
Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial - dtien
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45152546
======
wslh
They are running a big campaign in favour of glyphosate in Reddit. in
Argentina at least. Subreddit admins have cobtacted Reddit to suspend the
campaign because of false claims going against the rules.

The campaign also tricks people because they post links to popular media
sites. There is more information about this (in Spanish) here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/95m863/followup_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/95m863/followup_sobre_contenido_promocionado_en/)

~~~
colordrops
They've been running a campaign on reddit for years. They've even had a
subreddit where they coordinated, though I can't recall the name. They scan
every subreddit for posts about Monsanto, glyphosate, or GMOs, and attack
anyone who posts negatively about them. It was always the same people.

Edit: found the subreddit, though it doesn't appear to be as active as it used
to be:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GMOFacts/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMOFacts/)

~~~
Buge
That subreddit appears to be about genetically modified organisms, not
glyphosate or other chemicals.

~~~
colordrops
Glyphosate and GMOs are very intertwined. Just look at the second story on
that subreddit. Monsanto sells GMO modified organisms that are glyphosate
resistant.

------
tptacek
A useful thing to know about this case is that the plaintiff took pains not to
base their case on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, but rather of Roundup,
which is less than half glyphosate. During their opening statement, any time
they referenced a study about about glyphosate, they'd say "but remember that
study only looked at glyphosate, not Roundup, and as we all know, more than
half of Roundup is other stuff".

They seemed particularly interested in promoting a theory that the surfectant
POEA had something to do with the illness.

~~~
fabian2k
I followed that argument a bit, and what I found was a Seralini study
([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756058/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756058/)).
He is known for some really bad studies about GMOs, those were simply terrible
science and he obviously has an axe to grind.

The POEA experiments in that paper were about exposing cell cultures to
different roundup compositions and components. It is not surprising that POEA
kills the cells in this kind of experiment as it is a kind of detergent. Human
cell cultures have no defense against having their cell membranes disrupted by
detergents. Real humans are not cell cultures and can't be easily killed that
mechanism. We have skin and other barriers like mucous membranes that protect
the cells.

I didn't look much further, but seeing that paper as the first result does
make me very skeptical about the idea.

~~~
killbrad
I'm confused, are you arguing that cellular changes cannot impact a larger
organism because they have too many cells?

~~~
tangentspace
That's not how I'd interpret this sentence: "We have skin and other barriers
that protect the cells." It sounds to me like the author claims that humans
have skin, which is true, and that skin forms a barrier that protects internal
cells, which is extremely plausible.

~~~
eganist
That's a literal interpretation. A contextual interpretation implies that
Roundup cannot cause harm through the observed means because it cannot clear
the skin, the latter of which is patently false.

~~~
balfirevic
No. The contextual interpretation says that the above-mentioned study doesn't
prove Roundup is harmful because the same results would be observed with any
detergent, to which we are regularly exposed without suffering any harm.

Therefore, Roundup might or might not be harmful, but the study doesn't tell
us much about it.

~~~
eganist
> to which we are regularly exposed without suffering any harm.

Right, because _we 're instructed not to consume detergents._ Following this
instruction keeps the detergents outside the body.

We _are_ instructed to consume food grown with herbicides such as Roundup, and
Roundup is often (if not always) delivered in a sprayed manner with
significant aerosolization.

------
zorkw4rg
> Mr Johnson's lawyer, Brent Wisner, said the jury's verdict showed that the
> evidence against the product was "overwhelming".

Uhhh to say that is quite the stretch, a jury of layman should judge the
scientific consensus? The referenced International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) report is anything but conclusive. That verdict speaks more to
the widespread uninformed FUD against GMO.

[https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate...](https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate_IARC2016.php)

~~~
lx3459683
> the scientific consensus

Uhh. You mean the lack of consensus. Which is bought and paid for by Monsanto.
When it comes to their own products, they outspend any independent studies by
orders of magnitude in order to create enough noise for there to be a lack of
consensus long enough to make a profit. It's straight out of the tobacco
industry playbook.

~~~
0x4f3759df
Not sure if it causes cancer or not, but this is like a security hole in the
scientific process (ie mostly only the company that produces X will fund
studies of X). It's interesting to think security holes more generally - Nick
Szabo got me thinking along these lines with his recent pinned tweet: "Giant
companies are the security holes of capitalism. The more centralized
industries get, the more they attract socialist political activists. The
Bolshevik Revolution was a violent version of this vs. railroad stations,
newspapers, etc. Now activism is focused on tech giants."

~~~
kennywinker
That’s one way to look at it. Big companies attract activists and so are a
risk for capitalism.

Another way would be that big companies do the most damage to the most
people’s lives, and are a risk for humanity.

------
rapnie
Whether the guilty verdict is ultimately upheld will probably be decided in a
higher court. But this company sure has a dubious track record with previous
hazardous substances that were in their product line:

> The company once manufactured controversial products such as the insecticide
> DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange and recombinant bovine growth hormone.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto)

~~~
killbrad
A toxic company

------
jakewins
Here are transcripts and documents from the case as its progressed of anyone
is interested in how the jury was convinced:
[https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-
round...](https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-
lawsuit/dewayne-johnson-v-monsanto-company/)

------
gonvaled
Interesting that this happens after Monsanto has been acquired by an EU
company. How long have cases like this one been dismissed?

Are there any examples of US court rulings against big American companies with
comparable foreign competitors? I mean, rulings affecting only the American
company? (putting it at a disadvantage)

The US is becoming a risky market for foreign enterprises, since it has become
extremely politicized, like so many corrupt countries around the world.

~~~
sampo
Last year, a jury in California issued an even larger $417-million verdict for
a woman with ovarian cancer. Against Johnson & Johnson, an American pharma
company. It was about talcum products, that is baby powder.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson#Baby_powde...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson#Baby_powder)

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cancer-talc-
verd...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cancer-talc-
verdict-20170821-story.html)

------
joshmn
My mom is another one of these stories. I wish I was exaggerating. I bet
there's still Round-up in the her garage. I've spent the last 4 years or my
life have been devoted to working so I can afford her treatments and keep her
around and happy.

Does anyone have any environmental attorneys they've worked with in the past
they can recommend?

~~~
refurb
How do you know Round Up caused her cancer?

~~~
mjburgess
post hoc ergo propter hoc

Background frequency of cancer? Background frequency of owning the most
popular weed killer? Expected number of co-incidence?

~~~
refurb
How do you do that on an individual level?

Even people who smoke that get cancer don’t know whether it was the smoking or
not. Plenty of people who don’t smoke get lung cancer too.

I’ve never seen a cause of cancer determined beyond population analyses or
someone having a specific gene where the rate of cancer development is near
100%.

Edit: I should also add extremely rare cancers where people have been exposed
to a known causal agent. Like mesothelioma and asbestos.

------
killbrad
I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying
RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to
drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.

~~~
keymone
not defending monsanto here, but this particular argument is garbage. your
urine is safe to drink - will you do it in front of me on camera right now?

~~~
dgacmu
For $289 million? ;)

~~~
trumped
I'm cheap, I'd probably do it for $10k (1/4oz)... If it's a recurring deal, I
might even do it weekly for $5k each time...

~~~
chakalakasp
I’m imagining you at a party in a smart dinner jacket holding some sort of
cocktail.

“So, what do you do for a living?”

~~~
trumped
well, at least I don't work for Facebook or Google ;) /s

------
dbjh
For some reason discussions about Roundup and glyphosate tend to focus on
their carcinogenic properties. However, if you search the scientific
literature it appears a stronger case can be made against either based on
their endocrine disruptive properties, which appear quite a bit scarier due to
observed effects at very low concentrations (lower than regulatory limits).

Since I can't formulate it so succinctly myself and because it answers several
questions raised in previous comments here's the abstract of the article
"Mesnage, R, Defarge, N, Spiroux de Vendômois, J, Séralini, G.E, Potential
toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory
limits, Food and Chemical Toxicology (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012.",
but you will find similarly unsettling abstracts in many articles about this
subject.

Abstract Glyphosate-based herbicides (GlyBH), including Roundup, are the most
widely used pesticides worldwide. Their uses have increased exponentially
since their introduction on the market. Residue levels in food or water, as
well as human exposures, are escalating. We have reviewed the toxic effects of
GlyBH measured below regulatory limits by evaluating the published literature
and regulatory reports. We reveal a coherent body of evidence indicating that
GlyBH could be toxic below the regulatory lowest observed adverse effect level
for chronic toxic effects. It includes teratogenic, tumorigenic and
hepatorenal effects. They could be explained by endocrine disruption and
oxidative stress, causing metabolic alterations, depending on dose and
exposure time. Some effects were detected in the range of the recommended
acceptable daily intake. Toxic effects of commercial formulations can also be
explained by GlyBH adjuvants, which have their own toxicity, but also enhance
glyphosate toxicity. These challenge the assumption of safety of GlyBH at the
levels at which they contaminate food and the environment, albeit these levels
may fall below regulatory thresholds. Neurodevelopmental, reproductive, and
transgenerational effects of GlyBH must be revisited, since a growing body of
knowledge suggests the predominance of endocrine disrupting mechanisms caused
by environmentally relevant levels of exposure.

------
softwaredoug
Ugh. I was just about to spray weed killer on some spots in my backyard. :)
The rain in the east this year has made it impossible to keep up with weeding!

~~~
gcheong
Assuming you have a grass lawn, you wouldn’t want to spray roundup on a yard
regardless as it would kill your grass also and potentially any non weed
plants as well. There are other herbicides that grasses can tolerate though.
In any cases, whatever you use is probably not a cause for concern if you’re
following the label directions.

------
RickJWagner
Wow. The lawyers have to be celebrating this one.

------
guilamu
Glyphosate and Roundup are poisons and Monsanto pretty much knows it. Let me
give you a few facts and a bit of history to make my case.

There has been a lot of studies about Glyphosate nocivity around the years,
but the three most significant are the ones led by the World Health
Organization (WHO), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA).

The controversy began with a report published by the IARC, an
intergovernmental agency under the authority of the WHO of the United Nations.
According to this report, the carcinogenicity of Glyphosate is 'probable'.

This result was contradicted in November 2015 by a study published by the
EFSA. In the face of uncertainty, many Member States refused to renew the
authorization of Glyphosate, which was due to expire on 30 June 2016. Pending
a new study, this time by the ECHA, the European Commission has only extended
the product's registration until 15 December 2017.

This new study was published in March 2017. Like EFSA, it rejects the
potential carcinogenicity of Glyphosate.

However, the potential dangerousness of Glyphosate is not ruled out. But why
you asked, my good friend?

As many scientists, NGOs and politicians denounce, the IARC, EFSA and ECHA
reports are not comparable. While the first one decides on marketed products,
such as Roundup, the other two only study Glyphosate alone, without the
adjuvants that reinforce its effects. Moreover, when IARC bases its analysis
on public studies, EFSA and ECHA work mainly on data directly transmitted by
industry, including Monsanto, which would make their conclusions questionable.

Yes, two of the most cited studies saying Glyphosate and Roundup are safe use
data directly gave by Monsanto itself! And wait, there is more...

Christopher Portier, an American scientist, denounces those facts in an open
letter sent on 29 May 2017 to Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European
Commission, and relayed by numerous media. "Both EFSA and ECHA have failed to
identify all statistically significant cases of increased cancer incidence in
rodent studies," he writes. He also states that, using Monsato own data, he
has detected "eight cases of significant increase in the incidence of
different tumors", which appear in neither of the two publications. Mr Portier
therefore 'respectfully' asks EFSA and ECHA to 'conduct their own analysis'
and 'amend their conclusions accordingly'. To base his results, the American
researcher relied on data used and published by EFSA, which until now had
remained confidential.

If you still do not believe that, at least, the precautionary principle should
apply here and that both Roundup and Glyphosate should be banned, I don't know
what you need.

Sources:

[https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/pourquoi-le-
Glyphosate...](https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/pourquoi-le-Glyphosate-
divise-l-europe.html)

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate)

------
vinchuco
(Redacted)

~~~
tptacek
That's Dow Forefront, not Roundup. They aren't the same thing.

------
sunseb
Good.

------
techrich
that fine is far to cheap

~~~
trumped
not if they have to pay it to everyone who can link their cancer to a
Monsanto/Bayer product

------
techrich
that fine is far to cheap.

------
mrhappyunhappy
I'm just happy an average Joe could set precedence for more lawsuits against a
scumbag evil corporation that does more harm than good on this planet. About
time!

