27
votes
Monsanto hit with $175m verdict against Roundup – a string of nine- and ten-figure losses for the popular herbicide
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Roundup lawsuit: $175m against Monsanto
- Published
- Oct 27 2023
- Word count
- 404 words
I would suggest a title change back to the article's original, or to at least remove the "cancer causing" phrasing. Though lawsuits have been won against Monsanto (now Bayer), the science is still largely indeterminate, with most studies concluding that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. The quoted classification from the IARC (as part of WHO) remains an outlier, though their classifications are extremely cautious. Glyphosate is placed in the same grouping as red meat, hot beverages, and night shift work.
I understand this is a contentious issue, but I believe it most fair to title based on the best available science at the time of publication.
Pretty sure red meat isn't also turning up studies showing birth defects.
Like DDT before it, it's been massively deployed and the consequences of doing so are an afterthought.
The fact that they're fighting the court judgments very hard while happily paying out $10 billion in settlements which allow them to avoid fault tells me there's more to this story than Monsanto is willing to admit publicly. My money is on buried internal studies.
And looking at the EPA findings, there's plenty of weasel wording.
Because everyone always reads instructions on everything and follows them perfectly all the time, right?
So the EPA's findings also included a bunch of extra studies that Monsanto submitted in support of getting glyphosate approved. Color me skeptical.
I'm not saying the EPA is in the wrong (and frankly, they do important work). But they are also an imperfect org and I recognize that losing Roundup would incur some serious economic damage to the USA. They're gonna be very hesitant to restrict it.
It looks like someone took your advice. Thanks.
Is it actually the glyphosate causing the cancer, or other “inactive” ingredients that round up is formulated with? They don’t actually tell you whats in it other than the glyphosate, but reading the SDS indicates that it probably is a lot more than just that. Glyphosate has no known mechanism of action in humans.
I wish it weren't just food products that had to list their ingredients. There are many, many different formulations of glyphosate out there; Roundup is just one brand.
I used to work in agricultural research, and I know a lot of people who work in environmental restoration (my education background is in ecology). Glyphosate — though not necessarily as Roundup — is the non-selective herbicide of choice in both fields because it is the best combination of safe and environmentally friendly compared to the alternatives (yes, even including non-chemical alternatives in a lot of cases). It doesn't mean you should breathe it, swallow it, or get it on your skin: it's just less risky or damaging than the other options.
It's weird that, of all the things that get sprayed on crops, glyphosate is the one people freak out about. I'm definitely deeply uncomfortable with spraying it on glyphosate-resistant produce that people are going to eat (I have never done that and I never would, and I think this should probably be universally banned), but the idea of banning the usage of glyphosate altogether is absolutely absurd. It would lead to worse results for human health and for wildlife because farmers and conservationists would be forced to switch to more hazardous alternatives.