Farmer Sues Monsanto - Glyphosate - Page 6 - The Combine Forum
 79Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #51 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-05-2019, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kendall County Illinois
Posts: 370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashnburn2 View Post
Wait, so..... you're not supposed to clean plugged nozzles with your mouth?

That's how it was done in the 80's where I was around it. The screens would plug on a nozzle, they'd get it all over their hands twisting off the cap, pull out the tip and the screen and blow them out with their mouth. Yeah, a very bad idea.. but that's how they did it.

noacres is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-05-2019, 05:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Griffith NSW Australia
Posts: 1,401
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
We now have our first case in Australia off a Glyphosate user taken Bayer to court. The disease is spreading

silverrod is offline  
post #53 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-05-2019, 07:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by meskie View Post
Why is it Monsanto’s problem for somebody not being safe. Man up and take some responsibility for your own life.
But if they’ve built a market around it having a better safety profile than it does (and deliberately suppressing adverse data) don’t they bear some responsibility?

I know in this thread I was disappointed that Monsanto wasn’t allowed to present some data in support of their court case. Perhaps there’s a legitimate reason why...

“Through three civil trials, the public release of internal corporate communications has revealed conduct that all three juries have found so unethical as to warrant punishing punitive damage awards.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ists-academics

“Almost three-quarters of the peer-reviewed papers looked at by IARC found evidence of genotoxicity in glyphosate, compared with just 1% of the industry analyses, according to the study published in Environmental Sciences Europe”

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-report-finds

Last edited by adsinaus; 06-06-2019 at 04:47 PM. Reason: Quote second article
adsinaus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #54 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-05-2019, 07:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Yeah they did some crazy stuff, that’s for sure, and that is not helping their case. And this is not conspiracy, but actual information that has come out of court testimony and discovery.

https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic...ret-documents/

Glyphosate has been a valuable weed killer though, no doubt about that.
adsinaus likes this.
New_Farmer is offline  
post #55 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-05-2019, 07:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Ozzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: West OZ, Any further south and you get wet!
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 210 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by adsinaus View Post
But if they’ve built a market around it having a better safety profile than it does (and deliberately suppressing adverse data) don’t they bear some responsibility?

I know in this thread I was disappointed that Monsanto wasn’t allowed to present some data in support of their court case. Perhaps there’s a legitimate reason why...

“Through three civil trials, the public release of internal corporate communications has revealed conduct that all three juries have found so unethical as to warrant punishing punitive damage awards.”.............................

Yeah thats fine except in these days of Social media, Activist Judges and a rabid press run by Vegans a Civil trial these days is the equivalent of a Medieval Witch burning!
adsinaus, radar and jcalder like this.
Ozzie is offline  
post #56 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-06-2019, 01:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Agreed, and that’s the problem-very difficult to have a proper discourse when the “professionally offended” seem to want to take over/crowd the space.

And yes glyphosate has provided great utility as a weed killer; and the (environmental and production) benefits that go with that.
adsinaus is offline  
post #57 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-06-2019, 10:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Licensed to kill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Northern Alberta
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by adsinaus View Post
But if they’ve built a market around it having a better safety profile than it does (and deliberately suppressing adverse data) don’t they bear some responsibility?

I know in this thread I was disappointed that Monsanto wasn’t allowed to present some data in support of their court case. Perhaps there’s a legitimate reason why...

“Through three civil trials, the public release of internal corporate communications has revealed conduct that all three juries have found so unethical as to warrant punishing punitive damage awards.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ists-academics

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-report-finds
That's all well and good, however, Monsanto was NOT on trial for manipulation of data or reporting. They were on trial ONLY for Glyphosate ACTUALLY causing NH-Lymphoma. There is no question that Monsanto had/has some VERY questionable business practices and, if what is non those articles is correct, then they should be brought to trial for fraud or something along those lines and punished for their deceit. This is like trying a guy for murder and the jury saying "Well, there is no proof he did it but all accounts suggest that he is an ******* so we will convict him anyway.
whtbaron and SWMan like this.
Licensed to kill is offline  
post #58 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-06-2019, 04:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Point taken, however
Almost three-quarters of the peer-reviewed papers looked at by IARC found evidence of genotoxicity in glyphosate, compared with just 1% of the industry analyses, according to the study published in Environmental Sciences Europe”

Would tend to indicate that their scientists were either incompetent OR data was deliberately suppressed etc. I.e. the guy in your example was guilty of murder.
(Quote from second link- have edited post above to include)

I do hope that they don’t ban glyphosate as it’s been a terrific tool for agriculture and there’s other chemicals being used which (probably) have worse known risk profiles. BUT it also needs to be assessed accurately based on the scientific data.

Last edited by adsinaus; 06-06-2019 at 04:56 PM. Reason: More info
adsinaus is offline  
post #59 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-06-2019, 08:07 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vermilion Alberta Canada
Posts: 5,430
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by adsinaus View Post
Point taken, however
Almost three-quarters of the peer-reviewed papers looked at by IARC found evidence of genotoxicity in glyphosate, compared with just 1% of the industry analyses, according to the study published in Environmental Sciences Europe”
The IARC was carefully manipulated by the likes of Christopher Portier, a statistician and who worked for the powerful Environmental Development Fund (EDF). The only reason he was there was to create the monograph for both the EDF and himself, along with a couple other lawyers, to be hired as expert witnesses in the Monsanto trials and paid a cool million and a half per case. Any evidence that went against the predefined outcome of the IARC was promptly rejected and edited out and no current studies updating the decision affecting the outcome including the one of 38,000 pesticide applicators showing no increase in NHL. That alone makes the IARC findings laughable.

The EPA has definitively come out and said "There's no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. There's no risk to public health from the application of glyphosate," Note, it doesn't say unlikely, its says it does not.

It was a means to the end for pesticide lobbying groups and plain old making huge bucks with the intent to milk millions. This has NOTHING to do with cancer and glyphosate. IARC's monograph 112 is a fraudulent and manipulated scam to further the goals of the EDF
BrianTee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Combine Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Florasulam and glyphosate redgreen Sprayers / Chemicals / Fertilizer 10 08-17-2014 05:38 PM
GMO RR seed and Glyphosate bfl2008 General Farming Board 32 02-10-2013 09:26 AM
One farmer, one vote is democracy...REALLY??? kirschenman Marketing 50 08-31-2011 01:57 PM
Looks like Monsanto won us over again! ebertfarms General Farming Board 6 11-09-2007 12:34 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome