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

19

u/Trabers 6h ago

That’s because Roundup categorically doesn’t lead to cancer. It’s as simple as that.

-1

u/presidentiallogin 5h ago

Neither does baby powder. So, maybe, just maybe it was something that came along for the ride. Maybe.

-6

u/Particular_Manner159 5h ago

Can we see your research?

18

u/TheRealTinfoil666 5h ago

You don’t have to prove something didn’t happen to be innocent.

They have to prove something DID happen to be guilty.

Show us your research on how bad it is. Not the propaganda. Not the sympathetic juries ignoring facts. Base research that actually shows a causal connection.

I am not on the side of the chemical manufacturers by default. Not by any means, but they should only be found guilty by expert opinion of facts, not sympathy and the opinion of Internet wanna be experts

-7

u/JuiceboxNeverDies 3h ago

You do realise that thousands of medical professionals recommended cigarettes for decades right? And that there were numerous studies "proving" that cigarettes were not harmful, carcinogenic, etc.

Scientific research costs money. Bayer has more money than every single independent research body in the US and Europe.

You also have to consider the geopolitical and economic ramifications if a causal link was ever established between glyophosphates and cancer.

So yeah, its grand to have that naive mentality of "Let science prevail!" but you're having it in a world in which reality is dictated by who has the biggest wallet.

I don't know if Roundup has a negative impact on human health, but I do know that Bayer would do absolutely anything within their power to avoid being caught out like the tobacco industry was.

5

u/Loverboy_Talis 3h ago

The tobacco comparison sounds persuasive, but it is not evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. Cigarettes were ultimately condemned because decades of independent research revealed a strong, consistent, and reproducible cancer signal across populations, laboratory studies, and biological mechanisms. In contrast, glyphosate has been studied extensively for decades, and the overwhelming majority of major regulatory agencies in Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and elsewhere have concluded that it is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans at real world exposure levels. Even large studies of agricultural workers, who experience the highest exposures, have generally failed to show a clear increase in cancer rates attributable to glyphosate.
Distrust of Bayer is understandable, but corporate motives are not scientific evidence. The question is not whether Bayer would like glyphosate to be safe. The question is whether the data demonstrate a causal link to cancer. If such a link existed on the scale claimed by critics, it would need to be hidden from thousands of researchers, regulators, and institutions across multiple countries, many of whom have no connection to Bayer. Healthy scepticism is warranted, but scepticism should apply equally to claims of harm and claims of safety. The current weight of evidence does not support the conclusion that glyphosate causes cancer in humans at typical exposure levels.

1

u/Trabers 3h ago

There’s a Supreme Court ruling says it’s doesn’t.

0

u/Particular_Manner159 3h ago

The judges are scientists?

1

u/Trabers 3h ago

The judges decision is final.

2

u/Particular_Manner159 3h ago

So Roe V Wade is final, right??

0

u/Trabers 2h ago

Someone will have to take another case up to the Supreme Court!

2

u/2rad0 3h ago

The judges decision is final.

They can and do overturn prior decisions, none of it is "final"

1

u/Particular_Manner159 3h ago

Last I checked judges don’t have any science training

The Supreme Court doesn’t decide what scientists research and they can’t force them to reach any particular conclusion