Monsanto Verdict

[Jay-ell]

Not wanting to start a war but wondering – how does the verdict in the US affect those of us who use Glyphosate based weed killers.

Does the fact that a jury awarded $289m damages to a groundsman who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer change what you think about the weed killer?

If you would continue to use it the way that you use it change?

Do you think that weed killers should contain stronger health warnings?

Should weed killers have tighter control on purchase?

[Baldy]

From what I've read the evidence to show that the herbicide is actually proven to be carcinogenic is weak - so a well funded agrochemicals company will likely overturn the decision. Its pretty amazing that the decision went this way in all honesty
I don't especially like glypohsate but use it occasionally - tht probably won't change unless they lose their appeal - in which case we can be certain its a cancer causer....
Stronger warning probably wont make any difference on the bottle - maybe if the One Show could do some sort of special...
You can only but a couple of types of weed killer now without a licence

[Snoop Puss]

I've got about 4.5 litres of the stuff. I used it once, about eight years ago, thought it affected the crop the following year, then started to read the scare stories and never used it again. Did a great job, though, I have to say. I'd use it again if it was proven that it definitely isn't a carcinogen.

[veggiechicken]

Today's Graundian " Homebase to review sale of Monsanto weedkiller.https://www.theguardian.com/business...erdict-roundup

Personally, I've never used it and never will. Life is short enough anyway, without using anything that may shorten it further - and that's aside from the damage it causes to the environment.

[Jungle Jane]

Did you see the live verdict,it makes me angry what else do they know is harmful that we aren’t warned about...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=um00x2ElTWs

[self-contained]

I haven't read much about this particular case, but I do know that juries of laypeople are not well-placed to make rational evidence-based decisions about complex scientific/medical issues. It's very natural for them to empathise with a claimant who is suffering some awful disease and also for them to want to punish a large corporation, and sometimes that means that the case isn't decided on the basis of the actual scientific evidence. It seems similar to the talc payouts, where the evidence-base for harm from modern talcum powder is extremely weak, but the juries still found in favour of the claimants.

I'm not saying that these multinational corporations are ethical, or that they wouldn't attempt to suppress the data if they found out their product were causing harm (just look at tobacco companies), but that just because a negative claim is made about them, it doesn't mean that it is true.

I don't use weedkillers currently, but I did once use Roundup in the past when I had a particular problem with a bramble filling my front garden (cut the bramble back and then painted the stuff on to the few stumps left sticking up so only used a tiny amount). I might consider using them again on a small scale if faced with a similar problem in future but I can't see me ever using them regularly or on a large area.

[Cadalot]

So everyone is worried about Weed Killer but lots use Comfrey which research has said is also carcinogenic! https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs...omfrey_508.pdf

[Lardman]

There's a bit of a difference between someone using the chemical all day, every day and the occasional spray of a weed on the plot or garden. Lots of things in everyday life increase the risk of cancer, I've not heard any calls for talcum powder to be banned.

[Greenleaves]

So everyone is worried about Weed Killer but lots use Comfrey which research has said is also carcinogenic! https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs...omfrey_508.pdf

Isn't that about Comfry extract being used as a food additive?

As Lardman says, so many things are deemed potentially carcinogenic, sausages, bacon, aromatics from cooking red meat, car tyres etc....all of which are socially acceptable and subject to exposure levels. I use it occaisionally but would not promote it

[DannyK]

It'll probably be the plot for next John Grisham book.

[Jungle Jane]

I haven't read much about this particular case, but I do know that juries of laypeople are not well-placed to make rational evidence-based decisions about complex scientific/medical issues. It's very natural for them to empathise with a claimant who is suffering some awful disease and also for them to want to punish a large corporation, and sometimes that means that the case isn't decided on the basis of the actual scientific evidence. It seems similar to the talc payouts, where the evidence-base for harm from modern talcum powder is extremely weak, but the juries still found in favour of the claimants.

I'm not saying that these multinational corporations are ethical, or that they wouldn't attempt to suppress the data if they found out their product were causing harm (just look at tobacco companies), but that just because a negative claim is made about them, it doesn't mean that it is true.

I don't use weedkillers currently, but I did once use Roundup in the past when I had a particular problem with a bramble filling my front garden (cut the bramble back and then painted the stuff on to the few stumps left sticking up so only used a tiny amount). I might consider using them again on a small scale if faced with a similar problem in future but I can't see me ever using them regularly or on a large area.

The Jury would have heard medical & scientific evidence & use those to make a verdict. Ive done jury service,you have to go by evidence only,not empathy. I think this is a big concern if it�s in our food & water,I don�t use weed killers.

[Kirk]

My thoughts are that in the US claims like these appear at almost regular times. It is after all a chemical and will carry warnings. And there is no possible way to determine how the person used the stuff. Also is the cause traceable back to and only to Glyphosphate?

The other factor is maybe odd but in US terms and a company the size of Monsanto then $289 is not exactly a lot. Usually they start out at $1.5Bn these days.

The way things go in the US is "strange" I recall one person suing a ladder company for not being explicit enough in warnings about putting an aluminium ladder against power lines. It seems to be big business attempting to sue for just about any reason/excuse.

Any one recall the staged bus accident that one of the US city police departments put on?
People were getting off the bus holding their necks and complaining of pain. They were also videoed getting on to the bus after the "accident" had occurred then getting off holding their head/neck. The only "real" passengers prior to the "accident" were members of the police dept.

Tend to agree with Greensleeves in that just about everything is classed as carcenogenic these days - have they got round to applying it to water yet? I use glyphosphate if required but not to any great extent. Last use was as a stump killer for an elder tree/bush I had cut down. That was a case of drill a few holes and pour into the holes.

[Thelma Sanders]

The Jury would have heard medical & scientific evidence & use those to make a verdict. Ive done jury service,you have to go by evidence only,not empathy.

They would have heard evidence, but not being scientists themselves, would they have understood what it meant?

Everybody who does jury service takes their own thoughts and prejudices with them. I don't think anyone can be entirely opinion free.

[Jungle Jane]

They’d have to understand what it means to give a verdict,if you’re unsure you discuss with everyone on the jury & come to a decision with all the evidence,depends what kind of person you are if you bring your own prejudices into it,you can’t.

[self-contained]

They would have heard evidence, but not being scientists themselves, would they have understood what it meant?

Everybody who does jury service takes their own thoughts and prejudices with them. I don't think anyone can be entirely opinion free.

Every day in work, I have to try and explain complex medical ideas to laypeople. I think I'm pretty good at it and most of the time manage to get people to understand what I am telling them (I draw pictures and everything ). But there is no possible way for me to convey everything that I know to somebody with no science education (taught or untaught) beyond GCSE/O-level (which is the majority of people) or even people with strong science backgrounds with little medical knowledge. I have GCSE science, two science A-levels, a science degree from Oxbridge, a medical degree, six years working as a doctor, and have passed my postgraduate exams allowing me to become a Member of the Royal College of Physicians. It is not snobbery to say that my ability to understand and weigh up medical and scientific data is greater than the average man on the street.

Honestly, I think even people with an extensive scientific/medical education might struggle to truly understand the evidence that must have been presented as part of this trial. I suspect I would have found it very challenging, especially as I presume the jury would not have been permitted to do any of their own reading around the subject in their own time. Drop an average person with an average education into the middle of all that and I am sure that they will have done their best and tried to be fair, but they will have been given a near impossible task.