Bayer Gets Roundup Verdict Slashed by 74% But Has Bigger Problem

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- Bayer AG got a $79 million award against it slashed by three-quarters but failed to overturn the first jury verdict that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer.

The decision, by a California appeals court on Monday, may buttress tens of thousands of claims even after Bayer reached a settlement of almost $11 billion.

The San Francisco-based court affirmed the 2018 verdict in favor of a landscaper while cutting his award to $20.5 million. The lawsuit isn’t covered by Bayer’s broader settlement resolving 95,000 of approximately 125,000 U.S. lawsuits by Roundup users.

The court rejected the central argument Bayer is relying on to overturn all three verdicts it has lost in California. The company claims the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed and approved the Roundup warning label and that the suits ignored the agency’s authority. Federal regulation of Roundup, Bayer argues, preempts California law.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bayer-gets-roundup-verdict-slashed-by-74-but-has-bigger-problem/ar-BB16Ys61?li=BBnba9O&ocid=DELLDHP

[NNadir]

1. Since glyphosate has been so widely used all around the world...

...it's rather amazing that the world's life expectancy has been rising continuously.

Glyphosate was introduced in 1974. World Life Expectancy was 60.54 years that year. It was more than 10 years longer in 2020.

Life Expectancy.

One would think everyone in the world would have died from cancer, since it's so deadly, at least according to 12 jurors, all of whom, I'm sure, had Ph.Ds in toxicology.

Or is it possible that lawyers would have excluded any juror with any kind of scientific training?

I wonder if the risk of glyphosate cancer is higher than the risk of starving to death because of lower crop yields.

This whole business to me reeks of Greenpeace type thinking, getting hysterical because of selective attention and ignoring, in its entirety the big picture.

Of course, it is possible that life expectancy is going up because, um, people have food to eat; that is, I offer the unorthodox and apparently, I'm sure, odious opinion that having food to sustain good nutrition has a beneficial effect that outweighs the supposedly vast risk of cancer from glyphosate.

We are not immune on the left - as well I know - from choosing scientifically dubious positions that actually kill people if allowed to prevail.

You know, my doctor asked me if I wanted to stop taking valsartan because of the (recent) discovery of nitrosoamine impurities, the emergence of which is almost certainly a result of improved methods of chemical analysis.

I declined saying that my risk of cancer from nitroamines was lower than my risk of having a stroke from high blood pressure.

It would be asking way too much, way, way, way too much, to do what I did with respect to nitrosoamines - a common series of chemicals in foods, particularly pork products like bacon (I don't eat mammals and birds personally) - which is to weigh risk vs. benefit.

Of course, it is impossible to recognize benefits if one has inserted one's head in one's ass.

Don't worry, be happy, though. The "green revolution" of the 1950's and 1960's, which had nothing to do with the conversion of pristine wildernesses and habitats into industrial parks laced with asphalt for wind farms, is coming to an end soon enough, with or without glyphosate.

The world has a phosphate supply expected to last a few decades at most. The fact that glyphosate is a phosphorous compound will be dwarfed by the reality that there will be no more fertilizers left.

Let's make something clear, OK? It won't be bourgeois brats cheering for judgments against big bad corporate types who will starve to death if we are no longer able to feed 7 billion people.

It will be the poor.

The most disturbing trend in my long life on the political left is the growing disdain for the poor among us. We just act like they don't exist. They do, and their humanity is every bit as important as mine.

[StClone]

2. That same logic supports the reintroduction of DDT.

[NNadir]

3. The effects of DDT and its persistence were discovered by scientists, not jurors.

There is zero proof that glyphosate is as persistent or as toxic as DDT.

In general, the world takes a jaundiced view of halogenated compounds, for good reason.

I certainly support the banning of PFOA, PFOS, and related fluoroalkanes, brominated flame retardants, PCBs, CFCs and in fact write about them in the science section.

Of course, one would need to open a science book to know any of this.

There are zero technologies that are without risk. The idea however that a set of people with no scientific training should get their heads in a snit because of their non-scientific beliefs - one should say, "anti-science" beliefs - is responsible for great harm, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, anti-nukes, anti-this, anti-that. Risk always needs to be balanced against benefit.

For about 5 years, I worked with agricultural scientists. Most people have no idea how it is they can eat.

I note that I have never seen Greenpeace pull one of their childish marketing stunts to protest that people starve to death.

[StClone]

4. Plant species diversity is my concern

Glyphosate use is likely one of the causes of insect decline (target and non-target "weeds," forbs, native plants are insect food). This is a very real problem in the web of life. I worked in Iowa, pretty much ground zero for Roundup and, and some peer reviewed works show soil bacteria, fungi, and especially, earthworms decrease which affect the soil structure and viability-another long-term problem.

Glyphosate does not have the chemical persistence of DDD, DDE, or DDT. DDT kills insects by selectively flooding (if I recall my bio chem correctly) sodium ions channels. Glyphosate kills plants by its chelated nature of binding elements. Residual amounts can and do occur in foods from crops it is grown with. There may well be enough as a food contaminate to have adverse effects in humans blocking key micro-elements, maybe Manganese. The association of glyphosate with digestive disorders (gluten sensitivity, Ciliac, acerbating Crohn's Disease) is not lost on the medical field. Additionally, Roundup's formulation is much more potent than just glyphosate alone. Our FDA does not recognize Roundup as a carcinogen though the EU does. Some EU countries outright ban it.

I am wildlife biologist and organic grower. Roundup may cause cancer in humans is a concern but, my main concern farming practices with Roundup are not sustainable on a diverse plant. Even Bayer is studying alternatives.

[NNadir]

5. Well, I am decidedly not an organic farmer. Except in the...

...little tomato, herb and pepper garden on my deck.

I am by contrast, an environmentalist who noted that about 10 billion tons of the 45 billion tons of carbon dioxide injected into the planetary atmosphere comes from land use changes.

Now, I happen to believe that the planet is well past it's carrying capacity for human beings. Ethically, however, I disagree that the solution is mass starvation for the poor.

I would think - feel free to correct me - that any responsible person truly interested in wildlife would agree that wildlife depends on habitat and that therefore efficient use of land for agriculture is desirable. Is the competition between weeds and grain good or bad for efficient land use?

My daily life is very much involved in chemistry, including physiological chemistry, especially biochemistry. I note you gave no references for your claim about chelation, but it is meaningless in any case. Chelation is a biologically common fact of life, and without chelation life would be in a very problematic state. Chlorophyll, hemoglobin, and nitrogenase are all chelating species.

Any synthetic, and many naturally occurring chemicals can have a toxicological profile. The question again, is whether or not the assertion of any risk outweighs any and all benefits, my original point. I don't believe that having stain free furniture justifies the wide distribution of PFOA, but i believe that a secure food supply justifies over looking specious scare stories about agrochemicals about which many people carry on endlessly and loudly without any appreciation of the human condition.

In my opinion, selective attention is far more toxic than glylphosate will ever be.

My attention goes beyond certifying that something is "organic" for the benefit of bourgeois rich people driving their Tesla cars to Whole Foods. I embrace the human development goals outlined by the UN, which I believe will slow population growth. It is a known fact that people secure in their homes and assured of having their basic needs met constitute the most stable populations.

I am not prepared to endorse blithely popular fantasies when they result in tragedy. We need to feed the world without killing it. The hooey about glyphosate is not helpful. It is true that we cannot support the world population without chemicals, the most important being phosphate fertilizers even though phosphate fertilizers can and do have environmental consequences that easily outstrip those of glyphosate.

[Archae]

6. You're going to be accused like I was...

Last edited Tue Jul 21, 2020, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Of being a "shill for Monsanto."

All I need to do is look at who the loudest voices against GMO's and Roundup are.

Jeffrey Smith, who has NO credentials in nutrition and teaches "yogic flying" at the UNaccredited "Maharishi Yogi college."

Mike Adams and his "Natural News" far-right conspiracy theory web site.

Like you said, 12 jurors are not 12 scientists, and the lawyers suing over Roundup made sure no scientists were on that jury.

They go for emotions, "My poor client got sick from Roundup..."

How many MILLIONS of people used Roundup every day, and don't get cancer?

2 years ago, I had cancer of the prostate.
Who should I sue?
The toilet paper makers?

[NNadir]

9. It's already underway.

I'm used to it.

In general, on the left we have more respect for science than do those on the right. However it is also true that we can lapse into into attitudes that are scientically absurd, dangerous and ethically odious.

I am very proud of saying I was banned at Daily Kos for telling the truth, in referring to a paper by one of the world's most prominent climate scientists, Jim Hansen.

The amusing thing is that people over there used to slobber all over themselves praising Jim Hansen until he published a paper they didn't like, the one to which i appealed.

It was an excellent paper, widely read and widely cited.

They went full Trump, and suddenly Jim Hansen's name became an anathema.

In my opinion, our party cannot succeed by simply not being Republicans. Our task is to govern well when we hold power.

Cheering for starvation will not represent governing well.

Good luck by the way with the cancer. It's not the worst cancer to have by any means, but cancer is cancer and I wish you good health.

[Archae]

10. Thanks, no recurrence of the cancer so far.

I don't remember Jim Hansen, though.

[Another Jackalope]

12. Could you cite that paper? I'm interested.

Message me if you'd rather.

I used to be GliderGuider, but I've both softened and matured a bit in my old age. Any paper by Hansen that gets "that crowd" in a tizzy has my interest.

[NNadir]

14. Sure. It's "author's choice" open sourced and here's a link:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

I keep a link handy.

On a personal level, it's nice to hear from you. I remember you. I trust you're safe and well.

I never thought you needed softening, whereas me...well...I'm really not all that softened, but I do use the wonderful "ignore key" here now to avoid raising my blood pressure. I have, regrettably, a low tolerance for stupidity.

I wasn't "soft" when I got banned over there. Specifically I said, "If Jim Hansen is right; opposing nuclear energy is murder," or something along those lines. I may have included a few expletives. It seems like little Markos didn't like hearing that, um, truth.

You may also enjoy, on that topic, this paper from Lancet:

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

It supports, strongly, what Hansen had to say.

Unfortunately we live in a world of selective attention. It would appear that all the deaths associated with the much discussed Fukushima and Chernobyl don't add up to a day's worth of air pollution deaths, roughly 19,000 per day.

[Another Jackalope]

15. Thanks for the links.

It's good to see you still active here. I lost my handle here for overly enthusiastic support of Louise Mensch. I've since learned to keep some opinions (especially the misanthropic, fatalistic ones) to myself.

Thanks again.

[NNadir]

16. Well, I only rarely post in E&E anymore.

I mostly post in GD and in the wonderful Science forum.

I have no idea who Louise Mensch is and probably don't want to know.

[StClone]

17. Glyphosate as a chelating agent

No citation but, it is commonly accepted that the chemical activity of glyphosate is its ability to bind to nutrients disrupting specific plant enzymes. Humans are likely affected by this chelating activity (and more) in vitro, as young children, and likely into adulthood.

I think you have stated your case and I don't need to continue.

[lagomorph777]

7. I hope we're not going to relive the Monsanto attack squad situation at DU.

Back in 2016, Monsanto had a vicious squad lurking at DU, flagging and often successfully removing any post that even hinted at reporting on Monsanto malfeasance. Now Monsanto is part of Bayer and I worry they could be at it again, in the run-up to another election.

[NNadir]

8. For full disclosure, as a DUer since 2002...

...i visited Monsanto's corporate offices in Saint Louis in the last decade to discuss the use of LCMSMS in residue studies.

It may surprise some people to learn that they weren't serving human livers in their lunch room.

In fact the people I met there were fine scientists very much involved in their support of agriculture.

As it happens that was my only visit to Monsanto, but it had nothing to do with my disapproval of the scientific team I met there.

.Nobody had horns or hoofs or forked tails.

Now, of course we have lots of people who claim to speak for all political liberals, as well as to insist on their view of ethical orthodoxy as if it were inviolable.

I have a low opinion of such people.

I've been making myself clear on my view of anti-science orthodoxy here for 18 years.

Many rote opinions that proclaim themselves as irrefutably moral are anything but ethical.

I am often accused of having my opinions on science and technology because of financial interests. It is my contention that people who accuse others of being unable to take a position without financial incentives say more about themselves than they do about those they so accuse.

[Archae]

11. I was accused of being a part of this "attack squad."

Never did get those checks though...

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. There are studies that have found the same thing!

See here for instance: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/us-glyphosate-cancer-study-scli-intl/index.html

You're embarrassing yourself by posting this.

[NNadir]

18. Oh goody!... a journalist with a headline that says "scientists say."

I don't know who should be embarrassed.

You know, Donald Trump is too ignorant to know that he is ignorant,.

I have long stated, in my many posts in the Science section that I believe that you can no longer get a degree in journalism if you've taken and passed a college level science course.

I've been a working scientist for many decades and I don't get my science from the popular press, the same press that thought Hilliary Clinton's emails were the biggest problem facing America.

I am totally unembarrassed by the fact that I get my science from the primary scientific literature as my journal on this website clearly shows.

My most recent post is this one: Site-specific glycan analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The one before that:

The Effect of Pressure on Enhancing Covalent Bonding in Curium Complexes.

The previous science post before that: Microfluidic electrochemistry for single-electron transfer redox-neutral reactions.

Anyone who gets their science uncritically from reporters at CNN, or the New York Times or, for that matter, Fox News is probably blissfully unaware of how science works.

Here's a clue: Scientists don't sit around saying to each other "Scientists say..."

There is a primary scientific literature, and it often contains papers that conflict and some, regrettably, that need to be retracted.

A book review in the current issue of Nature discusses a famous case of a famous pyschologist whose papers are currently experiencing a round of retractions:

Fraud, bias, negligence and hype in the lab — a rogues’ gallery Fidler, Nature, July 19, 2020. (Book Review.)

If I had a dollar for every scientific paper I've read that proved to be without merit, I could buy some stock in CNN.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Did you read the actual study?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887

[NNadir]

20. Um...um...um...

Do you have any idea of how many studies have been written on the topic of glyphosate?

Any idea?

There are 315,000 "studies" on glyphosate on Google scholar. How many exactly, have you read.

This one?

You seem to think that because some dumb assed reporter picked one out, I should have to read it to be the "expert" who feels free to tell me I should be embarrassed.

Listen. I read or scan about 30 to 50 scientific papers a week, every week. I've been doing it for decades, probably before many of the people here were born.

I read broadly, but most of my work over the years has been in pharmaceutical chemistry.

I know how science works, and I know how the popular press works when it reports science.

How about we do a little experiment? Every damned day, roughly 19,000 people die from air pollution. I posted the reference, from one of the most prominent medical journals in the world, Lancet, elsewhere in this thread, but to save you agony, I'll post it again:

Here is the most recent full report from the Global Burden of Disease Report, a survey of all causes of death and disability from environmental and lifestyle risks: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

Now for the experimental part: Why don't you go over to CNN, and link 50 articles on its website that discuss this fact?

19,000 people per day...

Any journalistic interest in that paper?

It's open sourced...maybe you can pick out of it all of the glyphosate cancers reported in it. There certainly are data points connected with malnutrition in it. What's your theory, does glyphosate kill as many people as die from malnutrition.

How about diarrhea? Does glyphosate kill as many people as die each year from diarrhea because rich people couldn't care less if their water supplies are clean?

It would be useful to give a shit about humanity, rather than wonder if it's perfectly OK for people in poor countries to starve to death because weeds have over taken agricultural fields because someone puts too much credence in some story published by a scientifically illiterate journalist on the staff of CNN.

Over at CNN, you can find lots of evidence that Chernobyl is the worst energy disaster of all time. It isn't. It's air pollution and climate change are the worst energy disasters of all time.

I get very, very, very, very, very tired of people who read the popular press, get wedgies on topics they know nothing about, and are completely indifferent to the reality of science. Anyone, anyone at all, who points to one paper and declares himself or herself an expert is entirely clueless.

I get very, very, very tired of lazy people who don't have a clue about how the world works and more specifically, how science works..

No, I haven't read that paper. I don't have time for it. Tonight, I plan to read something that matters.

Glyphosate has been in use since 1974. It has many drawbacks, including resistant species, but it is not the end of the world and it's not even close to being as large a risk to humanity as poverty is.

People who don't understand that are not worth the time of day.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. It's rather relevant to the subject at hand, though?

If there is support from studies on the effects of glyphosate for the linkage between glyphosate use and elevated risk of specific cancers, then it seems that this is something which might be persuasive to jurors in a liability case. Which is a slightly different thing to "juries deciding instead of science".

[NNadir]

22. Just out of curiosity since you're so concerned...

Last edited Wed Jul 22, 2020, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

...do you have any idea how many people die in a given year from non-hodgkins lymphoma in a year?

Following on that are you here to announce that all of these cases related to glyphosate, in other words that the disease was unknown before 1974?

What is the death rate from this disease per 100,000 people.

I personally worked on a few leukemia related projects, so I do have some perspective.

We have 7 billion people on this planet.

Any concern on your part on crop yields per hectare when we ban glyphosare because you read something written by a journalist writing a scientifically illiterate headline with the evocative but diotic use of "41%?"

[NNadir]

23. Given that the stakes for humanity are so high, I downloaded it...

...and some citing papers.

It's not actually a bad paper, although this type of methodology has resulted in a huge and important retraction in a Covid setting.

One of the citing papers speculated on a world without glyphosate from an agricultural perspective specifically with respect to soybeans.

Since soybeans are of particular importance with respect to the destruction of both the Brazilian rain forest and the destruction of the world's largest wetland, the Pantanal, areas as of importance to humanity given climate change, I would be pleased to discuss with you your confidence in this paper and its methodology and why you believe that this paper, out of hundreds of thousands on the subject of glyphosate including those the authors utilized, stands out above all other issues facing humanity.

Please share your general comments on your reading of the paper. I look forward to your response

[NNadir]

24. Since I read the scientific paper linked on, um, CNN that you claimed should embarrass me...

...I'm very disappointed that you haven't deigned to discuss the full paper and its methodology with me.

I was particularly interested to learn of your reflection and insights and solutions on the climate costs, habitat loss and nutritional effects of reducing the world yield of soybeans.

Please don't be, um, embarrassed. After all, you read the "science" sections of CNN, and this of course, makes you a world expert on decisions of international import, doesn't it?