Monsanto's $2B fine - is the US legal system the world's laughing stock?

[splin]

..at least if it wasn't so serious. Ok the Supreme court will presumably reduce the damages substantially:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/california-jury-hits-bayer-with-2-billion-award-in-roundup-cancer-trial-idUSKCN1SJ29F

The large punitive damages award is likely to be reduced due to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that limit the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages to 9:1. The jury awarded a total of $2 billion in punitive damages and $55 million in compensatory damages.

Now I don't particularly like Monsanto and maybe they deserve a $2B fine for their previous aggressive and unethical ('probably' legal disclaimer) business practices suing farmers for unwittingly and unwantedly growing crops with Monsanto' patented roundup resistant transgenes. But this case seems to me to be a complete travesty. Sure Monsanto may well have behaved reprehensively by influencing regulators and scientists investigating the safety of glyphosate, for which they should be held to account and punished if guilty, but it doesn't seem to me that anyone has proved that glyphosate is actually carcinogenic and how could a jury of laypeople possibly be qualified to properly assess any such evidence?

I'm no expert but this, from the above Reuters link, is interesting:

Lawsuits are largely based on a 2015 conclusion by the World Health Organization’s cancer arm, which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

A 2017 Reuters investigation found that the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer had dismissed and edited out "non-carcinogenic" findings that were at odds with its final conclusion that the chemical probably causes cancer.

The report is here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-iarc-glyphosate-specialreport/in-glyphosate-review-who-cancer-agency-edited-out-non-carcinogenic-findings-idUSKBN1CO251

If those allegations are true it seems to me that the WHO's statement is merely worthless opinion given their alleged deliberate actions to deny third parties access to the basis of their conclusions that glyphosate may be carcinogenic.

If true it appears that this court case is just another in a long line of ever more ludicrous examples of US style mis-justice. Ok, so everybody has a laugh and it then gets reversed at a higher court on appeal but it is still hugely expensive and damaging for the companies involved - Monsanto are facing another 13,400 court cases. Yes I know I've only spent about 30 mins Google-ing and the jurors have spent 17 days listening to and examining the evidence. From this article:

https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/monsanto-ordered-to-pay-2-billion-to-cancer-victims/

Evidence laid out in the three trials included numerous scientific studies that showed what plaintiffs’ attorneys said was proof Monsanto’s herbicides can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

I've no idea what those studies are but the Reuter's article claims 'The U.S. EPA, the European Chemicals Agency and other regulators have found that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans.' which makes me very cynical about the verdicts of this court case. (But note that the EPA is alleged, by the lawyers, to have been lobbied by Monsanto to being less than rigorous in examining health risks associated with glyphosate.)

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).

An attorney for the company sought Wednesday to poke holes in the Pilliods’ efforts to show that they wouldn’t have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma if they hadn’t used Roundup for landscaping their properties over a period of 30 years.

Tarek Ismail told the jury that’s an impossible, illogical conclusion given that Alva Pilliod’s weakened immune system greatly increased his risk of developing cancer. Digging into Pilliod’s medical history, Ismail cited 22 different types of skin cancers starting in his 20s, five brain infections starting in the late 1970s caused by herpes, other viral infections and colitis.

“You put this picture together and what do you see?” Ismail asked. “How anyone can stand here and deny this evidence of a weakened immune system is incredible.”

(From: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-08/bayer-braces-for-third-roundup-verdict-amid-shareholder-pressure)

And medical research in particular, often seems to reverse previously strongly held stances in due course - particularly those based on epidemiological data with many possible factors which are difficult or impossible to study independently.

Do these types of cases, usually with headlines of record damages awarded, typically come to anything significant? Do they set any kind of precedence apart from a new high score to challange another jury to try to beat?

[ttelectronic]

I don't really think so. Just a little slap on the wrist in the end. Corporate profits always outweigh human beings health and well being.

[magic]

The thing about Roundup is that mountains of studies have supposedly been made on it and it was massively advertised as a safe herbicide. Biodegradable, low toxicity, doesn't cause environmental damage, doesn't cause cancer, doesn't poison wildlife, safe to spray on roundup-resistant crops for human consumption
If those studies are turning out to be crooked, it may be hard to argue that Mosanto hasn't been asking for it, no matter if the cancer thing is real or not. Safety was their main selling point.

As for the verdict, the problem is that when somebody sues, the court is obliged to rule something and either way they may be wrong as they are indeed not qualified to really know what caused that guy's cancer. So they concentrate on what they can assess, which is whether the company acted responsibly.

And it seems we are talking California, these guys are particularly obsessed with cancer and warnings on product even remotely suspected of causing it. They have warning at the doors to buildings which may contain "substances know to the state of California to cause cancer or birth defects". Of course the effect is that everything in California gets a cancer label to stay safe from lawsuits and nobody cares about the warnings.

And finally: eat GMO, win stupid prizes

[Kleinstein]

The US legal system is kind of laughable. How can a jury decide on a case where science is still undecided and full of contradictions.
Another point are the sums involved once a foreign company is involved. Before the Bayer take over the sums would have been much smaller.

My personal conclusions from the glyphosat studies I have see so far is that chances are glyphosat itself is likely safe, but the commercial product is not pure and those impurities can in deed be carcinogenic.
There was a more known case with agent orange used in Vietnam: the impurities not intended to be there were the really nasty stuff.

Still it is essentially impossible to prove the actual cause of a cancer case. There is just to much randomness involved.

[rsjsouza]

Roundup is sold in the retail market here in the US. Many years ago I used it around the house I can tell that, at least for me, it was NOT a pleasant thing. It took me a while to do the correlation, but I had headaches for a few hours after using it - these headaches started very mild and I thought initially this was due to the exposure to the Texas' summer temperatures and sun, tied to the very infrequent use of the Roundup. Over the course of a few years, the headaches started to become worse every time I used the product, even after I got a chemical 3M mask and thicker gloves. My control was that simply staying out in the sun did not give me the same problems. At that point I decided to stop it.

Is this a problem for a large part of the population? I really don't know, but it is not the thing for me. I used this some five to ten times per year in low quantities, but I wonder what would be the effects to a person in a very.wide area in large quantities.

[Koen]

is the US legal system the world's laughing stock?[...]presumably[...]But this case seems to me[...]but it doesn't seem to me[...]I'm no expert but this[...]it seems to me[...]Yes I know I've only spent about 30 mins Google-ing[...]I've no idea what those studies are[...]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[...]

Bold claims without even an understanding of jury trials.

[Electro Detective]

I'll bet Moneysanto don't use concentrated bottled agent0range Roundup near their vege patches, fruit trees, pet areas, lawns,
and weeds popping through driveway cracks at their mansions 

So will the accused be paying the 2b in cash, gold, stocks, computer digits, stamps,
or lifetime supply of Roundup to whoever sued?

2b for them is like a $20 sting in the hip pocket for the average consumer   

[taydin]

These types of fines are instruments of foreign diplomacy. Monsanto was an American company, but recently was acquired by German Bayer. So what we are seeing is America pressuring Germany to advance its own political interests. We will soon see fines against German car makers and other German companies doing business in America.

The poor family with cancer is just the presentation part of this, nobody really cares about them, and giving them 50 million or whatever compensation is well justified to advance your political interests.

[Richard Crowley]

This doesn't seem as ridiculous as ROHS from a bunch of technically-ignorant bureaucrats in Brussels.  We are still waiting for someone to cite the actual evidence of lead poisoning from solder, etc.

[nctnico]

This doesn't seem as ridiculous as ROHS from a bunch of technically-ignorant bureaucrats in Brussels.  We are still waiting for someone to cite the actual evidence of lead poisoning from solder, etc.

Ignorance is bliss. ROHS is to prevent very toxic materials (like lead) to end up in landfills and poisoning the soil and drinking water. At some point equipment gets thrown away.

[Electro Detective]

These types of fines are instruments of foreign diplomacy.
Monsanto was an American company, but recently was acquired by German Bayer.
So what we are seeing is America pressuring Germany to advance its own political interests.

We will soon see fines against German car makers and other German companies doing business in America.

The poor family with cancer is just the presentation part of this, nobody really cares about them, and giving them 50 million or whatever compensation is well justified to advance your political interests.

Where does the fine money actually go? WHEN is it supposed to be 'paid' and in what financial form is it transferred across ?

and what is it then used for, and by whom?  or does it end up in some 'classified' coffer/s supposedly for a  'rainy day'   


It's difficult to envisage the average struggling punter in the US seeing a compensation cent or half chewed bone out of these obvious repetitive corporat bitchslap shows 

[Mr. Scram]

This doesn't seem as ridiculous as ROHS from a bunch of technically-ignorant bureaucrats in Brussels.  We are still waiting for someone to cite the actual evidence of lead poisoning from solder, etc.

There you go.

[taydin]

Where does the fine money actually go? WHEN is it supposed to be 'paid' and in what financial form is it transferred across ?

and what is it then used for, and by whom?  or does it end up in some 'classified' coffer/s supposedly for a  'rainy day'   


It's difficult to envisage the average struggling punter in the US seeing a compensation cent or half chewed bone out of these obvious repetitive corporat bitchslap shows 

Maybe Germany will yield to US pressure and will do as told. In this case, we will see that nobody's talking about this case anymore and perhaps only a little compensation will be paid to the family. Or Germany will resist and will start fining US companies. We have seen these happen in the past, and eventually one side yields (usually the side other than the USA) and they hug each other and it's business as usual.

[T3sl4co1l]

As for the verdict, the problem is that when somebody sues, the court is obliged to rule something and either way they may be wrong as they are indeed not qualified to really know what caused that guy's cancer.

Fortunately [for them], the legal system has an independent basis of facts and reason.  Law has evolved long before science did, and then science alongside, but separate from, law.

Science demands a higher standard of proof, but science deals with objective reality as much as it can, measuring inanimate experiments with inanimate instruments as much as possible.  The things law decides often are untestable, and almost always subjective in the scientific sense (law also has its own definitions for "objective" and "subjective"), so it's not entirely an accident that their standard of proof is different.

Scientifically speaking, a "jury of peers" very likely doesn't have the training to analyze a scientific argument, no.  But that's also the point.  If the anyman feels that the verdict is justified, then that verdict becomes fact, by definition.  The courts are intended to operate as an arm of a democratic system, where ordinary people are given some amount of power to direct the system at large; in general, it's an important check on the system.  And yes, it often goes very wrong, too (e.g., racially motivated verdicts, at odds with the word of the law and the facts of the case).

Tim

[Towger]

I am still amazed Bayer bought Monsanto.  It was clear years ago all these cases were in the works!

Every few years a well know and sensible run company loses the run of it's self and buys a pig in a poke/poison chalice.

[apis]

This doesn't seem as ridiculous as ROHS from a bunch of technically-ignorant bureaucrats in Brussels.  We are still waiting for someone to cite the actual evidence of lead poisoning from solder, etc.

RoHS is about getting rid of lead completely unless it's really necessary. The problem isn't lead in solder specifically, but lead in general. There used to be lead in everything from plastics, paints, cast metals and electronics, etc. In these days of disposable consumer products it's a big problem.

"The National Academies evaluated this issue[12] in 1991 and confirmed that the blood lead level of the average person in the US was 300 to 500 times higher than that of pre-industrial humans."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_lead_level

[Mr. Scram]

RoHS is about getting rid of lead completely unless it's really necessary. The problem isn't lead in solder specifically, but lead in general. There used to be lead in everything from plastics, paints, cast metals and electronics, etc. In these days of disposable consumer products it's a big problem.

"The National Academies evaluated this issue[12] in 1991 and confirmed that the blood lead level of the average person in the US was 300 to 500 times higher than that of pre-industrial humans."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_lead_level

Lead in petrol is arguably the biggest contributor to the disaster. Lead was being added to petrol until only a few decades ago and it's still used as an additive in some aviation fuels. If you intended to maliciously poison the world, it'd be hard to come up with a better plan.

[apis]

Lead in petrol is arguably the biggest contributor to the disaster. Lead was being added to petrol until only a few decades ago and it's still used as an additive in some aviation fuels. If you intended to maliciously poison the world, it'd be hard to come up with a better plan.

Yes, lead in gasoline got to be one of the stupidest ideas so far. Didn't know it was still being used!

I found this article now which seems somewhat related to the topic here:
Why did we use leaded petrol for so long?

However, it was not the only way to solve the problem.

Ethyl alcohol had much the same effect and wouldn't mess with your head, unless you drank it. Midgley knew this, having combined petrol with practically every imaginable substance, from iodine to camphor to melted butter.

Why did the petrol companies push tetraethyl lead instead of ethyl alcohol? Researchers who have studied the decision remain puzzled. Cynics might point out that any old farmer could distil ethyl alcohol from grain. It couldn't be patented, or its distribution profitably controlled. Tetraethyl lead could.

[VK3DRB]

Maybe Germany will yield to US pressure and will do as told. In this case, we will see that nobody's talking about this case anymore and perhaps only a little compensation will be paid to the family. Or Germany will resist and will start fining US companies. We have seen these happen in the past, and eventually one side yields (usually the side other than the USA) and they hug each other and it's business as usual.

Germany won't resist anything, mate. Look how Germany allowed the CIA to escape justice after the Khalid al-Masri debacle. And the US NSA spying on Angela Merkel by tapping her phone. For that, Merkel could have at least deported the US ambassador with 24 hours notice and shut the embassy, until at least severe financial penalties were paid or the perpetrators were behind bars in Germany. The Australian government is no better. Shortly after 298 innocent people including 38 Australian residents were murdered by Putin's rogues (MH17), our ex-PM Tony Abbott cuddled koalas after inviting Putin to the G20 in Australia. Except for Trump who is bringing China to account for its theft of IP, it appears many leaders are either gutless or are just lapdogs.

IBM compensated US customers who bought the DeskStar (nicknamed DeathStar) hard disk which had a phenomenal failure rate. The compensation was not extended outside the US. Expect such behaviour to be repeated by other dodgy companies trying to escape their moral and legal obligations.

[Ampera]

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.

[splin]

is the US legal system the world's laughing stock?[...]presumably[...]But this case seems to me[...]but it doesn't seem to me[...]I'm no expert but this[...]it seems to me[...]Yes I know I've only spent about 30 mins Google-ing[...]I've no idea what those studies are[...]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[...]

Bold claims...

Ok, here's another claim - but hardly 'bold': "Your vesion of the English language has a different meaning of the word 'claim' to mine". I explicitly tried hard not to make any claims. Care to point any out? Other than my statements of fact including "Yes I know I've only spent about 30 mins Google-ing" and "it seems to me", which, as I presented no evidence to support them means that to you theyare merely claims).

...without even an understanding of jury trials.

Now that's a bold claim. Please explain which parts of the jury trial I don't understand and how they are material to this discussion? An executive summary will do - I don't expect a fully argued case with supporting evidence. 

And how do you know? Are you inside my head? Do you work for the NSA? Has my tin foil hat failed?

[apis]

Shortly after 298 innocent people including 38 Australian residents were murdered by Putin's rogues (MH17)

I wouldn't be so quick to assume malicious intent, similar things have happened by mistake before. Take for example Iran Air Flight 655 or Siberia Airlines Flight 1812.

[wraper]

Shortly after 298 innocent people including 38 Australian residents were murdered by Putin's rogues (MH17), our ex-PM Tony Abbott cuddled koalas after inviting Putin to the G20 in Australia.

You drink too much propaganda kool-aid. Putin supposedly should be relentlessly thinking how to do something bad that will hurt himself without gaining any advantages  . New Ukrainian government and USA were those who gained from this incident, Russia on the other hand only suffered. Also it's very strange that Ukraine withheld a lot of evidence, particularly radar data and flight control audio recordings. So far there is no strong evidence it was Russia, not to say it would not be the first time Ukraine shooting down passenger plane. Also Ukraine should be blamed for this regardless of who shot down the plane because they allowed passenger planes flying over the war zone.

[Koen]

You claim you would be twice astonished if the jury could [...] but this isn't what the jury is for nor is it what it had to decide, plain and simple.

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

[MT]

Shortly after 298 innocent people including 38 Australian residents were murdered by Putin's rogues (MH17), our ex-PM Tony Abbott cuddled koalas after inviting Putin to the G20 in Australia.

You drink too much propaganda kool-aid. Putin supposedly should be relentlessly thinking how to do something bad that will hurt himself without gaining any advantages  . New Ukrainian government and USA were those who gained from this incident, Russia on the other hand only suffered. Also it's very strange that Ukraine withheld a lot of evidence, particularly radar data and flight control audio recordings. So far there is no strong evidence it was Russia, not to say it would not be the first time Ukraine shooting down passenger plane. Also Ukraine should be blamed for this regardless of who shot down the plane because they allowed passenger planes flying over the war zone.

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. The rebels, Putin, Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs and the airliner should be blamed flying over war zone.

[wraper]

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.

[james_s]

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.

[james_s]

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.

[Ampera]

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.

[james_s]

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.

[G7PSK]

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 . 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.

[splin]

You claim you would be twice astonished if the jury could [...]

This is what I said:

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.

..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:

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.

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

Erm, which media? Please provide some links.

[Koen]

Verdict form for anyone interested in the differences between what the jury had to decide on and what splin expects from a jury.

[splin]

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?

[soldar]

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

[magic]

Great, another thing to stock after leaded solder

[Electro Detective]

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

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? 

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... 

[soldar]

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.

[tautech]

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. 

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. 

[splin]

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? 

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.

[Zucca]

"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).

[magic]

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.

[Electro Detective]

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   

[soldar]

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.

[tautech]

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.

[Macbeth]

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???

[james_s]

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.

[tautech]

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 !

[Electro Detective]

I second Mr. Tautech's safety recommendations 

You're messing with substances that kill weeds,
and weeds are tough customers    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.. 

[tautech]

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. 

[NiHaoMike]

Why not get rid of the weeds by giving them a load of angry pixies?

[Electro Detective]

...less chemicals and more programmed robo-goats 

[rsjsouza]

Weeds are plants. We just call them a different name. 

[tautech]

Weeds are plants. We just call them a different name. 

Yep.
Glyphosate would be the most used chemical even without targeting weed species as it's the preferred solution to pre-cultivation where you might want to re-grass with more modern higher producing grasses or prepare ground for a commercial crop however at standard rates it doesn't control everything in a pasture and often it need be used in conjunction with another chemical to improve glyphosate uptake or also target a species that glyphosate won't control.
This is when you often need professional advice from the agrichemical company reps or their specialist resellers.

[Electro Detective]

I'd still take a gander at how the old schoolers did things back in the day on God's freebie    lease free lands,

before assisting Moneysanto to get more richer than rich rich rich...   

[tautech]

I'd still take a gander at how the old schoolers did things back in the day on God's freebie    lease free lands,

before assisting Moneysanto to get more richer than rich rich rich...   

Sure.......we used shit like Paraquat.........many times more toxic !
Knew a guy that died from that muck.

[Electro Detective]

No contest on that 

but I was talkin old school way way back,
before the cigar gobbling investards and pharma creeps decided to mess with the soil for a fast buck
and financially screw over gullible farmers down on their luck, to buy and use the lab concocted 'miracle' product,
that worked ok for a time, till it finally drained what life was left in the soil,
and the suckers lost their generations owned land, to the money lending scum who knew up front they were on a sure thing 

[tautech]

No contest on that 

but I was talkin old school way way back,
before the cigar gobbling investards and pharma creeps decided to mess with the soil for a fast buck
and financially screw over gullible farmers down on their luck, to buy and use the lab concocted 'miracle' product,
that worked ok for a time, till it finally drained what life was left in the soil,
and the suckers lost their generations owned land, to the money lending scum who knew up front they were on a sure thing 

Yes but............some chemicals we had to use yearly by law, sheep dips are an example and they poisoned the soil around the application facility and now decades later those areas are considered toxic and must be cleaned by excavation and soil taken to a registered landfill ..........all at the landowners expense.......for a chemical that we had to use by law !!!  ?
Gubbermints   

Talk about passing the buck !! 

[ptricks]

 I live in a rural area where my yard borders corn fields, pastures with cows and hog farms so I see chemical spraying quite a bit.  When I was a kid I remember corn fields having weeds, now it is just dirt and corn, not a weed in sight, but I wonder what lies beneath in years to come.

In my own yard they used roundup to kill the grass and weeds along the brick paths and driveway and after I had them stop the thing I noticed is the weeds came back first, not the grass.  The grass is still trying to grow back in those areas, but the weds are doing great!

[ptricks]

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.

The organic way to do it is with straw.  Cut the weeds down as low as you can, cover with straw and it blocks light and prevents any seeds in the air from taking root. You do have to re-apply the straw as it breaks down into the soil.  Make sure it is real straw and not hay, hay is the entire plant and has seeds that will grow, straw is just the stalk without the seeds.

[apis]

I have no experience so don't know if it works, but couldn't you also do it with some ground cover sheet, just make holes where you plant the crops?
Maybe less organic than straw, but still better than poison and might be easier to buy than straw (the way the world works).

The large scale commercial farming using glyphosate (no-till farming) have many problems. The upside is you don't have to till and harrow to get rid of weeds, but you become dependent on gmo-crops from a specific vendor and you kill of insects and all other plants. Large mono-cultures also knock out a lot of insects and the result is that the only insects that thrive are the ones that like to eat the crops and develop resistance against the poisons. The hope is that they will come up with new poisons and gmo-crops in time, that can take care of the new resistant diseases and insects.

I'm not against gmo or chemicals in principle, it just doesn't seem very sustainable the way they do it now. 

[Electro Detective]

If you have the right 'pick' tools, heavy well balanced styles that are easy on the back,

a careful swing or two down deep, and a yank or lever up, gets the most stubborn weeds out, physically 'ROOTS 'N ALL' . 
no jungle clearing urban offshoot CONcoction required   

Shake out the soil back into the hole, a gentle tap down,

and that's it, game over for the weed/s, they won't be back too soon for another go,
giving the eye candy grass a chance to creep back over the cavity.


If you have a real drama on your hands, and or the weeds have infiltrated rock/pebble driveway areas    water down the areas first
or wait for a good rain, and pick n scrape = out they come..

Don't even think about going medieval on stubborn weeds without steel tipped rubber boots, eye protection, gloves, hat,
a thick bath towel and cool water to drink, especially on a 'nice sunny day'. 

If you've got allergies, either buy a decent breathing kit with filters, $10>$20?  or stay away 

those cheapie white pull on nose/mouth things won't filter out fine particle dust, even though better than nothing,
or go the tacky route and wear an outlaw face thing you see on old school Western movies (big fan btw  ) 

FWIW, weeds and their airborne seeds will happen whatever you do,
mainly thanks to others in the area showering their yards, gardens and driveways with cheap mutant spray,
and crummy developer tards kicking up weed infested soil and dust during the building of easy profit high rise stacked dog boxes/future ricketty fire trap eyesore slums.