Roundup (1 Viewer)

[Absolutely Free]

At this time, glyphosate is not a known carcinogen (only suspected). How that jury awarded that huge settlement to one man that really did not use it for a long period of time is astounding to me. I'm sure at some point there will be enough data to say if it truly causes cancer or not......but my uneducated, somewhat biased opinion is it does not seem to be acutely toxic. I worked at Monsanto in the past and I worked side by side may guys that worked with concentrated product for 25 years with very little PPE. No dice. I realize this is a super small sample size, but if it were toxic enough, front line works at these type facilities would have a higher occurrence of that specific cancer. Again, this is not hard data.....only an observation at one facility. So don't shoot the messenger.

I hear where you are coming from.

My dad had a buddy that worked there died in his 80s of a heart attack. He was around it for twenty years and no cancer issues.

So yes I would think a man that sprayed like a homeowner would should never have the same problems.

Non Hodgkin's lymphoma has several causes.

 

[Absolutely Free]

That's part of it. But, it's mostly that juries/people hate all corporations no matter who they are or how big they are in reality. The only thing they might hate more are insurance companies, which are generally corporations too. And, they figure the corporations can afford to pay for someone's damages even if they really aren't liable in that case because they are sure that they got away with not paying for other stuff that they actually did do. Despite what you see on TV, it is very difficult for a large corporation to win a products liability suit or any other suit for that matter.

Yep I hear what you are saying.

I am not a fan of giant world running companies. Even less a fan of insurance companies.

I guess where I am is I don't think anyone should pay for something that they can't prove at all. The two billion dollar judgement in that couples case shows just how wacked that jury actually was.

The first case won in California was a guy that worked as a groundskeeper for a school district. The employer should not be let off the hook. He had no license training or even good working equipment. That makes them more responsible to me than anyone else. It is irrelevant what he was using if it was untrained with faulty equipment.

To put that into perspective for me to spray glyphosate and charge someone in Louisiana you need to pass a test give the state 200 bucks for the license and have insurance for application of herbicides. So in other words it would cost a small business owner a ton.

I am more than sure California has at least similar rules if not much harder.

 

[St. Widge]

Yep I hear what you are saying.

I am not a fan of giant world running companies. Even less a fan of insurance companies.

I guess where I am is I don't think anyone should pay for something that they can't prove at all. The two billion dollar judgement in that couples case shows just how wacked that jury actually was.

The first case won in California was a guy that worked as a groundskeeper for a school district. The employer should not be let off the hook. He had no license training or even good working equipment. That makes them more responsible to me than anyone else. It is irrelevant what he was using if it was untrained with faulty equipment.

To put that into perspective for me to spray glyphosate and charge someone in Louisiana you need to pass a test give the state 200 bucks for the license and have insurance for application of herbicides. So in other words it would cost a small business owner a ton.

I am more than sure California has at least similar rules if not much harder.

I don't disagree. But when in court and you have an employer, supplier, manufacturer, premises owner all there, the jury tends to think it's all just a big game of corporate pass the buck so they just find everyone there liable or just the one they think has the most money. It's unlikely that the jury even considers the idea that maybe nobody is at fault and/or the product doesn't cause the alleged injury. That or they know it's possible that nobody is at fault and they just don't care because they think someone must be responsible for every injury/lawsuit.

There are exceptions and some juries does a good job of really considering the evidence. But it's rare. On the other hand, sometimes someone really did do something wrong, negligent, or down right evil.

 

[Turfie]

After glyphosate I think Dicamba is the next one up. Those cases are already happening and some being settled. The Dicamba case had to do with spray drift on non GMO crops.

After that, it could switch gears from herbicide to insecticide. Neonics and pollinators. Or another insecticide class and pollinators.

Could be some minor ones with groundwater issues as well.

 

[Absolutely Free]

After glyphosate I think Dicamba is the next one up. Those cases are already happening and some being settled. The Dicamba case had to do with spray drift on non GMO crops.

After that, it could switch gears from herbicide to insecticide. Neonics and pollinators. Or another insecticide class and pollinators.

Could be some minor ones with groundwater issues as well.

What shocks me is 2, 4-d has not had any real problems. Well besides making applicators sterile and we're considered to cause cancer back in the 80s.

Dow also has genetically modified soy and corn designed to be sprayed with 2,4-d and has not had the bad press. Then again they are not trying to shut down family farmers for cross pollination.

I guess Dow has the whole deeper pockets thing.

 

[Turfie]

Bayer paying up to $10.9B to settle Monsanto weedkiller case

BERLIN (AP) — Bayer said Wednesday that it will pay up to $10.9 billion to settle litigation over the weedkiller Roundup, which has faced thousands of lawsuits over claims it causes cancer.

apnews.com

Pretty big settlement announced. Includes roundup and Dicamba.

 

[Maxp]

Canada’s largest agribusiness, Richardson International, will no longer accept oat crops that have been pre-harvest sprayed with glyphosate or any other chemical desiccants starting as of January 2021, Radio Canada International reported Wednesday.

Canada’s Largest Agribusiness Bans Glyphosate Desiccation | The Detox Project

Canada’s largest agribusiness, Richardson International, will no longer accept oat crops that have been pre-harvest sprayed with glyphosate

detoxproject.org

 

[Bayouboy]

Canada’s largest agribusiness, Richardson International, will no longer accept oat crops that have been pre-harvest sprayed with glyphosate or any other chemical desiccants starting as of January 2021, Radio Canada International reported Wednesday.

Canada’s Largest Agribusiness Bans Glyphosate Desiccation | The Detox Project

Canada’s largest agribusiness, Richardson International, will no longer accept oat crops that have been pre-harvest sprayed with glyphosate

detoxproject.org

Will be interesting if others follow suit. A very large part of the Monsanto profits (under Bayer now) comes from the Round up ready seeds and that end of the business. Glyphosate itself is a commodity and does not really make money anymore.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Turfie]

Bayer knew of these lawsuits BEFORE acquiring Monsanto. They KNEW they were essentially acquiring these lawsuits.

Never in a million years did Bayer’s leadership team think any of these lawsuits had a chance.

Fast forward a few years and it was one of the worst business acquisitions of all time.

 

[not2rich]

At this time, glyphosate is not a known carcinogen (only suspected). How that jury awarded that huge settlement to one man that really did not use it for a long period of time is astounding to me. I'm sure at some point there will be enough data to say if it truly causes cancer or not......but my uneducated, somewhat biased opinion is it does not seem to be acutely toxic. I worked at Monsanto in the past and I worked side by side may guys that worked with concentrated product for 25 years with very little PPE. No dice. I realize this is a super small sample size, but if it were toxic enough, front line works at these type facilities would have a higher occurrence of that specific cancer. Again, this is not hard data.....only an observation at one facility. So don't shoot the messenger.

Since we're talking about anecdotal evidence, I had a dog that for some reason loved rubbing herself on weeds I sprayed with Roundup. She developed cancer relatively young and we had to put her down.

Again - anecdotal evidence. Doesn't prove anything. But since then, I won't use Roundup (or any weed killer not vinegar-based) where my dogs might be exposed to it.

 

[efil4stnias]

Since we're talking about anecdotal evidence, I had a dog that for some reason loved rubbing herself on weeds I sprayed with Roundup. She developed cancer relatively young and we had to put her down.

Again - anecdotal evidence. Doesn't prove anything. But since then, I won't use Roundup (or any weed killer not vinegar-based) where my dogs might be exposed to it.

Amen. i stopped using Roundup in any spot that my dogs can get to. Its now just for driveway/walkway weeds. others ill just pull or use vinegar ( if its too many ) )

pro tip on fire ant killer too-

Dawn. Amazingly effective in minutes 2 oz dawn to 1/2 gal water, mix, pour and watch. lol

 

[Turfie]

I also wonder if there is a paper trail from Monsanto to the EPA. I’d imagine there is somewhere.

Had they just disclosed the potential harmful effects and imposed greater use restrictions/requirements on the label then none of this would be playing out this way.

Here’s something a lot of people don’t know. Often times it’s the surfactant/adjuvant added to the product that can cause the most acute issues in pesticides and not the active ingredient itself. Flush your eyeballs first before you wipe anything if you got splashed in the face.

 

[Sailorsaint]

Amen. i stopped using Roundup in any spot that my dogs can get to. Its now just for driveway/walkway weeds. others ill just pull or use vinegar ( if its too many ) )

pro tip on fire ant killer too-

Dawn. Amazingly effective in minutes 2 oz dawn to 1/2 gal water, mix, pour and watch. lol

Hold on…Dawn kills fire ants? Does it trap them in the water until they drown?