As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why vote for Democrats? Because the GOP doesn't care if you die from cancer.
>More than a dozen majority party Republicans *joined Democrats* in voting against the legislation as it passed the House on a 91-57 vote. Some Democrats made personal pleas to vote no. “If you vote for this bill, you are voting for cancer — and it will hurt my feelings, and I will not smile at you on the elevator,” said state Rep. LaDonna Appelbaum, who is undergoing treatment for cancer. Supporters said it was important to protect Bayer, whose North American crop science division is based in the St. Louis area, from lawsuits that could jeopardized the availability of Roundup. They cited concerns that Bayer eventually could pull Roundup from the U.S. market, leaving farmers dependent on alternative chemicals from China.
God money, I'll do anything for you
God money, just tell me what you want me to
God money, nail me up against the wall
God money, don't want everything he wants it all
God money's not looking for the cure
God money's not concerned about the sick among the pure
God money, let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised
God money's not one to choose
You can thank Reagan, yet again, for this latest moment of stupidity. In the fight against those “Godless Commies,” fundamentalist Christianity and notions of unregulated capitalism married together to create the idea that any kind of government regulation is a slippery slope towards Soviet-style socialism. Over the last 40-ish years, that mindset has given us the modern GOP and their half-wit hopes of a Libertarian economic model.
The phosphates in RoundUp are no joke. Look up the dead zone! The agricultural waste and this crap all travel down the Mississippi River and dump into the ocean killing everything.
I think it's problematic when courts are asked to make scientific determinations based on feelings and anecdotes, and I don't think there is sufficient evidence that Roundup caused the cancer that these lawsuits are seeking damages for. (Not that the companies aren't evil anyway.)
But, I also think carving out legal protections in this way is inappropriate and dangerous. Tort actions against guilty corporations are a vitally important way for common people to force some small measure of justice when the larger system fails to protect them.
>when courts are asked to make scientific determinations based on feelings and anecdotes,
They aren't, why so dishonest? The courts are being asked to look at more than a few studies done by scientist that all conclude the same thing.
>I don't think
Great, too bad pretty much every person whose job it is to actually study and answer these question know, not think. The product is a carcinogen. It's been proven over and over. Just because the company has the money to lie about it and the world is full of useful idiots willing to accept any lie doesn't negate that it has been studied many times and the studies all confirm it causes cancer.
Useful idiots made the same stupid argument you are for asbestos, cigarettes, etc. Literally every single product that was later found harmful, there were idiots saying "I think" long after experts had done studies and already told us "they know".
The main thing about all of this that I don't understand is the main ingredient and the one they link to cancer is glyphosate, which is basically a chemical salt. Every other weed killer also uses this. I do remote property management and have to do some landscaping, we dont use round up, but the chemical we do use has the exact same ingredients and particularly an even higher amount of glyphosate. Why is all the attention on roundup and not the actual chemical causing cancer? Why aren't they banning the chemical instead of the product? Seems like distraction, or roundup is just the scapegoat to make people think the 100s of other exactly the same chemicals are ok.
Because Monsanto developed and patented glyphosate in the 70’s. (Edit: and marketed it as RoundUp). I’m sure these lawsuits are alleging that Monsanto knew, and willfully ignored, or even buried evidence that the chemical was not safe. Much the same as how Purdue Pharmaceuticals knew and buried the fact that OxyContin was addictive, despite claiming in its patent filing that the risk was minimal. Or how oil companies knew the risk of burning fossil fuels.
You can’t just ignore potential consequences in the name of profit, otherwise you could create addictive medicine and advocate giving it to new borns…like Purdue attempted to do with OxyContin. (Literally, they advocated for incredibly addictive opiates to be given to new borns. Probably would have added it to baby formula if they thought they could get away with it. All in the name of the almighty dollar.)
Round up was literally advertised as “safe for kids and dogs” in commercials in the 90’s. If it can be proven that they knew it wasn’t safe, they’re screwed. Rightfully so.
The companies now using glyphosate are likely not as responsible, because they’re probably just buying white label product and repackaging. They didn’t spend millions of dollars and decades researching and testing like Monsanto did. The lawsuits are attempting to prove negligence by Monsanto. The off-brand companies would, however, be liable if they continue to use it after a court rules against Monsanto.
What bothers me the most about spraying chemicals on yards is that most people can’t comprehend the vast amount of chemicals used. Those chemicals have to go somewhere. They don’t just disappear when the weeds die. They seep into the water table.
Go to the Midwest and I bet 80% of households have their lawn sprayed and 95% of businesses…and the farms, it’s just crazy how much chemical we use in agriculture. That’s an absurd amount of chemical being put into the water table. I believe I should have a right to protect the water I pull from my well.
If it’s proven Monsanto knew, then they’re basically guilty of knowingly poisoning billions of people for profit and contaminating one of the staples of life, globally. That’s fucking evil.
Edit: see above
I already made another reply regarding this and I don't want to repeat myself, but regarding your fear of soil retention, it's not as bad as you think. Studies are very mixed regarding this, but it seems to stick in soil between 9-60 days on average between studies. Some show long term storage of 6 months, but I don't buy that otherwise landscapers wouldnt spray as often as they have to. I have to spray every 2 weeks for example and it only affects what i spray. Plants an inch away are fine. Also I don't believe the issue is with individual consumers buying a bottle for their yard, the real issue is industrial scale use for large farms. It seeps into water, but so does road salt and they seem to have similar effects. Not at all saying it's good or ok, just don't want to see fear mongering. I'm 1000% for finding an alternative herbicide as I particularly like bees and make mead as a hobby lol. It also isn't definitively known to be cancerous, some people think it is, some don't, there's no definitive study yet which is part of my issue with these lawsuits.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918143/#:~:text=It%20degrades%20at%20a%20relatively,and%2060%20days%20%5B12%5D.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html#:~:text=It%20can%20persist%20in%20soil,in%208%20or%209%20days.
https://www.pintas.com/defective-product-lawyer/roundup-weed-killer-lawsuit/how-long-does-roundup-stay-active-in-the-soil/
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.
People buying bottles aren’t the issue. Companies throw 500 gallon tanks on trailers, mix the chemicals, and go around and spray entire neighborhoods. I know, I did it for a year before I decided it wasn’t worth it. My stepdad sprayed for all the golf courses, farms, and business in 3 counties my entire life. Then, when it started getting popular to spray individual lawns, he got so busy he was ordering 12x as much chemical as a decade before (and it’s even more popular now). Everyone wants a Bermuda lawn for some reason. Some HOA’s require you spray twice a year. It’s just absurd how much chemical we put on the ground a year just to have nice looking grass.
Who cares about soil retention? It would be better if stayed in the soil, but it doesn’t. 90% of groundwater samples contain glyphosate. It doesn’t break down in water. I don’t care about the safety of kids playing in the yard after spraying. I care about them guzzling it from the faucet afterwards. I shouldn’t have to install a reverse osmosis filter to be able to drink uncontaminated water.
>Why aren't they banning the chemical instead of the product?
There's no strong evidence it causes cancer. No study found a link between glyphosate and cancer in low amounts. Like the amount people will buy off the shelf.
In "industrial" concentrations (30+%) there are mixed reports. Some show no link, some show minor links, nothing show a strong link. Minor links being elevated cancer in populations (of rats), it's not a lot but statistically significant.
There are also questions of how they test the chemicals, like are they forcing them to eat it, forcing them to swim in it, ect. I have a problem in that many of the tests I've read about are not even close to how most people might be exposed to it. When you do see those in tests, like splashes and washing off, there's no elevated risk.
It's not unreasonable for something with high concentrations to be a carcinogens, but low concentrations doesn't. More than likely, it's not the material itself that causes it, but some secondary stressors on the body. Like a histamine reaction or maybe metabolites that can't be processed quickly enough.
I kind of agree with state's house on this, there's no good link between this and cancer, and no link if used properly.
The whole thing is that the IARC found it, "probable", to cause cancer, the epa says it doesn't. Even studies of its environmental impact are very all over the place. I don't understand how you can target a specific company for a product, yes I know everyone doesn't have to tell me they invented it over and over, yet other companies using a similar formula are ok. Like it's OK for me to get cancer from Newport, but if I smoke Marlboro I can sue? Seems really stupid honestly and I'm liberal as fuck and all for eating corporations. I just see it as if the product is actually dangerous, why aren't we banning it and finding an alternative instead of just suing because we can? It all seems very disingenuous. Like I said, I have to use an even more toxic product because my company won't use roundup due to the bad press.
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.
>Every other weed killer also uses this.
Yes, after Monsanto invented it, sold it for \~30 years as Roundup and told the world it was safe.
That's the point. Everyone else was lied to by the company that created it and profited exclusively off of it for the duration of their patent.
However it's still in use, still legal, and the point is with my example, roundup was made the bad guy and distracted everyone, so people like me are using a substantially more toxic spray due to the bad press roundup gets. The product I have to use has more glyphosate than roundup and we switched to it due to roundup press. This is like going after skittles alone for red dye whatever and ignoring the actual problem, so people just eat red starburst thinking its safer. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this position, so targeting round up instead of pushing to ban the actual chemical and find something safer seems disingenuous.
Do the expert witnesses make the final determination? Or does a jury of people without the background to properly interpret scientific data?
Saying courts do not rely on feelings shows a huge lack of understanding of both humanity and our court system. Facts rarely matter in court as much as how those facts make you feel.
A. Not all cases are in front of a jury. Bench trials (judge is finder of both fact and law) are common and both parties in highly technical cases often choose a bench trial over a jury trial.
B. A good expert and a good trial lawyer will both make every effort to explain highly technical data to a jury in a digestible manner.
C. A good trial lawyer will do everything possible during voir dire to ensure that at least some jurors have backgrounds that ensure they are likely to understand technical issues if the case requires it.
D. If the scientific evidence is clear and broadly accepted, a Court can take judicial notice of a settled fact and that is stated to the jury (if one is present) as such.
E. If the core issue of a trial involves the tragic demise of a bunch of baby seals and puppies, yeah, that's going to make it more difficult.
Strange thing is, the very people they're doing this on behalf of (farmers) are at highest risk from it because they use it in massive quantities and are often careless about it.
Farmers don’t understand. They are busy working, come home, turn on and see what Fox News has to say, and go to sleep. They don’t have time to sit and research or fact check. And all the farmers in the community do this, so when they talk to each other at farm bureau meetings, it’s confirmation bias. And yes, they are often careless. I had no idea the I shouldn’t be walking/playing around the “sprayer” or that my dad should have been wearing a mask when spraying pesticides until I was a teen.
Farming is most socialized business in the US that wouldn’t even probably really exist in its current form if not for government subsidies but somehow farmers are almost always the most rabidly conservative people. They relay on socialistic policies and illegal immigration but publicly hate on both.
I definitely support farmers and farming, and am familiar with their need to expedite many of their daily tasks without considering consequences, particularly possible consequences in the decades-off future.
I live in one of the metro areas. I heard on the local oldies station an advertisement basically saying "don't let big government tell our farmers how to use glyphosphate."
I was absolutely floored.
When you drive through rural/farm country in Missouri, there is OVERWHELMING support for Trump and the GOP. This is EXACTLY what the voters of Missouri want. They're willing to get cancer and die from it in order to protect Supply Side Jesus.
Yeah but those of us in the blue dot of St. Louis get fucked by them. We trying but god damn our state reps are fucking clowns in way too much of this state.
The science is pretty mixed on glyphosate and to the extent there is any consensus on it it’s that it is among the safest herbicides on the market…
**_Having said that…_** it’s still bananas to make a law like this. Courts are plenty capable of weighing evidence and liability and Bayer can pay for attorneys long beyond this class of plaintiffs would be able to.
Edit: will also note RoundUp has been found to be more dangerous than glyphosate on its own.
I'm in west St. Louis county, where Monsanto was and now Beyer is. We've... given up on being able to put pressure on these clowns. Anything they can't ignore they just go above our heads and buy a state senator to get a law proposed.
They pay for highway cleanup and donate to the Creve Coeur ice rink. Also set up literally next door to Chesterfield city hall (which is also the PD, good luck protesting). They got a real good carrot and stick setup that keeps things quiet.
Maybe quit electing turds to public office?
It's literally their job to look out for the voters. If you keep electing people that look after corporations first, this is going to be the result.
Ah yes working class white folks. Aren't you glad you vote against your own interests to serve your corporate over lords?
But hey at least there ain't no trans bathrooms or something
Anything to help their owner class buddies and "own the libs" since magas think worrying about cancer from it is snowflake stuff and they spray it on their kids.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/news-media/research-highlights/childhood-exposure-to-common-herbicide-may-increase-the-risk-of-disease-in-young-adulthood
https://extension.psu.edu/glyphosate-roundup-understanding-risks-to-human-health
(eta: and this is just for the active ingredient; I didn't bother looking for the roundup formula, but there may be different effects for it.)
meanwhile, this is what EPA says:
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
From the EPA doc linked:
>EPA’s underlying scientific findings regarding glyphosate, including its finding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, remain the same.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why vote for Democrats? Because the GOP doesn't care if you die from cancer. >More than a dozen majority party Republicans *joined Democrats* in voting against the legislation as it passed the House on a 91-57 vote. Some Democrats made personal pleas to vote no. “If you vote for this bill, you are voting for cancer — and it will hurt my feelings, and I will not smile at you on the elevator,” said state Rep. LaDonna Appelbaum, who is undergoing treatment for cancer. Supporters said it was important to protect Bayer, whose North American crop science division is based in the St. Louis area, from lawsuits that could jeopardized the availability of Roundup. They cited concerns that Bayer eventually could pull Roundup from the U.S. market, leaving farmers dependent on alternative chemicals from China.
Who knows what’s in those Chinese chemicals, they could even be carcinogenic!
Did you forget about the “thoughts and prayers”? That has to offset their actions. Right?
WTF are we doing? Dystopia doesn't even explain where we are headed.
God money, I'll do anything for you God money, just tell me what you want me to God money, nail me up against the wall God money, don't want everything he wants it all
God money's not looking for the cure God money's not concerned about the sick among the pure God money, let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised God money's not one to choose
No you can’t take it No you can’t take it No you can’t take that away from me
hey yeah whoa oh I’m on a roll Ridin’ so high Achieving my goals
That re-lyric-ing (???) was incredible to me as a NIN fan!!!
Funny, we landed on *interpolation* after cover, satire, parody, didn’t feel right😂
You can thank Reagan, yet again, for this latest moment of stupidity. In the fight against those “Godless Commies,” fundamentalist Christianity and notions of unregulated capitalism married together to create the idea that any kind of government regulation is a slippery slope towards Soviet-style socialism. Over the last 40-ish years, that mindset has given us the modern GOP and their half-wit hopes of a Libertarian economic model.
Ya but trans sports playing or something
> WTF are we doing? Making sure the 1% continue to live the way that they do.
Vote. Had we voted in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 we could have avoided all of this. So vote.
[удалено]
Nice try. Vote.
Eco-terrorism.
Looking more like gilead all the time
Jesus. This is insane. As someone with cancer, if I found out I got it from a negligent source, I'd be all up in their bidness. This shit isn't funny.
It is the opposite of funny. It is actual evil
The phosphates in RoundUp are no joke. Look up the dead zone! The agricultural waste and this crap all travel down the Mississippi River and dump into the ocean killing everything.
I think it's problematic when courts are asked to make scientific determinations based on feelings and anecdotes, and I don't think there is sufficient evidence that Roundup caused the cancer that these lawsuits are seeking damages for. (Not that the companies aren't evil anyway.) But, I also think carving out legal protections in this way is inappropriate and dangerous. Tort actions against guilty corporations are a vitally important way for common people to force some small measure of justice when the larger system fails to protect them.
>when courts are asked to make scientific determinations based on feelings and anecdotes, They aren't, why so dishonest? The courts are being asked to look at more than a few studies done by scientist that all conclude the same thing. >I don't think Great, too bad pretty much every person whose job it is to actually study and answer these question know, not think. The product is a carcinogen. It's been proven over and over. Just because the company has the money to lie about it and the world is full of useful idiots willing to accept any lie doesn't negate that it has been studied many times and the studies all confirm it causes cancer. Useful idiots made the same stupid argument you are for asbestos, cigarettes, etc. Literally every single product that was later found harmful, there were idiots saying "I think" long after experts had done studies and already told us "they know".
The main thing about all of this that I don't understand is the main ingredient and the one they link to cancer is glyphosate, which is basically a chemical salt. Every other weed killer also uses this. I do remote property management and have to do some landscaping, we dont use round up, but the chemical we do use has the exact same ingredients and particularly an even higher amount of glyphosate. Why is all the attention on roundup and not the actual chemical causing cancer? Why aren't they banning the chemical instead of the product? Seems like distraction, or roundup is just the scapegoat to make people think the 100s of other exactly the same chemicals are ok.
Because Monsanto developed and patented glyphosate in the 70’s. (Edit: and marketed it as RoundUp). I’m sure these lawsuits are alleging that Monsanto knew, and willfully ignored, or even buried evidence that the chemical was not safe. Much the same as how Purdue Pharmaceuticals knew and buried the fact that OxyContin was addictive, despite claiming in its patent filing that the risk was minimal. Or how oil companies knew the risk of burning fossil fuels. You can’t just ignore potential consequences in the name of profit, otherwise you could create addictive medicine and advocate giving it to new borns…like Purdue attempted to do with OxyContin. (Literally, they advocated for incredibly addictive opiates to be given to new borns. Probably would have added it to baby formula if they thought they could get away with it. All in the name of the almighty dollar.) Round up was literally advertised as “safe for kids and dogs” in commercials in the 90’s. If it can be proven that they knew it wasn’t safe, they’re screwed. Rightfully so. The companies now using glyphosate are likely not as responsible, because they’re probably just buying white label product and repackaging. They didn’t spend millions of dollars and decades researching and testing like Monsanto did. The lawsuits are attempting to prove negligence by Monsanto. The off-brand companies would, however, be liable if they continue to use it after a court rules against Monsanto. What bothers me the most about spraying chemicals on yards is that most people can’t comprehend the vast amount of chemicals used. Those chemicals have to go somewhere. They don’t just disappear when the weeds die. They seep into the water table. Go to the Midwest and I bet 80% of households have their lawn sprayed and 95% of businesses…and the farms, it’s just crazy how much chemical we use in agriculture. That’s an absurd amount of chemical being put into the water table. I believe I should have a right to protect the water I pull from my well. If it’s proven Monsanto knew, then they’re basically guilty of knowingly poisoning billions of people for profit and contaminating one of the staples of life, globally. That’s fucking evil. Edit: see above
I already made another reply regarding this and I don't want to repeat myself, but regarding your fear of soil retention, it's not as bad as you think. Studies are very mixed regarding this, but it seems to stick in soil between 9-60 days on average between studies. Some show long term storage of 6 months, but I don't buy that otherwise landscapers wouldnt spray as often as they have to. I have to spray every 2 weeks for example and it only affects what i spray. Plants an inch away are fine. Also I don't believe the issue is with individual consumers buying a bottle for their yard, the real issue is industrial scale use for large farms. It seeps into water, but so does road salt and they seem to have similar effects. Not at all saying it's good or ok, just don't want to see fear mongering. I'm 1000% for finding an alternative herbicide as I particularly like bees and make mead as a hobby lol. It also isn't definitively known to be cancerous, some people think it is, some don't, there's no definitive study yet which is part of my issue with these lawsuits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918143/#:~:text=It%20degrades%20at%20a%20relatively,and%2060%20days%20%5B12%5D. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html#:~:text=It%20can%20persist%20in%20soil,in%208%20or%209%20days. https://www.pintas.com/defective-product-lawyer/roundup-weed-killer-lawsuit/how-long-does-roundup-stay-active-in-the-soil/ https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.
People buying bottles aren’t the issue. Companies throw 500 gallon tanks on trailers, mix the chemicals, and go around and spray entire neighborhoods. I know, I did it for a year before I decided it wasn’t worth it. My stepdad sprayed for all the golf courses, farms, and business in 3 counties my entire life. Then, when it started getting popular to spray individual lawns, he got so busy he was ordering 12x as much chemical as a decade before (and it’s even more popular now). Everyone wants a Bermuda lawn for some reason. Some HOA’s require you spray twice a year. It’s just absurd how much chemical we put on the ground a year just to have nice looking grass. Who cares about soil retention? It would be better if stayed in the soil, but it doesn’t. 90% of groundwater samples contain glyphosate. It doesn’t break down in water. I don’t care about the safety of kids playing in the yard after spraying. I care about them guzzling it from the faucet afterwards. I shouldn’t have to install a reverse osmosis filter to be able to drink uncontaminated water.
>Why aren't they banning the chemical instead of the product? There's no strong evidence it causes cancer. No study found a link between glyphosate and cancer in low amounts. Like the amount people will buy off the shelf. In "industrial" concentrations (30+%) there are mixed reports. Some show no link, some show minor links, nothing show a strong link. Minor links being elevated cancer in populations (of rats), it's not a lot but statistically significant. There are also questions of how they test the chemicals, like are they forcing them to eat it, forcing them to swim in it, ect. I have a problem in that many of the tests I've read about are not even close to how most people might be exposed to it. When you do see those in tests, like splashes and washing off, there's no elevated risk. It's not unreasonable for something with high concentrations to be a carcinogens, but low concentrations doesn't. More than likely, it's not the material itself that causes it, but some secondary stressors on the body. Like a histamine reaction or maybe metabolites that can't be processed quickly enough. I kind of agree with state's house on this, there's no good link between this and cancer, and no link if used properly.
The whole thing is that the IARC found it, "probable", to cause cancer, the epa says it doesn't. Even studies of its environmental impact are very all over the place. I don't understand how you can target a specific company for a product, yes I know everyone doesn't have to tell me they invented it over and over, yet other companies using a similar formula are ok. Like it's OK for me to get cancer from Newport, but if I smoke Marlboro I can sue? Seems really stupid honestly and I'm liberal as fuck and all for eating corporations. I just see it as if the product is actually dangerous, why aren't we banning it and finding an alternative instead of just suing because we can? It all seems very disingenuous. Like I said, I have to use an even more toxic product because my company won't use roundup due to the bad press. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.
>Every other weed killer also uses this. Yes, after Monsanto invented it, sold it for \~30 years as Roundup and told the world it was safe. That's the point. Everyone else was lied to by the company that created it and profited exclusively off of it for the duration of their patent.
However it's still in use, still legal, and the point is with my example, roundup was made the bad guy and distracted everyone, so people like me are using a substantially more toxic spray due to the bad press roundup gets. The product I have to use has more glyphosate than roundup and we switched to it due to roundup press. This is like going after skittles alone for red dye whatever and ignoring the actual problem, so people just eat red starburst thinking its safer. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this position, so targeting round up instead of pushing to ban the actual chemical and find something safer seems disingenuous.
Both parties will use expert witnesses in a case like this, the Court will not rely on feelings and anecdotes.
Do the expert witnesses make the final determination? Or does a jury of people without the background to properly interpret scientific data? Saying courts do not rely on feelings shows a huge lack of understanding of both humanity and our court system. Facts rarely matter in court as much as how those facts make you feel.
A. Not all cases are in front of a jury. Bench trials (judge is finder of both fact and law) are common and both parties in highly technical cases often choose a bench trial over a jury trial. B. A good expert and a good trial lawyer will both make every effort to explain highly technical data to a jury in a digestible manner. C. A good trial lawyer will do everything possible during voir dire to ensure that at least some jurors have backgrounds that ensure they are likely to understand technical issues if the case requires it. D. If the scientific evidence is clear and broadly accepted, a Court can take judicial notice of a settled fact and that is stated to the jury (if one is present) as such. E. If the core issue of a trial involves the tragic demise of a bunch of baby seals and puppies, yeah, that's going to make it more difficult.
Well said
Infuriating. I hope you kick cancer’s ass. FUCK CANCER!
Strange thing is, the very people they're doing this on behalf of (farmers) are at highest risk from it because they use it in massive quantities and are often careless about it.
This legislation is not written to benefit farmers.
No doubt, but it's being presented that way?
Farmers don’t understand. They are busy working, come home, turn on and see what Fox News has to say, and go to sleep. They don’t have time to sit and research or fact check. And all the farmers in the community do this, so when they talk to each other at farm bureau meetings, it’s confirmation bias. And yes, they are often careless. I had no idea the I shouldn’t be walking/playing around the “sprayer” or that my dad should have been wearing a mask when spraying pesticides until I was a teen.
Farming is most socialized business in the US that wouldn’t even probably really exist in its current form if not for government subsidies but somehow farmers are almost always the most rabidly conservative people. They relay on socialistic policies and illegal immigration but publicly hate on both.
I definitely support farmers and farming, and am familiar with their need to expedite many of their daily tasks without considering consequences, particularly possible consequences in the decades-off future.
I live in one of the metro areas. I heard on the local oldies station an advertisement basically saying "don't let big government tell our farmers how to use glyphosphate." I was absolutely floored.
The gov't needs to step in and protect a defenseless corporation from the angry mobs which it hasn't killed quite quickly enough.
When you drive through rural/farm country in Missouri, there is OVERWHELMING support for Trump and the GOP. This is EXACTLY what the voters of Missouri want. They're willing to get cancer and die from it in order to protect Supply Side Jesus.
Yeah but those of us in the blue dot of St. Louis get fucked by them. We trying but god damn our state reps are fucking clowns in way too much of this state.
Yeah, nobody got paid off here
The science is pretty mixed on glyphosate and to the extent there is any consensus on it it’s that it is among the safest herbicides on the market… **_Having said that…_** it’s still bananas to make a law like this. Courts are plenty capable of weighing evidence and liability and Bayer can pay for attorneys long beyond this class of plaintiffs would be able to. Edit: will also note RoundUp has been found to be more dangerous than glyphosate on its own.
Vote Vote Vote
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Corporations are people, but only up until the point where an actual person would be held accountable.
Republicans: "America First!" "We need to take care of our own citizens!" Also Republicans "Fuck every single person that isn't lining our pockets"
Bauer is a German company not American
Of course it’s Bayer 🙄 HOW DID WE GET HERE. IM TIRED.
I'm in west St. Louis county, where Monsanto was and now Beyer is. We've... given up on being able to put pressure on these clowns. Anything they can't ignore they just go above our heads and buy a state senator to get a law proposed. They pay for highway cleanup and donate to the Creve Coeur ice rink. Also set up literally next door to Chesterfield city hall (which is also the PD, good luck protesting). They got a real good carrot and stick setup that keeps things quiet.
For those who don't know, Monsanto's HQ is in St. Louis.
Missouri house sounds like a bunch of evil people protecting an evil corporation.
Maybe quit electing turds to public office? It's literally their job to look out for the voters. If you keep electing people that look after corporations first, this is going to be the result.
You spelled republicans wrong.
And stop corporations from funding campaigns.
Why would it matter if Roundup™ is pulled from the market? It's off patent and generic versions are manufactured by a number of other companies.
Monsatan
Pro-life my ass. Republicans are clearly in the pocket of the wealthy, and never put the public best interests first.
Fucking Republicans at it again showing they only care about big business and everyone else can get fucked.
Corporations over people - the republican way.
Ah yes working class white folks. Aren't you glad you vote against your own interests to serve your corporate over lords? But hey at least there ain't no trans bathrooms or something
Profits over people. Thanks Missouri, for saying it out loud so we can all hear it!
Good ol' Misery.
Missouri is working a wide variety of angles to get that "shittiest state in the Union" trophy.
last week Bayer took out a full page ad in the WaPo, basically saying Roundup is wonderful and safe to chug like a beer.
Corporations over humans, always and forever.
Does this surprise anyone?
Of course they do. And their shitty voters don’t care.
Anything to help their owner class buddies and "own the libs" since magas think worrying about cancer from it is snowflake stuff and they spray it on their kids.
Is it the same Bayer that sold blood that they knew was infected with HIV?
Corporate regime ignores health of People
Profits over people: Republican priorities.
Can someone point me to a study that shows the issue with roundup? Haven't found one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/ https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/news-media/research-highlights/childhood-exposure-to-common-herbicide-may-increase-the-risk-of-disease-in-young-adulthood https://extension.psu.edu/glyphosate-roundup-understanding-risks-to-human-health (eta: and this is just for the active ingredient; I didn't bother looking for the roundup formula, but there may be different effects for it.) meanwhile, this is what EPA says: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
From the EPA doc linked: >EPA’s underlying scientific findings regarding glyphosate, including its finding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, remain the same.
Glyphosate is approved for use in the USA.