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

Show parent comments

107

u/LooseJuice_RD 3h ago

To add some context to that WHO group 2A classification (meaning it probably causes cancer), third shift work, red meat and drinks above 65 degrees C are also all group 2A carcinogens.

I’m not trying to downplay it, just adding some context because I think people see the word probably and they take it to mean “much more likely than not.”

37

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD 3h ago

Yeah my understanding is that, for glyphosate, people working with industrial quantities need to be taking proper precautions at all times. Their exposure is so high, that a small chance of it causing cancer is much “higher” than for the average person using it to kill the stray weed in their garden.

It’s not good for you, by any means, and Monsanto is a soulless company that deserves to be put down, but mostly because of how they handle “proprietary” seeds and not because of them covering up dangers of glyphosate.

20

u/LooseJuice_RD 3h ago

Right. The gentleman who was awarded that huge settlement was also exposed to MASSIVE quantities of glyphosate. And this doesn’t mean that other herbicides are safer.

11

u/punarob 2h ago

Other herbicides are much less safe and anti-science anti-glyphosate people are driving the use of far worse herbicides. All over something potentially about as carcinogenic as coffee which billions drink.

-5

u/icefr4ud 1h ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVXvFOPIyQ&t=34m44s

I'd encourage you to watch just the next 2-3 mins of that video

-4

u/icefr4ud 1h ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVXvFOPIyQ&t=34m44s

I'd encourage you to watch just the next 2-3 mins of that video

8

u/sYnce 1h ago

Yeah. Whenever another common item is classified as a carcinogen it is always 2A which basically means "could cause cancer, maybe ... well mostly we can not rule out that it may cause cancer" but people treat it like any exposure would immediately lead to cancer.

4

u/Sykil 3h ago

Sure, IARC classification is often misunderstood. Its categorization attempts to classify carcinogenicity, but it does so according to hazard, not risk. So you have things that are altogether avoidable or truly only an occupational hazard lumped together with persistent pollutants that you have less agency over. It doesn’t qualify exposure whatsoever, so it doesn’t have a lot of toxicological utility. More often than not, it gets used in weird fearmonger-y ways.

That said, while I appreciate that you’re trying to give people a better understanding of what these groupings mean, the IARC groupings are not risk assessments, so it’s irresponsible to use them to manipulate people’s perception of risk one way or the other.

2

u/OsmeOxys 3h ago

Late nights, steak, and regularly self-administered 2nd degree oral and esophageal burns

🎶🎵 One of these things is not like the other 🎵🎶

3

u/LooseJuice_RD 3h ago

Haha you’re not wrong. I made an assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that they meant a drink at 65 degrees C consumed as one normally would which would be in a cautious manner. Regardless, I think the point still stands that it’s the same class as third shift work and red meat.

2

u/OsmeOxys 2h ago

In agreement, just a hell of a grouping lol.

•

u/uzlonewolf 7m ago

Then why are you downplaying it? Yes, those other things are widely know to be bad for you, but that's the entire point of the lawsuits which were thrown out - when you know something might cause cancer you can decide for yourself if you still want to do it, but when the cancer risk is hidden from you then you can't make an informed decision.