Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has recently broken its winning trial record with a number of jury verdicts against it.

Bayer’s Monsanto was ordered to pay more than $1.5 billion Friday over claims its patented weed-killer, Roundup, was linked to users’ cancer, Bloomberg reported.

James Draeger, Valerie Gunther and Dan Anderson were each awarded a total of $61.1 million in actual damages and $500 million each in punitive damages by jurors in state court in Jefferson City, Missouri.

The three people alleged that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas — a type of cancer that begins in your lymphatic system, part of the body’s immune system — were caused by years of using Roundup while gardening.

  • zazo@lemmy.world
    31·
    1 year ago

    Not sure how that degree makes you an expert in toxicology or cancer research, but I sure hope you’ve not made your mind up about Roundup being safe. I’m not saying it’s not (the WHO is) but from experience I’ve found that treating potentially cancer causing chemicals with extra care is less likely to well…give you cancer.

    But I’m willing to hear your side. Just fyi I don’t think the argument “it’s the best we got right now or people starve” is any stronger than saying “we can’t switch from lead pipes, the people will die of thirst”.

    • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
      42·
      1 year ago

      My BSc was in pharmacology which gives me a passing familiarity with those subjects. My conclusions aren’t faith-based - any strong evidence, especially toxicology data, would certainly change my mind.

      I think the average agricultural worker should be much more concerned about, for example, silicosis. That’s legitimately scary and ruins countless lives.

      I work with dangerous machinery and chemicals all the time and my position at present is that glyphosate is orders of magnitude less dangerous than many common household solvents and cleaning products.

      • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        Then what is your thought on the specific data presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and their classification of glyphosate as, “probably carcinogenic to humans”?

        Pardon me but I just thought if a self-proclaimed expert in the field was going to mount a defense, I’d see a more data-oriented stance. I am an Engineer, myself, and I appreciate data-driven points. Not, “drinking lube” because it’s “probably safe” and “give them a glass of shit”.

        Alas, my original comment was less about having an argument over the matter at this time and more shooting the shit about my past experience on Reddit. Others here shared a similar experience with vitriolic brigaders on Reddit just the same.

        • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 year ago

          I don’t consider myself an expert, and I accept that data. It probably does have the potential to be carcinogenic, particularly with chronic, high exposure. Many fairly innocuous things are, like eating pickles. It’s a relevant concern for certain agricultural workers, but doesn’t really warrant a ban.

          • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            Well that’s something I can generally come to terms with. It’s certainly not up to me to decide whether it’s worth a ban or not and there is enough mixed data and conclusions on the subject that I don’t think it’s cut-and-dry, but clearly poses a risk with chronic exposure as you mention. I certainly wouldn’t want my family-members exposed to it on a farm.

            To the consumer down the line? Yeah, it doesn’t keep me up at night. PFAS/PFOAS/forever-chemicals seem far more concerning in that respect to the end-user.