Bayer Bought Monsanto?

Berzerker

Berzerker

Deity
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
21,785
Location
the golf course
Well, that wasn't smart...

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-jury-awards-289m-blames-roundup.html

Wisner called the ruling the "tip of the spear" of litigation likely to come.

The lawsuit is the first to accuse the product of causing cancer, but observers say a Monsanto defeat likely opens the door to thousands of other claims against the company, which was recently acquired by Germany's Bayer.
Click to expand...

Records unsealed earlier by a federal court lent credence to Johnson's claims—internal company emails with regulators suggested Monsanto had ghostwritten research later attributed to academics.

Founded in 1901 in St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto began producing agrochemicals in the 1940s. It was acquired by Bayer for more than $62 billion in June.
Click to expand...

Now we watch the show as the politicians, courts and killers - I mean Monsanto/Bayer - negotiate a different award. To be fair, or play devil's advocate, 290mn is a ton of money and thats just the tip of the iceberg, so I imagine a class action suit follows and a fund for the victims like they did with asbestos. These people have been coating the world with their poisons for decades.
 
Couldn't happen to a better corporation!

But I guess they are betting on becoming too big to fail. Worked for the banks...
 
Oh boy, I can't wait till EDIT: "Fine people, Fine people" litigate substantially more dangerous chemicals back into the watertable.

Oh San Francisco.
 
Whatchu saying about SF
 
Berz linked it for me. I'm sure they're fine people.
 
Now comes the challenges. Most trial judges and even a higher percentage of appellate judges come from the defense bar. An award of this size is an anathema to them.
 
And the best science available that is the most critical(EU) puts Roundup(TM) as less carcinogenic than sunlight. But certainly, malice worthy of reinstituting the poisoning of hicks for politics. Fornicate these guys in whatever orifice hurts them the most. Ear? A good nominal six inches of penetration from the ear should have a desirable result with no readily apparent impact on research skills.

But yes. The appelate courts should, and probably will, toss this poor dying man's award. At any rate, even if stupidity wins, he'll probably be too dead* to see how it sorts out in the courts. Fun, right?

*and that still isn't even saying Roundup didn't do it!
 
Last edited:
Farm Boy said:
And the best science available that is the most critical(EU) puts Roundup(TM) as less carcinogenic than sunlight.
Click to expand...
So, possibly incredibly carcinogenic?

Farm Boy said:
But certainly, malice worthy of reinstituting the poisoning of hicks for politics. Fornicate these guys in whatever orifice hurts them the most. Ear? A good nominal six inches of penetration from the ear should have a desirable result with no readily apparent impact on research skills.

But yes. The appelate courts should, and probably will, toss this poor dying man's award. At any rate, even if stupidity wins, he'll probably be too dead* to see how it sorts out in the courts. Fun, right?

*and that still isn't even saying Roundup didn't do it!
Click to expand...
I was driving someone from Annie's (organic food co based in Berk) who was previously working for General Mills. General Mills bought Annie's which solved a major problem, which was that Annie's was too small, previously, to have the financial reserves to underwrite farmers' transition to organic farming. Annie's seeks to buy its food domestically because that's actually likely to be organic, whereas organic food from say, China, is a pretty dodgy proposition. For starters, even if it is organic and not fraud, and even if nearby urban pollution doesn't render the label moot, just the shipping process risks toxicity.

Farmers in America don't want to make the switch because the old farmers don't want to change and their kids aren't following their footsteps (and good luck getting someone from outside of agriculture to afford to start in that business). This guy told me it takes three years of work and waiting to recondition the soil to be organic. And then it takes years on top to make all that lost revenue. So if a company like Annie's being small goes belly up, an organic wheat farmer might be seriously SoL for long enough to default.

But it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, ish, which is that these organic foods companies can't grow if they can't find suppliers and no one wants to be a supplier

Meanwhile the demand is out there and growing across the country. And even people like me operating on incomes lower than the world gdp/capita average are spending a huge portion of our income on organic (and better) foods.

This is where the megacorp comes in and provides long term funding, chasing a sure thing of future revenues, and underwriting the investment where they can.

Farm Boy said:
Berz linked it for me. I'm sure they're fine people.
Click to expand...
I didn't see the part about worse chemicals coming back.
 
Berzerker said:
Now we watch the show as the politicians, courts and killers - I mean Monsanto/Bayer - negotiate a different award. To be fair, or play devil's advocate, 290mn is a ton of money and thats just the tip of the iceberg, so I imagine a class action suit follows and a fund for the victims like they did with asbestos. These people have been coating the world with their poisons for decades.
Click to expand...

But Asbestos dosnt cause cancer ? /s
Even the ancient Greeks knew about the dangerous asbestos as there slaves died in massive numbers mining the stuff.
 
Hygro said:
I didn't see the part about worse chemicals coming back.
Click to expand...

You will. Or you'll see the free trade downgrade of the value of the labor. It's literally the only two options.

And yes. Sunlight is incredibly carcinogenic if you sit in a tanning booth all day(aka, deal with concentrated chemicals by hand, that's how chemistry effing works), I wouldn't mix roundup from concentrate, or handle it from concentrate, without full PPO. yet if you ditch it, or render it too liable to litigation, I guarantee you that risk will be borne for cost ablasion by persons with less rigorous first world "economic protections." Body count goes up, cost stays down, rich* arsewads happy. 99.5% certain**.

Three years. Three years of taxes no income, sunk mortgage with competition. It's the territory of the rich with arceage to burn on **** politics risk ablation. No wonder they keep getting bigger. They're preferred. Which is what I've been saying for a decade. Toxic regulatory ad hoc half meausres. But since we can't convince the idiots to stop mowing the ditches, even the likes of El Mac will line up behind it out of monoculture aversion. Revolting.

*enough. The non povertous non-obese.

**Unless, of course, we think the Trump trade agenda is a long term winning proposition. It might be just!
 
Last edited:
Farm Boy said:
Three years. Three years of taxes no income, sunk mortgage with competition.
Click to expand...
Hence the underwriting. The big problem this guy was seeing was a labor shortage and people willing to learn a new way of farming.
 
Farm Boy said:
You will. Or you'll see the free trade downgrade of the value of the labor. It's literally the only two options.

And yes. Sunlight is incredibly carcinogenic if you sit in a tanning booth all day(aka, deal with concentrated chemicals by hand, that's how chemistry effing works), I wouldn't mix roundup from concentrate, or handle it from concentrate, without full PPO. yet if you ditch it, or render it too liable to litigation, I guarantee you that risk will be borne for cost ablasion by persons with less rigorous first world "economic protections." Body count goes up, cost stays down, rich* arsewads happy. 99.5% certain**.

Three years. Three years of taxes no income, sunk mortgage with competition. It's the territory of the rich with arceage to burn on **** politics risk ablation. No wonder they keep getting bigger. They're preferred. Which is what I've been saying for a decade. Toxic regulatory ad hoc half meausres. But since we can't convince the idiots to stop mowing the ditches, even the likes of El Mac will line up behind it out of monoculture aversion. Revolting.

*enough. The non povertous non-obese.

**Unless, of course, we think the Trump trade agenda is a long term winning proposition. It might be just!
Click to expand...
My understanding of this case is than monsanto knew that roundup was carcinogenic but did not tell the users, so people (like you) were not informed enough of the risks and appropriate precautions to take. If they had been honest about the risks that alone would have made people's lives safer. It seems to me this court case is a good thing?
 
New way to farm? You mean the old way? 24D? Dicamba? A hoe? A row crop cultivator/diesel? Tiny doses by smart automated equipment? Americans aren't picking strawberries as it is now. You can make money with "organic-raised" chickens if you sell them for quadruple what they cost in Wallmart. If you bust ass you might even make half-ish median full time. No benes. Helps make that work if you irrigate and don't have winter.

People already knew how to put on PPO for Roundup if their bosses weren't jagoffs and their science teachers weren't useless a-holes. Pah. WTH do I know? All hail California, the Self Righteous. May her dominion lie heavy across the land.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah stick it to shaming me and mine.
 
Well, you'll note I had decided to leave it at an exasperated "oh" and a slightly ironic "you're still decent people even when you eff up" sort of thing. But you wanted to poke the "Farm Boy hasn't slept properly in two weeks because somebody adopted a damn puppy*" bear, and of course this particular brand of something was going to waft in from SF. ;)

Also touchy about the tangentially related national news story of how terrible certain types of voters and their dingleberries are, when the whole thing winds up being less people than my decrepit old church swings on a half decent Sunday morning in the middle of nowhere. I'd say it's fishy, but it also seems like the sort of story that would be sucked up by sort of person who yammers incessantly about the race of their political opponents and seems to enjoy musing out loud about the prospect of simply murdering them all. So yeah, that sort.

I'll work on chilling at some point.

*which how would you know, so that's on me.
 
Last edited:
Farm Boy said:
You will. Or you'll see the free trade downgrade of the value of the labor. It's literally the only two options.

And yes. Sunlight is incredibly carcinogenic if you sit in a tanning booth all day(aka, deal with concentrated chemicals by hand, that's how chemistry effing works), I wouldn't mix roundup from concentrate, or handle it from concentrate, without full PPO. yet if you ditch it, or render it too liable to litigation, I guarantee you that risk will be borne for cost ablasion by persons with less rigorous first world "economic protections." Body count goes up, cost stays down, rich* arsewads happy. 99.5% certain**.

Three years. Three years of taxes no income, sunk mortgage with competition. It's the territory of the rich with arceage to burn on **** politics risk ablation. No wonder they keep getting bigger. They're preferred. Which is what I've been saying for a decade. Toxic regulatory ad hoc half meausres. But since we can't convince the idiots to stop mowing the ditches, even the likes of El Mac will line up behind it out of monoculture aversion. Revolting.

*enough. The non povertous non-obese.

**Unless, of course, we think the Trump trade agenda is a long term winning proposition. It might be just!
Click to expand...

All they would have had to do to avoid liability is include a warning that exposure on one's skin may cause cancer. They didn't want to do that, so they left themselves open to this kind of liability.

Glyphosate hysteria is one of my most hated forms of public science illiteracy, but that's not really what this case was about. Scientists have caused cancer in lab animals by spreading glyphosate on their skin, as they have been able to do with lots of things. The reasonable thing to do to avoid large jury awards is to inform the public of this.
 
metalhead said:
All they would have had to do to avoid liability is include a warning that exposure on one's skin may cause cancer. They didn't want to do that, so they left themselves open to this kind of liability.

Glyphosate hysteria is one of my most hated forms of public science illiteracy, but that's not really what this case was about. Scientists have caused cancer in lab animals by spreading glyphosate on their skin, as they have been able to do with lots of things. The reasonable thing to do to avoid large jury awards is to inform the public of this.
Click to expand...

however with glyphosate it is not just its potential carcinogenic properties that are dangerous, no?

19309418_401.jpg


(a piglet from a danish farmer who claims a major portion of his lifestock has had miscarriages since he switched to feed produced with glyphosate)

there have been a few reports of farmers getting sick, showing organ damage, being nauteous (from Germany, that I know are confirmed).. there is no scientific consensus on the matter, so calling glyphosate hysteria "scientific illiteracy" isn't really correct, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom