Glyphosate on BBC website!

[Whynot]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47633086

Just seen this story on BBC website about ruling in US.
We’re already losing chemicals at a rate of 5 to every new 1 being developed.
An interesting future ahead for us all..................

 

[willy]

They forget to mention how many billions of lives that round up has saved through helping to reduce starvation, but a few snowflake Californian judges and its deemed evil.
How many people have died from cancers caused by petrol or alcohol or tobacco, or any main stream product the list is endless, and so as society we need to get a perspective on risk and not get knee jerk reactions with silly sums of money being paid out.

 

[Campbell]

The land of litigation is chasing mega payouts on this. The chem companies involved will need deep pockets.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

What about farmers who use the chemical , is there any evidence of higher rates of cancer in these groups

 

[bovrill]

In California - where a judge had ruled that coffee must carry a cancer warning - the agriculture industry sued to prevent such a label for glyphosate, even though the state lists it as a chemical known to cause cancer.

At least they put that at the bottom . . . most un-BBC-like!

 

[SilliamWhale]

They forget to mention how many billions of lives that round up has saved through helping to reduce starvation, but a few snowflake Californian judges and its deemed evil.
How many people have died from cancers caused by petrol or alcohol or tobacco, or any main stream product the list is endless, and so as society we need to get a perspective on risk and not get knee jerk reactions with silly sums of money being paid out.

The big problem is they basically didn't label it saying "could cause cancer" and lobbied against it. That is the crux of it. It doesn't mean it will cause cancer etc. I think the average persons chance of getting NHL is about 1% and the average roundup user may be 1.2% and maybe a ultra heavy roundup user with no ppe, spraying all day every day could be 2% - but when using hazardous material you need to know to expect potential risks.

A farmer working outside in the sun all day probably has a 10% higher chance of skin cancer than a person sitting in an office all day who probably has a 20% higher chance of heart disease etc.

I totally agree we need perspective. Roundups problem is its popularity, its a shame when there are so many worse chemicals out there.

 

[SilliamWhale]

What about farmers who use the chemical , is there any evidence of higher rates of cancer in these groups

Not really.

 

[willy]

The big problem is they basically didn't label it saying "could cause cancer" and lobbied against it. That is the crux of it. It doesn't mean it will cause cancer etc. I think the average persons chance of getting NHL is about 1% and the average roundup user may be 1.2% and maybe a ultra heavy roundup user with no ppe, spraying all day every day could be 2% - but when using hazardous material you need to know to expect potential risks.

A farmer working outside in the sun all day probably has a 10% higher chance of skin cancer than a person sitting in an office all day who probably has a 20% higher chance of heart disease etc.

I totally agree we need perspective. Roundups problem is its popularity, its a shame when there are so many worse chemicals out there.

They don’t put that on sausages and they are proved to be if you eat enough

 

[SilliamWhale]

They don’t put that on sausages and they are proved to be if you eat enough

And Oral Sex. You need to a get a Tattoo with a warning on it, Willy!

 

[willy]

And Oral Sex. You need to a get a Tattoo with a warning on it, Willy!

What’s that been married too long now to remember

 

[Brisel]

What about farmers who use the chemical , is there any evidence of higher rates of cancer in these groups

No. There was a long term study recently https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/110/5/509/4590280 that showed no significant increase in cancer or NHL in long term users of the product.

 

[mwj]

The use of words is the big problem. Contribute to cancer could be applied to almost anything in life that we come in contact with. This was another case that a jury punished a wealthy corporation and was sympathetic to a common citizen. Jurors can rule against the evidence to make the finding they are looking for.

 

[yellow belly]

In some places cannabis is now legal with some wanting it legalised
Studies show it to be linked to sycosis

The world continues to get madder

 

[Cowabunga]

Just because a jury of plebs in the USA have decided it is so, it does not make it so. It just means they are sympathetic to a cancer sufferer and wish to blame something or someone.

 

[roscoe erf]

And Oral Sex. You need to a get a Tattoo with a warning on it, Willy!

don't think its big enough

 

[willy]

don't think its big enough

Maybe short hand

 

[2wheels]

Maybe short hand

no no he was speaking about oral sex not wa****g!

 

[Martin Holden]

The land of litigation is chasing mega payouts on this. The chem companies involved will need deep pockets.

You’re right! The land of litigation knows no bounds. Don’t think I’d want to trade over there thank you very much.

 

[Cowabunga]

The blame culture is spreading fast. If it isn't Monsanto [now Bayer] then Big Oil, the 'Lizard People', The Illuminate, and/or George Soros are apparently responsible for all the world's ills and individual calamities.

 

[Agrivator]

Life itself is a sexually transmitted terminal illness.