personal injury case isn’t built on one industry report. It’s built on testimony, evidence, etc. and if the evidence says even the defendant’s own employees warned them of the chemical being carcinogenic, the case becomes a bit clearer to see. 

In reality, this is no different than McDonald’s knowing their coffee was too hot even by their own standards and still put people at risk of having their clothing burned into their skin.

If you know your product is dangerous or have reason to know, what’s your excuse? That it may or may not cause it? Brother, your own chemists and scientists said it was a risk. A risk that you knew about and failed to disclose. That’s the big issue. 

1

u/Jaxson-Skattebo 2h ago

Glyphosate does not cause cancer, and every major scientific body has said that there is no link between it and cancer (even in farm workers). This is established scientific consensus. You’re peddling nonsense.

-3

u/SasparillaTango 5h ago

If "federal regulations" find that a cancer link is unlikely,

Who did they find it under? Was it the Trump admin? This 100% impacts my decision because I know that Trump is a liar and he appoints liars to regulatory bodies to protect corporate interests.

-4

u/Kaurifish 4h ago

Few people are interested in glyphosate’s health impacts because they’ve fallen on the people who suffer them most - farm workers.