Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Glysophate scare

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northumbrialand
    Posts
    1,360

    Glysophate scare

    A somewhat different view.

    A common weed-killer chemical is at the heart of a $289 million cancer lawsuit against Monsanto. Here’s how worried you should be - Business Insider https://apple.news/Ao0EQEun9RFeEHxPwQMKELQ

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Holderness
    Posts
    787

    Re: Glysophate scare

    Quote Originally Posted by Gee View Post
    A somewhat different view.

    A common weed-killer chemical is at the heart of a $289 million cancer lawsuit against Monsanto. Here’s how worried you should be - Business Insider https://apple.news/Ao0EQEun9RFeEHxPwQMKELQ
    The environmentalists will never forgive Monsanto for GM, so they will keep up the attack forever.
    Bayey apparently are going to change the name, but I think they will still carry on.
    Jack Caley

  3. #3
    Senior Member T P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The muddy edge of the biggest puddle in the uk
    Posts
    675

    Re: Glysophate scare

    My take on it_ there seems to be plenty of elderly farmers around. If it was all that dangerous there's be no farmers left by now considering most used it without PPE etc many times in their lifetime.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northumbrialand
    Posts
    1,360

    Re: Glysophate scare

    Huge amount of the story is down to the GM zealots.

  5. #5
    Senior Member LALANS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Scotland, land of the free home of the brave
    Posts
    398

    Re: Glysophate scare

    Quote Originally Posted by Gee View Post
    A somewhat different view.

    A common weed-killer chemical is at the heart of a $289 million cancer lawsuit against Monsanto. Here’s how worried you should be - Business Insider https://apple.news/Ao0EQEun9RFeEHxPwQMKELQ
    The interesting, and in some ways sinister as well as highlighting how ignorant and narrow focused a jury is, is the fact that the jury reached their decision not on the scientific evidence but on the allegations that Monsanto/Bayer did not inform users that there was a risk element to the use of Glyphosate.

    Two points emerge as regards this verdict

    1. The lawyers acting for the affected party knew that there was no case to answer had they challenged on scientific data. They effectively looked for a loophole.
    2. Complicated cases like this should not be judged by a jury as they are not competent to address or understand the facts as presented.

    In any event the ridiculous size of the award only serves to undermine the credibility of the verdict.

    I also noted that at the press interview after the verdict the gleeful winning lawyers sat in front of a 'sponsors' board similar to that use by football clubs in their post match interviews. It appears that many vested interest, and malicious, groups were bank rolling this case.

    Using the logic of the 'ban roundup' cabal should water not be banned and added to the list of carcinogenic agents. It has in fact been responsible for far more deaths than ever roundup up has and there is no warning on the bottle or tap.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •