The Combine Forum banner

41 - 59 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
And they will only pay with chop sticks and rice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
And it will be round up ready rice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,116 Posts
There is another side to this story that is helping to influence juries, and that is the number of bullshit sites on the internet begging for money to spread misinformation about glyphosate and GMO's. It's the big lie that has been repeated so many times that it has become the truth, and was ratified by the WHO deciding to say that glyphosate "probably" causes cancer to placate European trade concerns about North American production getting into Europe. There is no such thing as an impartial jury anymore. These sites are costing you more than you realize already, and are becoming very problematic for anyone trying to post real research on the internet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
Seen on the Fox channel last night one of those ads with those bottom feeder lawyers trying to start a class action suit. Was asking for anyone who has used Round-Up in the past and has now been diagnosed with Non- Hodgkins Lymphoma I believe it was. Let the flood gates open now. What a worthless bunch of douche bags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
I'm was thinking maybe Monsanto has behind the scene helped the couple from California to go to court.
It was ready with 140,000 avadavids from applicators with no health issues, Judge would rule that there is no case and set a precedence for future cases.
But instead the Judge said Monsanto wasn't allowed to enter any "evidence", and so the games begin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
whtbaron; said:
I remember reading about The W.H.O. reversing their decision back in may of 2016. Can't find the original ones but here's one. Kinda odd that the Organizations :23: were so prompt and efficient getting the information out on how the W.H.O. said that it was possibly carcinogenic to not even a mention of the reversal and still preach about how it's still mention:9:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate/u-n-experts-find-weed-killer-glyphosate-unlikely-to-cause-cancer-idUSKCN0Y71HR

Heres a read about supposed conflict within the WHOS findings.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Ok, as usual there's a lot of misinformation on this thread.

1. It was stated that farmers don't have higher rates of cancer than the general public, which is false. We do high higher rates, especially of non-hodgkin's lymphoma.

2. The general premise of most of these lawsuits is that Monsanto had information that suggested or even proved glyphosate caused cancer and hid it. It is of course almost impossible to prove what gave anybody cancer. The people are suing because they were put at risk of getting cancer from a product known to the manufacturers to cause it. Is that worth $2 billion to one person? I think that's excessive but it will obviously get pared down.

3. For the love of god don't go around harassing some cancer-survivor farmer for suing Monsanto. You have no idea what their safety practices were, what their stories are or what they've been through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
Ok, as usual there's a lot of misinformation on this thread.

1. It was stated that farmers don't have higher rates of cancer than the general public, which is false. We do high higher rates, especially of non-hodgkin's lymphoma.

2. The general premise of most of these lawsuits is that Monsanto had information that suggested or even proved glyphosate caused cancer and hid it. It is of course almost impossible to prove what gave anybody cancer. The people are suing because they were put at risk of getting cancer from a product known to the manufacturers to cause it. Is that worth $2 billion to one person? I think that's excessive but it will obviously get pared down.

3. For the love of god don't go around harassing some cancer-survivor farmer for suing Monsanto. You have no idea what their safety practices were, what their stories are or what they've been through.
Why is it Monsanto’s problem for somebody not being safe. Man up and take some responsibility for your own life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Wait, so..... you're not supposed to clean plugged nozzles with your mouth?

:sFun_whistle:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
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/commentisfree/2019/jun/02/monsanto-manipulates-journalists-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/environment/2019/jan/15/eu-glyphosate-approval-was-based-on-plagiarised-monsanto-text-report-finds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
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/commentisfree/2019/jun/02/monsanto-manipulates-journalists-academics

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/eu-glyphosate-approval-was-based-on-plagiarised-monsanto-text-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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,826 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
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
 
41 - 59 of 59 Posts
Top