Author Topic: Monsanto's $2B fine - is the US legal system the world's laughing stock?  (Read 2076 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9485
  • Country: lv
It was Russia, even the Russian colonel in charge of the missile ramp and the transport education into Ukraine Donbass area have been disclosed long time ago. Audio com's recordings show it was a mistake (ignorant shoot down) not deliberately shoot down of airliner, rebels though it was Ukraine militransport and just launched it off not investigating why it was at the height and course it was.
LOL, its a fake somebody put on youtube, just as many other fakes (from both sides) which appeared soon after the incident.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 05:04:37 am by wraper »
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8021
  • Country: us
Yes, lead in gasoline got to be one of the stupidest ideas so far. Didn't know it was still being used!


It's still used in avgas for piston engine aircraft. As of yet nobody has found a substitute that works adequately in that particular application. We don't have hundreds of millions of piston engine aircraft rolling through populated areas night and day though so it's not really a problem in the scale that it is used.

Lead in automotive gasoline was a horrible mess, I remember when both regular and unleaded gasoline were widely available up into the late 80s.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8021
  • Country: us
Monsanto has come up with enough poisonous and poorly sold bullshit with dickwad marketing tactics ready to sue farmers' pants off if just ONE genetically modified seed catches the wind and blows over to someone else's plotch of land. I'm not gonna cry over a 2 billion dollar fine for one of the most notoriously horrific companies the world has ever seen in product alone, and I wouldn't cry if they spontaneously combusted either. The only travesty is that Bayer bought them and now has to deal with their previous bullshit. Smell of Compaq/DEC anyone?

They're Bayer, except Bayer stopped producing shit like Zykklon B after the 1940's, and Monsanto didn't.


I'm not exactly a fan of Monsanto, but they take a lot  more flak from uninformed people than they deserve. They are no less ethical than countless other corporations and they irritate me less than certain pharmaceutical companies that pull stunts like jacking up the cost of needed medications by thousands of percent overnight. Monsanto is a chemical company like numerous others. They've made some innovative products, for example they developed and marketed the first LEDs, eventually selling off that tech because they wanted to be a chemical company rather than an electronics company. I still have a number of old Monsanto LED displays from the 1970s.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2329
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Of course there are other shitty companies, and of course any company will make things that people like. That's the job of a company, to make things people want to buy.

My point is that Monsanto has a list of transgressions that would put a CVS receipt to shame, and everyone knows it.
C/C++/Java Programmer, Legacy hardware enthusiast, perpetually off-his-rocker madman.
If it's broken, I probably did it.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8021
  • Country: us
But so do countless other corporations, I don't really understand the laser focus on Monsanto specifically, they're one of many yet they get a huge portion of the ire. The problem is not Monsanto but aspects of the system that has allowed various sorts of corporate behavior to become the norm.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3623
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
It's Califonia and in California everything causes cancer which is why I am glad I live in the UK so I can expose myself to all these chemicls without any risks :-DD. Thing is cancer can ocur without any ouside cause it is just one of those things in life but in the US and particularly Califonia they like to find a culprit and someone to sue. Biggest ris there is probabley getting trampled by the herd of ambulance chasers as you go through the hostpitals doors. I have lived in farming country all my life where roundup and its generics have been used in copius quntities, I have used it myself in a knapsack sprayer I have never heard of anyone getting ill from using it let alone getting cancer attributed to its use. Now sheep dip and nervous system damadge that is prooved.
 

Online splin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 675
  • Country: gb
You claim you would be twice astonished if the jury could [...]

This is what I said:

Quote
Glyphosate may indeed cause cancer, but I'd be astonished if any jury were truly able to come to that conclusion with a level of evidence that would satisfy the scientific community with a proper peer group of relevant experts in the field. Even more astonishing if they could explain how the evidence presented in court proved that Roundup caused the plaintiff's cancer in particular (but perhaps US law doesn't require that).

Hardly bold claims as you claimed - but I would most certainly be astonished if the jury could justify it's conclusion that Roundup caused the plaintiffs' cancers to any non-partisan audience with even a modicum of skill in assessing scientific evidence. I am *not* saying that glyphosate was not the cause - but that, in my opinion, the probability of a non-expert (in the field) jury would have next to no chance of making a sensible judgement.

I seriously doubt that any non-partisan experts in the field would come to such a conclusion given the apparent lack of any conclusive evidence (meaning I haven't come across any, nor seen any in the reporting of this case) - there is a massive gulf between 'small epidemiological correlation factors' and 'reasonable probability of causation'. It seems to me that we are talking about levels of evidence far below 'asbestos causing asbestosis' or 'smoking causing lung cancer'. Again, this is merely my opinion for what little it is worth and may well change as continuing scientific studies provide better evidence.

Quote
..but this isn't what the jury is for nor is it what it had to decide, plain and simple.

It's *exactly* what they had to decide. Plain and simple. The key instructions to the jury included:

Quote
NO. 20 Mr. Pilliod and Mrs. Pilliod claim that Roundup’s design was defective because Roundup did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform...
NO. 21 ... lacked sufficient warnings of potential risks.
NO. 22 ... that they were harmed by Monsanto’s negligence and that Monsanto should be held responsible for that harm.
NO. 24 ... was negligent by not using reasonable care to warn about the dangerous condition of Roundup or  about facts that made Roundup likely to be dangerous.


NO. 22 is clearly the most important. All these claims revolve around the key requirement to prove 'That Monsanto’s "failure to perform safely"/"negligence"/"the lack of sufficient warnings"' was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Pilliod’s or Mrs. Pilliod’s or both’s harm.'.

Which is the original point - where I claimed that I would be astonished if anyone could prove causation.

Quote
I'll quit here. This is very well explained on many medias.

Erm, which media? Please provide some links.
 

Offline Koen

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 433
Verdict form for anyone interested in the differences between what the jury had to decide on and what splin expects from a jury.
 

Online splin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 675
  • Country: gb
Verdict form for anyone interested in the differences between what the jury had to decide on and what splin expects from a jury.

What I expect from a jury? I don't expect anything - I quoted the *actual* instructions given to the jury.

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/05/Pilliods-JURY-INSTRUCTIONS-without-citations.pdf

You have linked almost the same information (from the same site) in a different format. Instead of the cryptic suggestions that somehow I'm wrong, why don't you tell us what is your point - assuming you have one?
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1139
  • Country: es
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 
The following users thanked this post: NiHaoMike, magic

Online magic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: pl
Great, another thing to stock after leaded solder :palm:
 

Offline Electro Detective

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1861
  • Country: au

Study concludes glyphosate increases risk of cancer.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/us-glyphosate-cancer-study-scli-intl/index.html

Glyphosate is on the way out in the EU

https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/glyphosate_en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#European_Union



Great, another thing to stock after leaded solder :palm:



I sort of agree, but won't be stocking or using that stuff any time soon again.

At least leaded solder stays where it is for a long time, either in products PCBs etc or sitting on the bench or in a tool box ready for use,
and we are aware of the shortcomings and precautions.

But we may not have the full story on glyphosate (highly possible BS research and statistics marketing flog aside)
and not a good idea to have the crap seeping about gardens and lawns in wet conditions, infiltrating underground water tables,
and going down drainage systems, sewer channels,and or out to waterways,
as well as pet and wildlife contamination.
Ever seen bored cats snack on lawn edges?  ??? :scared:

There are other ways (besides elbow grease) and DIY concoctions to discourage weeds on the cheap n easy, and long term,
without concentrated bottled up halfassed lab crap,
'secret formulas' for a modern thinking (? ::) ? :-//)  society with fancy labels to attract product faithers, with ripoff price markups.

Yes yes, been there...  :palm:


« Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 08:11:34 am by Electro Detective »
 
The following users thanked this post: NiHaoMike

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1139
  • Country: es
In the 1970s and 80s the dangers of asbestos were well known but in Spain we believed those foreigners were just sissies and we were strong and would not be affected. Decades later we have hundreds dead and sick from asbestos.  Filing lawsuits. Of course.
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 
The following users thanked this post: NiHaoMike, apis

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14563
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Monsanto can brush this fine aside no sweat.

When Roundup was released and before it came off patent we were stung NZ$40/liter for it and now some decades later it's just a fraction of that price.
The last 20L generic glyphosate I bought was NZ$6/liter.  :phew:

Monsanto have padded their pockets for decades for such a verdict and an appeal will very likely absolve them of any culpability.
I'll keep using it...........its LD50 is lower than that of common salt.  :P
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 

Online splin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 675
  • Country: gb
Monsanto can brush this fine aside no sweat.

But it's not Monsanto - they were bought out by Bayer and the $2B is just one case - there are 13,400 more cases pending. A couple of billion dollars here, a couple of billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money. A very ill advised takeover, though they did get legal advice on the likely outcomes/costs of court cases from some legal firm. I wonder if the latter's professional indemnity insurance is good for a few $B?  :scared:

I can't imagine why Bayer thought it was a good idea to buy them out - I remember my economics lecturer telling us 40 years ago "never buy a US company that an American is prepared to sell you...". Even then there was a long littany of failed attempts by European companies trying to get into the US market by buying up companies, which has since grown longer.

One of the most notable examples being Ferranti buying out International Signal and Control in 1987 which turned out to be a massive fraud which sadly took Ferranti down.
 

Offline zucca

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Country: it
  • EE meid in Itali
"never buy a US company that an American is prepared to sell you..."

Marchionne (FIAT) with Chrysler.
Del Vecchio (Luxottica) with Global Eyewear Division of Bausch & Lomb (Ray-Ban).
Can't know what you don't love. St. Augustine
Can't love what you don't know. Zucca
 

Online magic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: pl
I sort of agree, but won't be stocking or using that stuff any time soon again.

At least leaded solder stays where it is for a long time, either in products PCBs etc or sitting on the bench or in a tool box ready for use, and we are aware of the shortcomings and precautions.
This stuff is supposed to be biodegradable and not accumulate in the environment. It may poison your cat or some other animal which eats freshly sprayed weed and perhaps you even get some ppm chance of cancer each time it's eaten, but if it had any long-term or wide-area effects on the environment that should have been discovered by now. It has been used in industrial quantities for longer than it took to ban DDT and I'm sure that these days soil and waters are closely monitored for contamination with common pesticides so it's not just taking Monsanto's word for it.
 

Offline Electro Detective

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1861
  • Country: au
I sort of agree, but won't be stocking or using that stuff any time soon again.

At least leaded solder stays where it is for a long time, either in products PCBs etc or sitting on the bench or in a tool box ready for use, and we are aware of the shortcomings and precautions.
This stuff is supposed to be biodegradable and not accumulate in the environment. It may poison your cat or some other animal which eats freshly sprayed weed and perhaps you even get some ppm chance of cancer each time it's eaten, but if it had any long-term or wide-area effects on the environment that should have been discovered by now. It has been used in industrial quantities for longer than it took to ban DDT and I'm sure that these days soil and waters are closely monitored for contamination with common pesticides so it's not just taking Monsanto's word for it.

I've seen different spawns of weed appear where RoundmoneyUp was sprayed  ???
and MoneySanta and or their new owners have no layperson statistics as to what a few more decades of using this lab crap will do

Their cashed up CEOs and diploma waving test tube jiggling lab rats won't be around to answer to the rap when shtf

I'll take my chances with cheap DIY formulas and or elbow grease for now,
and avoid any mutant effects on the cats   :phew:
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1139
  • Country: es
I have a piece of yard which grows quite wild and I have never had much luck with glyphosate. As it is not cheap I consider it is not worth it for me. And less even considering the health risks.

Generally I just dig up the weeds once a year but it seems the digging just makes it easier to grow more so I am thinking maybe the answer is to tamp down the soil real hard so seeds cannot take hold.
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14563
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
I have a piece of yard which grows quite wild and I have never had much luck with glyphosate. As it is not cheap I consider it is not worth it for me. And less even considering the health risks.

Generally I just dig up the weeds once a year but it seems the digging just makes it easier to grow more so I am thinking maybe the answer is to tamp down the soil real hard so seeds cannot take hold.
Some weeds need the addition of a surfacant with glyphosate to allow the active ingredient to penetrate into the plant. Without it initial results can look promising as the plant browns off but it then recovers.

Generally its the leaf gloss and its waxy or oily surface that prevents adequate penetration and some just use dish washing liquid or similar to get a reasonable cheap result.
Tougher to kill weeds also need a stronger brew than the generic 10ml/l of 360gm/l glyphosate.
I've taken to using 15ml/l plus a surfacant @ 2x normal rate (2ml/l) for dependable results on most weeds........but not all !
In all cases follow the container directions with care.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 

Offline Macbeth

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: gb
Some weeds need the addition of a surfacant with glyphosate to allow the active ingredient to penetrate into the plant. Without it initial results can look promising as the plant browns off but it then recovers.

Generally its the leaf gloss and its waxy or oily surface that prevents adequate penetration and some just use dish washing liquid or similar to get a reasonable cheap result.
Tougher to kill weeds also need a stronger brew than the generic 10ml/l of 360gm/l glyphosate.
I've taken to using 15ml/l plus a surfacant @ 2x normal rate (2ml/l) for dependable results on most weeds........but not all !
In all cases follow the container directions with care.
You know I have probably been accidentally doing this for years. I have a bottle of Rosate 360 that was a fraction of the price of the supermarket stuff and it needs such a tiny amount metered out that I tend to use a laundry detergent cap to measure the 10ml per x litres of water in my sprayer... OMG I AM SO FULL OF CANCER! WHERE IS MY $2 TRILLION???
« Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 09:43:03 am by Macbeth »
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8021
  • Country: us
The thing that makes it difficult is that almost everybody will get cancer if they live long enough, it happens when you have worn out your DNA. Some things do greatly increase the chances of cancer showing up earlier but with the countless substances that may possibly increase the risk it's really hard to know for sure. If every product had to be exhaustively tested for every possible impact it could ever lead to, nothing would ever get made.
 

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14563
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Some weeds need the addition of a surfacant with glyphosate to allow the active ingredient to penetrate into the plant. Without it initial results can look promising as the plant browns off but it then recovers.

Generally its the leaf gloss and its waxy or oily surface that prevents adequate penetration and some just use dish washing liquid or similar to get a reasonable cheap result.
Tougher to kill weeds also need a stronger brew than the generic 10ml/l of 360gm/l glyphosate.
I've taken to using 15ml/l plus a surfacant @ 2x normal rate (2ml/l) for dependable results on most weeds........but not all !
In all cases follow the container directions with care.
You know I have probably been accidentally doing this for years. I have a bottle of Rosate 360 that was a fraction of the price of the supermarket stuff and it needs such a tiny amount metered out that I tend to use a laundry detergent cap to measure the 10ml per x litres of water in my sprayer... OMG I AM SO FULL OF CANCER! WHERE IS MY $2 TRILLION???
This is part of the problem......as most chemicals we use these days don't have an offensive smell we tend to imagine they're fairly innocuous and many are but never lose sight that they are poisons of one sort or another and all have different methods of plant and pest immobilization.
Usage "accidents" must be avoided at all cost.....hey you don't need to use a radiation proof suit when using most chemicals but you need know about toxicity, safe handling and safe application practices.

Every electronic component we use has a datasheet and typical application guide and it's the same for chemicals so why wouldn't we read and be guided by them.
Of the significant # of agri chemicals I've used I still rate glyphosate one of the safest and most useful when you need to 'brown' the earth !
Commercial insecticides can generally be considered the most dangerous.....yes I've used these too !

Be careful out there and above all else avoid physical or breathing exposure to spray drift.....of any chemical type !
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 
The following users thanked this post: rsjsouza

Offline Electro Detective

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1861
  • Country: au

I second Mr. Tautech's safety recommendations  :clap:

You're messing with substances that kill weeds,
and weeds are tough customers  >:D  that can and will grow even on concrete, not just in the cracks. 

Imagine, or think about having sniffed that chemwarfare derived crap, the mist going into your lungs, eyes, skin, clothing, pet hair, private parts etc,
and wofting over into the neighbours vege patch etc

i.e. these 'defy nature' products have only been around a few decades,
and unless you are a chemical engineer come lab guru to perform your own DIY tests, and reach some sort of yes/no conclusion,
the average sprayer is clueless wth they are zapping their neglected lawn/jungle/swampland with.   :-//

And don't expect the jokers flogging this garden koolaid to give you the full story,
especially if any bad news is bad for business..  :popcorn:


 

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14563
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Some weeds need the addition of a surfacant with glyphosate to allow the active ingredient to penetrate into the plant. Without it initial results can look promising as the plant browns off but it then recovers.

Generally its the leaf gloss and its waxy or oily surface that prevents adequate penetration and some just use dish washing liquid or similar to get a reasonable cheap result.
Tougher to kill weeds also need a stronger brew than the generic 10ml/l of 360gm/l glyphosate.
I've taken to using 15ml/l plus a surfacant @ 2x normal rate (2ml/l) for dependable results on most weeds........but not all !
In all cases follow the container directions with care.
You know I have probably been accidentally doing this for years. I have a bottle of Rosate 360 that was a fraction of the price of the supermarket stuff and it needs such a tiny amount metered out that I tend to use a laundry detergent cap to measure the 10ml per x litres of water in my sprayer... OMG I AM SO FULL OF CANCER! WHERE IS MY $2 TRILLION???
Oh and I forgot to mention.......any chemical measurement vessel, jug, bottle, graduated beaker or just a bottle cap must be reserved for just chemical measurement, that is; serve no other purpose.

Of those I keep for just such use I never fill my sprayer/applicator completely so that several rinses of the measurement jug have room to be added to the final mix before filling to the full calculated volume.

Most agri chemicals can be mixed to some degree however minimizing the contamination from a previously unwashed jug reduces the chance of unexpected results like damage to non-target species.
All simple stuff and simple to implement.  ;)
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf