On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 12:07:36 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 9/15/19 9:11 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Some cut.

I wonder what, if anything, has happened to the geniuses at Bayer that
bought Monsanto for top dollar just before those Roundup cases went
into the toilet with hundreds of millions of judgments awarded? I mean,
that's got to be one of the worst acquisition moves ever. Did they even
do any due diligence to correctly assess the risks?

Now if you look at late night TV, the shyster lawyers are running 30 min
infomercials rounding up everyone they can to sue Bayer for their big
pay day. Monsanto probably should have had some warning on the labels
saying it could be harmful, not to get it on yourself, etc. Silly me,
but I've always treated any herbicide, pesticide, most solvents, etc
that way. The first case was a janitor that claimed he was covered in
it many times, applying it around a school. i've sprayed it around the
property here for decades, I've never been covered in it. I do usually
apply it and any other products after I'm done with any other work and take
a shower afterwards. Call me logical.

I can't imagine there not being warnings on farm chemicals but can't claim
I've actually read them. Farm kids just knew that stuff.
That janitor is a good example of the saying "Common sense isn't".

Here's a current label:

https://natseed.com/pdf/Roundup%20Pro%20Label.pdf

They say you should wear long sleeve clothes, socks, shoes, wash hands
before eating. They also say it's supposed to be safe for animals,
but if they eat enough plants treated with it they could have temporary
gastric symptoms, vomiting, etc.

I think they could have expanded that a bit and some of it isn't
exactly clear. Like wearing long sleeves. That would seem to imply
that you should avoid skin contact, so why not say that? Is it OK
if you wear a long sleave shirt and it gets wet with it? I mean,
you'd think people would have sense enough, but some won't.

As to putting any new warnings on there, we have this:

https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20...for-glyphosate


EPA Won't Approve Warning Labels for Glyphosate

Aug. 12, 2019 -- Warning labels for the suspected cancer-causing weed killer glyphosate (Roundup) won't be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer says glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic," which has led California to require warning labels on glyphosate products, the Associated Press reported.

However, California hasn't enforced the warning label rule because Roundup maker Monsanto last year obtained a court order blocking the warning labels until the lawsuit is resolved.

The EPA says its research shows the chemical poses no risks to public health and won't approve warning labels for glyphosate products, the AP reported.


If I was on those juries, I'd have a hard time reconciling that RU is
causing lymphoma when only some studies have shown a possible link,
but:

1 - while RU use exploded in the last 4 decades, there has been no corresponding
increase in non-hodgkins lymphoma.

2 - The biggest study of farmers that encompassed following farmers in
a couple of states for a long time found a lower incidence of cancer
in them and their families, as compared to the general population.
And nh-lymphoma was lower too. And they were not only spraying RU,
but all kinds of other chemicals too.

It's really hard to get past those two. And nh-lymphoma occurs in about
70K people a year in the USA, only a small subset are using RU.
But it will make for a rich gold mine for the lawyers. My one concern
with RU would be that it's now extended to use to spray crops just
before harvest, to accelerate the drying out process. That doesn't
seem like such a great idea to me. But overall it's been a great
chemical and you have to look at the whole picture, the benefits.