Comment by w10-1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by w10-1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The judgment was based on failure to warn of risk, not negligence in design.

On causation, as far as I can tell, the 2015 finding of epidemiological evidence for a 41% increase in non-hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) was rebutted by non-affiliated researchers, but paid experts are continuing to publish, and claim others have recently found a mechanism. But AFAIK there's no epidemiological or mechanistic proof, now or at the time they made warnings. (I would assume a failure to warn requires some proof they knew of the risk?)

In this case, 57 is barely on the young side of the affected population, but decades of exposure is hard to overlook.

Warnings are something of a fiction. Detailed legalese is regularly ignored, and if it's unclear any commercial gardener avoids glyphosate even today after all the scary news. But the hugely differential impact is a legitimate environmental justice concern, and the lawsuits might be the tip of the iceberg.

It would be best if Monsanto/Bayer negotiated a pool to pay affected people and more importantly to do outreach and monitoring for those who might be affected.

The incentives are all wrong here: huge 100X punitive damages based on failure to warn when there's no proven risk just make any rational decision-makers dig in if not suppress research. It'd be better for companies to pitch in for investigations and treatment over the lifecycle of the product, in exchange for protection from legal lotteries.

I'm surprised these judgements are happening. The science isn't really nailed down.

see no judgment happend when Monsanto was US owned but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...)

nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that)

but whats happening there in this case(es) really doesn't look like a proper state of law acting but like some geo political nonsense

> but the Moment it was bought up by a non US company somehow judges flipped their opinion and even did ruling on non peer reviewed non fully published studies (which later turned out to fail to proof that it causes cancer...)

During the same trials it came up that Monsanto at least believed that it had enough contacts to undermine any study it did not like. That probably also influenced what kind of studies the court accepted. You can hardly limit evidence to peer reviewed studies when the defendant outright said that they had full control over which studies would make it that far.

Using non peer reviewed studies means using studies which have not yet been properly error checked!

It's like making decision based on draft laws which have not yet been passed i.e. it fundamentally undermines the justice systems claim to be based on facts, because creating a study which uses various form of "subtle accidental mistakes" to twist the truth is very viable (and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews, but if there isn't even a peer review you have free rain to manipulate).

I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer without prove it's okay to use some intermediate test results and pretend they are final to get a fake claim to base a decision one, that's just so wrong.

And surprise the parts which where mostly used as a reference for the ruling where found to be quite faulty (in ways which look to me a lot like someone tried to forcefully come to the result that it is causing cancer).

> to undermine any study it did not like

you still need to use facts to do so, if any study showing that it causes cancer can be undermined using facts then maybe it's a strong indication that there is no good way to proof it to be harmful (with current methods)

If the US believes there is enough suspicion for it being harmful to make it okay for judges to conjure facts where there are non then they should just ban it through a congress decision. This might not be fact based but at least it's based on a proper political due process.

> and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews

A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control.

> I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer

You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely. Which afaik (not a lawyer) there is even a legal principle that would have allowed the judge to go that far. Something about defendants getting caught red handed messing with evidence allowing the court to assume the worst.

> you still need to use facts to do so,

I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results.

> A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control.

you are mixing up writing and reviewing paper

it's very obvious that this paper was not under any control of Monsanto

> You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely

I'm not a non peer reviewed paper is no evidence at all, that given example is the best proof because pretty much all evidence went away once errors where found in peer review and corrected. Furthermore it where errors which if you understand enough about the topic where kind pretty clear, i.e. in no way any Monsanto twisted any truth think. So pretty clearly the judge did a decision which isn't based on any facts.

> I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results.

but this doesn't make it okay to not wait for a peer review in any way, also there is a non small well known group of people which are very clearly not in favor of glyphosat and scientist and outside of the reach of Monsanto it's not that you can't cross review their reviews and feedbacks of the paper with other "more neutral" (but maybe Monsanto pressured) people

either way a fundamental aspect of non scientific papers is _that anything in non peer reviewed papers must be seen as not yet proven and speculative_ ((not necessary in exactly that wording)) and a judge ignoring the some of the most fundamental aspects of scientific practice but then basing a ruling on scientific practice is just ridiculous

>nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that)

This would be a terrible mistake. Even if it turned out that glyphosate causes cancer (it's extremely unclear that it does), it is still the least dangerous herbicide of its type, which is what makes it the most popular herbicide worldwide.

The alternatives are much, much more harmful to people and to the environment. If we ban glyphosate, we will see a drastic rise in the use of far more harmful substances.

This makes no logical sense. If a heavy penalty is established for the use of roundup, an even more prohibitive one would be appropriate for anything more harmful, making it extremely cost-inefficient to use them.

This would drive the development of new farming methods and research into different classes of chemicals.

I think there might be a few problematic ideas in you comment

1. that the people using it [the more harmful roundup] pay the price

2. that the people making the decision to provide more harmful roundup for a high "short" term profits will be penalized in any way

3. that it wouldn't take many years before the more harmful roundup is banned/court rule it to be dangerous

4. that it would increase the development of new farming methods and research into different classes of chemicals

I think given how messed up things are there is a realistic choice a company would push a (under the hand) know more harmful alternative to gain huge short term profit in hope that when court ruling come in they still made a net benefit or at least the people which did the decision back then and now have left the company do.

I mean best example for this would be Teflon pans, long term known to be harmful in many ways but still pushed en mass because they know even with any penalties or damages they might pay it's likely still a huge profit (it was). Then once things went to bad the replaced it with a different chemical composition which supposedly is safe now but is in practice way less researched then what Teflon was made from (or glyphosat). In the end the made a huge profit became marked dominant and the harm done is just a food note forgotten in history.

But we aren't discussing penalties for harsher chemicals. RoundUp is getting undue legal attention relative to the risk it carries, and farmers are already under enormous pressure to switch to more harmful herbicides. (There are no less harmful broad-spectrum herbicides. Glyphosate is the safest we've got.)

“The science,” is such a cringe term

Replace it with 'The scientific evidence' then.

> unclear any commercial gardener avoids glyphosate even today

you fell for the spin dr work. roundup have tons of that, but it's not what 1) might cause cancer or 2) what is defended in their patents.

well, it might cause cancer too. but not what was always argued against roundup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com