Fraud and corruption bring big payoffs

California judges provide stage for kangaroo court justice over Roundup weedkiller

Paul Driessen

San Francisco area juries have awarded cancer patients some $80 million each, based on claims that the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, caused their cancer – and that Bayer-Monsanto negligently or deliberately failed to warn consumers that the glyphosate it manufactures is carcinogenic. (It’s not.) Judges reduced the original truly outrageous awards of $289 million and even $1 billion per plaintiff!

Meanwhile, ubiquitous ads are still trolling for new clients, saying anyone who ever used Roundup and now has Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or other cancer could be the next jackpot justice winner. Mass tort plaintiff law firms have lined up 18,500 additional “corporate victims” for glyphosate litigation alone.

Introduced in 1974, glyphosate is licensed in 130 countries. Millions of farmers, homeowners and gardeners have made it the world’s most widely used herbicide – and one of the most intensely studied chemicals in history. Four decades and 3,300 studies by respected agencies and organizations worldwide have concluded that glyphosate is safe and non-carcinogenic, based on assessments of actual risk.

Reviewers include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Germany’s Institute for Risk Assessment, and Australia’s Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Another reviewer, Health Canada, noted that “no pesticide regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.” Therefore no need to warn anyone.

The National Cancer Institute’s ongoing Agricultural Health Study evaluated 54,000 farmers and commercial pesticide applicators for over two decades – and likewise found no glyphosate-cancer link.

Only the France-based International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), says otherwise – and it based its conclusions on just eight studies. Even worse, IARC manipulated at least some of these studies to get the results it wanted. Subsequent reviews by epidemiologist Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, National Cancer Institute statistician Dr. Robert Tarone, investigative journalist Kate Kelland, “RiskMonger” Dr. David Zaruk and other investigators have demonstrated that the IARC process was tainted beyond repair.

The IARC results should never have been allowed in court. But the judges in the first three cases let the tort lawyers bombard the jury with IARC cancer claims, and went even further. In the Hardeman case, Judge Vincent Chhabria blocked the introduction of EPA analyses that concluded “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans,” based on its careful review of many of the studies just mentioned.

He said he wanted “to avoid wasting time or misleading the jury, because the primary inquiry is what the scientific studies show, not what the EPA concluded they show.” However, IARC didn’t do any original studies either. It just concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” meaning studies it reviewed found limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, plus sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in lab animals that had been exposed to very high doses or lower doses for prolonged periods of time. In other words, under conditions that no animal or human would ever be exposed to in the real world.

It is also instructive to look at the three San Francisco area courtroom proceedings from another angle – an additional line of questioning that would have put glyphosate and Roundup in a very different light, and might have changed the outcome of these trials. Defense attorneys could have asked:

Can you describe your family cancer history … your eating, exercise and sleeping habits … how much you eat high-fat foods … how often you eat fruits and vegetables … and your other lifestyle choices that doctors and other experts now know play significant roles in whether or not people get cancer?

How many times in your life [Johnson is 47 years old; Hardeman 70; Alva Pilliod 77; Alberta Pilliod 75] do you estimate you were exposed to substances on IARC’s list of Group 1 definite human carcinogens – including sunlight, acetaldehyde in alcoholic beverages, aflatoxin in peanuts, asbestos, cadmium in batteries, lindane … or any of the 125 other substances and activities in Group 1? Have you ever smoked? How often have you been exposed to secondhand smoke? How often have you eaten bacon, sausage or other processed meats – which are also in Group 1?

How many times have you been exposed to any of IARC’s Group 2A probable human carcinogens – not just glyphosate … but also anabolic steroids, creosote, diazinon, dieldrin, malathion, emissions from high-temperature food frying, shift work … or any of the 75 other substances and activities in Group 2A? How often have you consumed beef or very hot beverages – likewise in Group 2A?

How many times have you been exposed to any of IARC’s Group 2B possible human carcinogens – including bracken ferns, chlordane, diesel fuel, fumonisin, inorganic lead, low frequency magnetic fields, malathion, parathion, titanium oxide in white paint, pickled vegetables, caffeic acid in coffee, tea, apples, broccoli, kale, and other fruits and vegetables … … or any of the 200 other substances and activities in Group 2B?

Pyrethrin pesticides used by organic farmers are powerful neurotoxins that are very toxic to bees, cats and fish – and have been linked by EPA and other experts to leukemia and other cancers and other health problems. How often have you eaten organic foods and perhaps been exposed to pyrethrins?

Large quantities of glyphosate have been manufactured for years in China and other countries. How do you know the glyphosate you were exposed to was manufactured by Bayer, and not one of them?

In view of all these exposures, please explain how you, your doctors, your lawyers and the experts you consulted concluded that none of your family history … none of your lifestyle choices … none of your exposures to dozens or even hundreds of other substances on IARC’s lists of carcinogens … caused or contributed to your cancer – and that your cancer is due solely to your exposure to glyphosate.

Put another way, please explain exactly how you and your experts separated and quantified all these various exposures and lifestyle decisions – and concluded that Roundup from Bayer-Monsanto was the sole reason you got cancer – and all these other factors played no role whatsoever.

News accounts do not reveal whether Bayer-Monsanto lawyers asked these questions – or whether they tried to ask them, but the judges disallowed the questions. In any event, the bottom line is this:

It is bad enough that the IARC studies at the center of these jackpot justice lawsuits are the product of rampant collusion, misconduct and even fraud in the way IARC concluded glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” It is worse that these cancer trials have been driven by plaintiff lawyers’ emotional appeals to jurors’ largely misplaced fears of chemicals and minimal knowledge of chemicals, chemical risks, medicine and cancer – resulting in outrageous awards of $80 million or more.

Worst of all, our Federal District Courts have let misconduct by plaintiff lawyers drive these lawsuits; prevented defense attorneys from effectively countering IARC cancer claims and discussing the agency’s gross misconduct; and barred defense attorneys from presenting the extensive evidence that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans. The trials have been textbook cases of kangaroo court justice.

The cases are heading to appeal, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. We can only hope appellate judges will return sanity, fairness and justice to the nation’s litigation process. Otherwise our legal system will be irretrievably corrupted; products, technologies, companies and industries will likely be driven out of existence; and fraud, emotion and anarchy will reign.

Jackpot-justice law firms and their anti-chemical activist allies are already targeting cereals that have “detectable” levels of glyphosate: a few parts per billion or trillion, where 1 ppt is equivalent to 1 second in 32,000 years. Talc and benzene – foundations for numerous consumer products – are already under attack. Advanced technology neonicotinoid pesticides could be next.

It’s all part of a coordinated, well-funded attack on America, free enterprise and technology, using social media, litigation, intimidation and confrontation. Our legislatures and courts need to rein it in.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Big Al
August 4, 2019 6:25 pm

Sounds like a shill. Round Up was not sold. It was unloaded. The sellers saw legal problems coming. Found a sucker. They test on cows. Humans are somewhat different. Glyphosate disrupts human gut flora.

Reply to  Big Al
August 4, 2019 7:22 pm

Even if true, so what. Disrupting “gut flora” causes gas, not cancer.

Reply to  MarkW
August 4, 2019 8:46 pm

Hmm? And ulcerative colitis, chrohn’s, IBD, depression, fatigue, nutrient absorption, cognitive conditions etc, etc

guido LaMoto
Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 3:05 pm

Those conditions are the cause of the changes in gut flora., not the result of the changes. (Not to mention that studies analyzing gut flora include small numbers of subjects and poorly reproducible.)

Lymphoma occurs in ~ 5 in every 25000 Americans not exposed to glyphosate each year and according to meta-analysis including the flawed studies, ~7 in 25000 of those exposed to glyphosate. How do they know the index patient in the suits is one of the extra 2 and not one of the natural 5 ?

Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2019 1:35 am

Mark W
Even if true, so what. Disrupting “gut flora” causes gas, not cancer.

It certainly caused more than gas for me. I only used it to spray some weeds in front of the house. But next morning I suffered from a severe vomiting attack and by severe I mean real projectile MarkW
Mark W
Even if true, so what. Disrupting “gut flora” causes gas, not cancer.

It certainly caused more than gas for me. I used it to spray some weeds at the front of the house. The next morning I had severe vomiting and I mean real projectile vomiting. Later in the day, mistakenly thinking I was better I went into London, but had to come home early as I felt really bad. Then on the tube (the London Underground railway) I had another bout of projectile vomiting. Fortunately I had a carrier bag with me to catch most of it , but it’s amazing how quickly you can get your own space even in a crowded tube train.

And since then I have been suffering from, if not quite headaches, then the feeling that something is happening in my head.

“Only causes gas” my a**e. I will certainly never use the stuff again. .

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 2:40 am

Did you drink it? The world is full of stories about “I used such and such and it made me ill”.

I use it frequently without problems and I’ll go with the large scale studies as what its toxicity is.

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 3:04 am

Fine. Now leave everyone else alone and let them use Roundup. It’s not all about YOU.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 3:55 am

Harrowsceptic – August 5, 2019 at 1:35 am

I ONLY used it to spray some weeds at the front of the house. The next morning I had severe vomiting and I mean real projectile vomiting.

So, it was 16 to 20 hours after spraying weeds that you got sick, right.

Therefore you don’t have a clue what really made you sick, right.

Maybe you have a deadly allergy similar to those afflicted with peanut or latex allergy.

Did you check for poisonous plants in your area, such as these:

Deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna) …
Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) …
Monkshood (Aconitum napellus) …
Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) …
Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) …
Winter cherry (Solanum Capsicastrum)

Harrowsceptic, you know there is only one way you can prove that it was Roundup that made you sick.

And PS, I didn’t think I was allergic to anything except too much beer and pretty “redheads”, ….. but I found out I was allergic to the “drying agent” in automotive paint.

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 4:41 am

It may have been the surfactant not the glyphosate.

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 5:39 am

The fact harrowsceptic believes it was roundup is rather amusing. Never blame gastro or a dozen other things that cause the symptoms it must be the roundup. Definitely on the spectrum all right along with Greta seeing Co2 molecules 🙂

Reply to  LdB
August 5, 2019 8:06 am

“Never ascribe to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence.”
I suggest a bit of higher resolution thinking before condemning the wrong cause.

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 10:04 am

Please, obviously this was something else, or you are the most sensitive human to RoundUP ever found. If it was even 0.1% this active the world would have blown up long ago.
How about doing a test for all of us and do the same thing again, yunno, science?

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 10:36 am


I grew up on a farm, used a lot of Roundup pretty much from early spring to late fall every year. I never projectile vomited after use or developed any other sign of a medical disorder. I also used a lot of other chemicals, some of which Paul lists in the article above as on IARC’s cancer causing lists. Still cancer free and so is the rest of my family who was also exposed. Think I’ll go with the 3400 studies saying it does not cause cancer rather than the 8 IARC cites as the determination that Roundup does.

Now I’m not going to sit here and spout that you don’t have a sensitivity to something in a container of Roundup as it’s quite possible. Could be one of the inactive ingredients just as easily as the active ingredient. Having a Dr. test you would be a good idea to figure out just exactly what you need to avoid. But millions of people have used Roundup with no ill effects noted at all. Vilifying a product on bad science and personal experience is just as wrong as covering up science that says a product is dangerous.

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 1:57 pm

harrowsceptic, I read your comment and I suffered from a severe vomiting attack and by severe I mean real projectile

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 3:56 pm

I have a difficult time accepting that one use caused that much problem. I have been using it for years.

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 4:29 pm

I don’t know what caused you to start vomiting, but it wasn’t the Round-Up.
I’ve had projectile vomiting a number of times in my life, and I’ve never used Round-Up.

Reply to  harrowsceptic
August 5, 2019 7:08 pm

harrowsceptic, my guess is that it was the leftover chicken chimichanga you ate for your midnight snack that evening which caused your vomiting in the morning.

Vomiting is your body’s attempt to rid you of something noxious in your stomach.

If you were careless, you might have gotten some herbicide on your skin, but even if you reacted badly to it, that would cause a rash or itch, not vomiting.

You might have even inhaled a bit of the stuff, which could conceivably cause a sneeze or cough. But it wouldn’t cause vomiting.

Unless you drank the stuff, the herbicide would not have caused vomiting.

Did you take your temperature? Were you running a fever? Infections can cause vomiting, and often cause a fever, as well. If you were running a fever, that would strongly suggest an infection as the cause of you vomiting.

I’ve used glyphosate many times, often to kill poison ivy. The glyphosate has never caused me any detectable harm. I wish I could say the same for the poison ivy.

Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2019 3:50 am

“… causes gas, not cancer”

This controversial 2013 paper shows glyphosates to be linked causally to a number of diseases, including celiac disease and cancer. For example, Figure 1 shows the rise of celiac cases started in the early 1990’s and seems to be strongly correlated to the rising use of glyphosates in agriculture.

Samsel,Seneff;”Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance.”,2013

However, these findings are not universally accepted. This paper accuses Samsel and Seneff of using faulty “deductive logic”, spurious correlations etc.
Mesnage, Antoniou;”Facts and Fallacies in the Debate on Glyphosate Toxicity.”,2017

I have not read all of the supporting arguments here, but it seems like a struggle between powerful groups with differing scientific, economic and political agendas. Hmm, where have we seen that before?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Johanus
August 5, 2019 9:03 am

“This controversial 2013 paper shows glyphosates to be linked causally to a number of diseases, including celiac disease and cancer. For example, Figure 1 shows the rise of celiac cases started in the early 1990’s and seems to be strongly correlated to the rising use of glyphosates in agriculture.”

Well man made CO2 was also rising from the 1990s, why aren’t they blaming that.
How about radio transmissions, ie mobile phones, why aren’t they blaming that.
I thought they were also aready blaming Diesel Particulates for everything to do with bad health, why aren’t they blaming that.
They try to blame them for everything else. Remember correlation is not causation.

Reply to  A C Osborn
August 5, 2019 10:51 am

“Remember correlation is not causation.”

You are absolutely correct. But, assuming the dramatic rise in celiac disease and gluten allergies since the 90’s is real, it is also important to try to identify the cause of this ‘epidemic’.

It is also important to be very skeptical in examine _all_ hypotheses that try to explain this phenomenon. And it is also important to recognize that authors of legitimate hypotheses which expose “inconvenient truths” are often demonized and falsely discredited as a means of censorship.

So, why does not the Wikipedia article on RoundUp mention that, in addition to weed control, it is also used to dessicate crops, just prior to harvest? This a routine practice, especially in Canada, where plants are sprayed with RoundUp to make them dry and brittle, thus easier to harvest.

Would you eat a plant that had been sprayed and killed with RoundUp two weeks before it was harvested? Apparently Monsanto does not really want you to know about it.

Stephanie Seneff, a coauthor of the glyphosate article above, has been demonized for her work and called a “denier for hire” and ‘unqualified’ to write scientific articles about RoundUp.

Yet she has a BS in biophysics, an MS in electrical engineering and a PhD in computer science, all from MIT, and works as a senior research scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), certainly more qualified academically than most authors.

Looking at her FaceBook page, she seems like a very engaging person, who is eager to discuss and defend her work in this area.

I cannot vouch for the correctness of her paper, but I suspect she faces the same problem as authors critical of “climate change” literature. I would just like to see a ‘fair and balanced’ critique of her major hypothesis, that destruction of gut microbiome can cause serious digestive disorders, including celiac disease.

Has anyone else published a better hypothesis explaining this epidemic?

Reply to  A C Osborn
August 5, 2019 4:35 pm

Shouldn’t we identify that a phenomena is actually real, before trying to assign causes to it?

The paper is controversial precisely because it’s methodology is so bad.

Reply to  A C Osborn
August 5, 2019 7:30 pm

“Shouldn’t we identify that a phenomena is actually real, before trying to assign causes to it?”
Do you not agree that celiac disease has increased dramatically during past 30 years? The chart data in the Samsel&Seneff paper showing this increase apparently came from the CDC and seems credible to me. My own (anecdotal) perception is that “gluten allergy” was relatively unknown before that time. Or do you have another explanation for this common perception?

The historical data in the paper was apparently obtained from CDC databases via ‘Nancy Swanson’ (not cited in references). A little googling revealed that she is a retired physicist, working with Seneff, in the ‘GMO-FREE’ movement, and has published a history of glyphosate induced illnesses in the Journal of Organic Systems:

Swanson et al., “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the
deterioration of health in the United States of America”, 2014

Glancing over the paper, it looks credible to me, but again I am not an expert in this area and so cannot comment on its accuracy. (I know that most scientific papers published today tend to be junk, with non-reproducible results.)

The link between gut flora and cancer was elaborated in section 11 of the paper, which proposed that the lack of gut flora, killed by glyphosates, leads to celiac disease, which in turn causes oxidative stress leading to cancer.

Chronic inflammation, such as occurs in celiac disease, is a major source of oxidative stress, and is estimated to account for 1/3 of all cancer cases worldwide (Ames et al., 1993; Coussens & Werb, 2002). Oxidative stress leads to DNA damage and increased risk to genetic mutation. Several population-based studies have confirmed that patients with celiac disease suffer from increased mortality, mainly due to malignancy (Nielsen et al., 1985; Logan et al., 1989; Pricolo et al., 1998; Cottone et al., 1999; Corrao et al., 2001; Green et al., 2003). These include increased risk to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, adenocarcinoma of the small intestine, and squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus, mouth, and pharynx, as well as melanoma. The non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was not restricted to gastrointestinal sites, and the increased risk remained following a gluten-free diet (Green et al., 2003)

Reply to  Johanus
August 5, 2019 4:32 pm

Can you please point out where those papers link changes in intestinal flora to cancer.
That’s what my comment referenced.

Reply to  Johanus
August 5, 2019 4:34 pm

So weak correlations and too small sample groups is good science, so long as the rich and powerful are blamed.

Surfer Dave
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2019 6:25 pm

’causes gas’ well that’s a silly thing to say, even the gas hints that the system has been disrupted and not working optimally. How far off optimal is impossible to say, but at the least normal uptake of nutrients is not working properly and the whole body suffers. In fact, ‘causing gas’ would (or should) be enough to disqualify this toxin from the food chain.
Mr Driessen, you seem to have glossed over the emergence of superweeds and steadily falling yields after prolonged use of this toxin.

Reply to  Big Al
August 4, 2019 8:18 pm

Where do you get your information from BigAl.
You wouldn’t know $hist from clay.
If a lie is repeated enough times people like you start believing that what the gutter press publishes is factual .
There have been many studies done and a few shonky ones have shown some problems .
When the shonky studies are examined closely they are poorly run and are not able to be replocated.
Round up and its ingredient glysophate has had numerous studies undertaken on it and none have brought forward any compelling evidence that the use of roundup induces cancer .

Bryan A
Reply to  Big Al
August 4, 2019 8:54 pm

And Warfarin Kills Lab Rats. But it’s used in moderation to thin blood
And drinking gasoline is toxic since I wouldn’t recommend drinking it
And Water Intoxication can by fatal but you will die from dehydration if you avoid it for >three days
And Oxygen can cause a toxic response but a lack of it will also kill you
And alcohol consumption can lead to coma and death

Moderation in exposure to anything is less harmful than overconsumption

Reply to  Bryan A
August 5, 2019 7:36 pm

It usually takes close to a week for someone to die from dehydration. Seven to ten days is typical for a bedridden patient.

You might wonder how I could possibly know such an awful thing. Believe it or not, death by dehydration is very common, these days, especially in hospices. In fact, it is the reason that so many patients die 7-10 days after admission to a hospice facility.

They call it “palliative sedation” or “terminal sedation.” Many hospices routinely sedate patients to the point that they are unable to eat or drink, then wait for them to die from dehydration, which typically takes 7-10 days. It is a perversion of what hospice and palliative care were supposed to be, but it is common practice, now, and not just for terminal patients. It is how Terri Schiavo (who was disabled, but not terminal) was killed.

Here’s an article by a local physician here in Wake County, NC, Dr. Edward Yellig. He is a past president of the Wake County Medical Society, and he wrote this article for the newsletter of the Wake County Medical Society. At the time that he wrote the article he was the Medical Director of Hospice of Wake County, NC. In his article, he described in detail how he used terminal sedation to kill a 68yo dementia patient.

The man was a problem patient. He was frequently agitated. He kept wandering away from his nursing home. He struck an employee. He threw a chair through a window.

He got kicked out of his nursing home, as too difficult to handle, and his family checked him into Wake County Hospice.

Dr. Yellig tried a few medications to calm the man, without success. So he sedated the man to unconsciousness, so that he couldn’t eat or drink. He did not insert a feeding tube or IV. After ten days without food or water, the man died, primarily from dehydration.

In his account of the murder, Dr. Yellig wrote that the patient “died… in comfort and peace.”

I reported the crime to Wake County DA Colin Willoughby, and he assigned an investigator, but ultimately declined to prosecute.

Another physician wrote a letter to the newsletter, complaining that what Yellig did was unethical. Yellig wrote a letter in reply, contradicting key points from his original account. In his letter, he claiming that the patient had been terminally ill, and even claimed that the patient was not ambulatory (which makes his wandering away from the nursing home quite a trick).

Reply to  Big Al
August 5, 2019 2:56 am

Big Al: Thee sounds like a shill for the greedy, evil lawyers or Big Organic. Perhaps just a complete psuedoscience worshipper. Hard to tell. I do love people’s own little personal conspiracy beliefs and fantasy worlds.

Reply to  Sheri
August 5, 2019 3:26 am

Keep watching the trials and we’ll see if they’re ‘conspiracy beliefs’ and ‘fantasy worlds’ or not.

Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 4:38 pm

If you want to judge science, the absolutely worst place to do so is in a courtroom.

The fact that the chema-phobes have to run to court room and ignorant juries instead of proving their case using science, just shows that even the lawyers know how weak their schist is.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Sheri
August 5, 2019 3:43 am

Psychologists call an accusation like (not so) Big Al’s: projection.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sheri
August 5, 2019 6:31 am

“Thee sounds like a shill for the greedy, evil lawyers or Big Organic.”

And that sounds like a Mannian Ad hominem response.

Ed MacAulay
Reply to  Big Al
August 5, 2019 12:21 pm

I got food poisoning one time also, but it was about 6 weeks after I used roundup!
Must of been the cause, would never of known without Big Al and his BS.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Big Al
August 5, 2019 4:11 pm

“Have you ever smoked? How often have you been exposed to secondhand smoke? ”

This is not a real question as no study has ever shown second hand smoke to cause problems because, again, it is much too hard to tease out anything meaningful amid all the other factors of the lives of people exposed to second hand smoke.

Assuming second hand smoke to be dangerous, some nonthinkers out there even talk about third hand smoke, the danger your family will be exposed to when you come home smelling of smoke.

I maintain the existence of fourth hand smoke. The danger to those around you from thinking of having a smoke.

Reply to  Big Al
August 6, 2019 7:15 am

~90% of all the research on glyphosphate is after the fact analysis using various statistical methods. NO kind of statistical study produces facts. At best they offer opinions as to what might be going on.

In the glyphosphate case none of the none of the studies apply to any single case. Their results are all about population studies, anywhere from 100(meaningless) to thousands(tentative) subjects. They help show the possible effects of something on a population of people. They simply DO NOT shed any light on an individual’s experience.

The judges in these, and many other ballooned payout lawsuits have been egregiously mistaken or willfully prejudiced, or even more shameful, benefiting somehow from making fantastically biased opinions.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Big Al
August 14, 2019 5:21 am

Big Al
Only if you drink it.

August 4, 2019 6:29 pm

The trials are based on the same premise as California’s Prop 65, that various chemicals are solely the cause of all cancer, and that there is no safe dose of any listed chemical.
The lawyers see a payday, and will push a preposterous belief system mostly discredited in the 1980’s.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 4, 2019 7:23 pm

No sane company should sell anything in the state of CA.

Reply to  MarkW
August 4, 2019 8:58 pm

Anyone concerned about the effects of tariffs on free trade should also be very concerned about this. Foreign companies have significant disincentives, based on litigation threats, to sell products in the USA.

Tort reform is desperately needed.

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 4, 2019 10:28 pm

There isn’t free trade with nations where there exists labor and environmental arbitrage, ip theft, monopolies and practices, and regulatory rackets.

August 4, 2019 6:41 pm

Maybe SCOTUS may get tired of reversing these activist lower court LOONS and slam the door on future iterations of Courtroom Lottery.

Dave Fair
August 4, 2019 7:01 pm

If there is money to be had, an attorney will be there. My daughter worked for an ambulance chaser. Her morals forced her to quit.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 4, 2019 9:29 pm

Good for her.
Both my uncles were lawyers and they were good ones. (One wrote a law book.) Too many are in it for the buck and not the law.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 5, 2019 1:13 am

Back here in 1999/2000 ish, under the Socialist/Labour guvment, there were concerens that the UK was becoming very litigious like America! So the guvment had a review undertaken by lawyers to see if this was so. The conclusion was amazingly that no, Britian was not becoming like America with law suits ranging far & wide! Then soon afterwards advertisments started appearing on the commercial TV channels asking questions such as, “Have you had an accident & it wasn’t your fault?”, & similarly worded invitations, answered by the phrase, “Well ABC?XYZ lawyers could help you get the compensation you deserve!” etc, etc. As someone said, the law was created by lawyers, for lawyers, to make pots of money,…………… for lawyers!!!!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 5, 2019 4:10 am

And all Judges use to be practicing Lawyers ….. and the elections of Judges are funded by Lawyers.

And a large percentage of elected Politicians are Lawyers which results in passed legislation/laws that favors Lawyers.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 5, 2019 12:27 pm

The best way to stop Class Action loonacy is to change the laws so that Lawyers can only be paid as a member of the class. Billion$ settlement amongst 100,000 litigants, Class is paid $10,000 each and the Law Firm is paid $10,000 as opposed to
Billion$ settlement 100,000 litigants, Class is paid $6,667 each, Law firm is paid $333,333,333

John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2019 7:22 pm

Roundup was introduced in 1976.
I used it first in 1977.
That was the same year we bought a 5 gallon can of Creosote and splashed it on wood posts.

I’ve used Roundup almost every year since 1977. Not a lot, but maybe 1/2 gallon to a gallon of concentrated material.
If I got cancer I would think Creosote, not Roundup.
Note that the intervening years number ’42’.
I bought a small folding pruning saw with a red plastic handle.
California had a sticker thereon saying it could cause cancer.
I have been in contact with many many things since 1977 that I worry about.
Roundup is not one of them.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2019 8:59 pm

John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2019 at 7:22 pm

Well, I’ve been using Roundup since 1980 in NZ. Mostly at normal dilution and but sometimes at 100% in a weed wand. I wear gloves when spraying with a backpack and especially when mixing.

Over the years I’ve seen a definite change in my medical status…my hair has gone grey!! Can I sue Monsanto?? I’ve seen this exact same effect on my neighbours, both downwind (and strangely) upwind of my property. So I’m obviously not the only one that has been affected by this vile liquid so maybe there’s a class action I can join?

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 4, 2019 10:32 pm

Roundup is a probable accelerated progressive agent. Well, there is a correlation, the characterization is “consistent with”, and a likely first-order forcing of an elevated empathy signal.

David Hood
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 5, 2019 3:50 am

Alastair – you sod – I live in ChCh and have gone bald.
I’ll be visiting you soon to get compensation.

Reply to  David Hood
August 5, 2019 4:37 am

David Hood
August 5, 2019 at 3:50 am

Actually, I didn’t tell the whole truth. I, too have lost quite a bit of hair. And a few of my near and distant neighbours on the Coromandel (again, both up and downwind) have died since I started using Roundup in 1980! Sorry, please don’t send the lawyers.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 5, 2019 9:04 am

Well, I’ve gotten shorter and wider.
I think there is a pattern in this.

August 4, 2019 7:23 pm

Although I mostly agree with this, I think Paul Driessen is overstating his case, as exemplified by “Jackpot-justice law firms and their anti-chemical activist allies are already targeting cereals that have “detectable” levels of glyphosate: a few parts per billion or trillion”. There are multiple cereals that have glyphosate content repeatedly being found to be over 100 parts per billion, and over 1 part per million has been found a small number of times. There is even a standard of 160 parts per billion that I think is perfectly harmless (by over one and more likely two orders of magnitude) and that should be easy to achieve, but it keeps on happening that some breakfast cereals in the US exceed this standard, a small number of times by a factor as high as about 8.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 5, 2019 2:57 am

Glyphosphate was designed to be used as a weed killer and when used correctly should break down rapidly without entering the food chain.

Cereals have detectable levels of glyphospate because farmers spray their crops to accelerate ripening.
I think that this abuse is scandalous and should be stopped.

Reply to  Martin
August 5, 2019 5:09 am

That’s what the mindset that it is completely harmless leads to.

Reply to  icisil
August 5, 2019 4:45 pm

There isn’t a shred of evidence that it isn’t harmless.
Especially at those micro-doses.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 5, 2019 3:10 am

ONE PART PER MILLION? How many bowls of cereal does it take to get non-Hodgkins lymphoma???? Won’t you die from cereal consumption first? (I truly believe numbers and science have made people incredibly gullible. We make the people who followed medicine wagons around and had medicine men for doctors look absolutely brilliant.)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sheri
August 5, 2019 6:36 am

About 25 years ago a couple of environmental groups (I think The Environmental Working Group and Citizens Action.) came out with a “shocking” report about Atrazine levels in drinking water in the Midwest. Columbus Ohio was one of the targets.
At that time Columbus had not gone Green and fought back against the misleading information. The head of our Water Quality Assurance Lab with the support of the Mayor prepared a booklet detailing just how Atrazine Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) was arrived at and pointing out the misinformation in the enviros’ report.
(ie The MCL for it is an annual running average. The enviros took one sample in one location at the peak of Atrazine “season” and claimed we’d exceeding the MCL. Our annual running average was well below the MCL.)
Anyway, the MCL as set so that if you drank water that at the MCL every day then, after 70 years, your risk of cancer would increase by 1%. (What I don’t remember is if you’d have to drink 5 or 50 gallons of water a day.

Reply to  Sheri
August 5, 2019 8:31 am

Sheri, many people have always been incredibly gullible.
Innumeracy, illiteracy, ignorance and fear rather good indications of their ability to be misled.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sheri
August 5, 2019 12:31 pm

Reminds me of this SNL skit
Super Colon Blow

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 5, 2019 4:23 am

I think Paul Driessen is overstating his case, as exemplified by “Jackpot-justice law firms …

Anyone watching American TV during the past 30+ years knows there have been dozens of “Jackpot-justice law firms ” that have been and currently are constantly “trolling” for clients with inferred “big money” payoff.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 5, 2019 4:39 am

Just about all grains in the US are contaminated with glyphosate. It’s even found in some organic foods and vaccines.

Reply to  icisil
August 5, 2019 4:44 pm

So what? You make it sound like a single molecule is enough to kill people.

Reply to  MarkW
August 6, 2019 2:30 am

If it accumulates in the body it may be able to do that. A molecule here, a molecule there, pretty soon we’re talking about real dosages.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 5, 2019 9:48 am

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is one of the most common form of cancer in the US.
Everyone is going to die of something, even though modern medicine continues to get better and better at extending life.
Cancer is the second most frequent cause of death in the US, accounting for over 21% of all deaths.
Heart disease comes in at #1, causing just over 23% of deaths.
No other cause even breaks 6%.
So the fact is, whether or not anyone has ever used roundup or ingested glyphosate, any particular person may get this disease.
It accounts for one in 25 cancer deaths.
75,000 people were diagnosed in 2018 in the US alone.
Considering how many people have ever used a product like Roundup, the idea that anyone who gets NHL and has used the product, can blame it on Roundup, is ludicrous.
It would be very easy, knowing the precise numbers of people who have ever used Roundup and the number who will get NHL, to predict in advance how many individuals will have used Roundup AND get NHL.
The number just in one year is very high.
Anecdotal evidence is meaningless in science.
A majority of maternity ward nurses will swear on a stack of bibles that more babies are born on a full moon than any other night, and yet statistics on births are among the most complete and well kept records in the world, and they show with utter certainty that no such correlation exists.
Confirmation bias pollutes our thinking.
Some one claims they once used roundup and the next day they were sick.
Was it the only time you used roundup?
Was it the only time you got sick?
Got any documentation?
Many people have drank the concentrate while attempting suicide and survived with no severe effect.
There is no defined LD50 for glyphosate for dogs because it proved impossible to force enough of the chemical into a dog to kill any of them.
Many studies have shown zero ill effects from exposure over a lengthy period of time which involved ingestion of a high amount of the chemical.
There are few chemicals in a persons house which are less toxic than glyphosate, based on the LD50 of the stuff.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the US who spray this stuff everyday, and have done so for years with no ill effect.
A jury deciding to give s plaintiff money is commonly based on pity and disregard for large corporations, and has nothing to do with cause and effect or culpability.

August 4, 2019 7:57 pm

I have been quite impressed by Judge Alsup’s 9th District Court rulings against the frivolous lawsuit against Exxon, and his ruling that PG&E systematically shirked their responsibility to maintain the infrastructure of Power transmission. Judge Alsup appears to have a firm grasp on REAL science and fraudulent “statistical” manipulations masquerading as science. These cases may hit a speed bump on their way to the SCOTUS.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Kenji
August 5, 2019 6:21 am

The State of California was responsible for the “mass destruction” of that fire, but its not logical to sue the State for damages because they would have to raise taxes to pay for said damages, therefore Judge Alsup found PG&E at fault …… and PG&E can file bankruptcy and then Judge Alsup can dictate the amount of liability.

Robert of Texas
August 4, 2019 8:05 pm

In my humble opinion, California causes mental health problems and we should all sue the State for mental anguish. We have to bring the suit in California of course, no reasonable judge would assist us.

August 4, 2019 8:06 pm

sounds to me like a bunch of investors or company hacks are unhappy with the truth coming out. fact the only fraud that has taken place has been from the chemical company’s who has a revolving door with the EPA to hide and misrepresent products as safe fact they bought scientist to sign there name as authors of research studies they were never a part of. that were written by the company and not the scientist now that’s fraud .

These company’s like Monsanto and Bayer only concern is there bottom line. Fact when Bayer found out there antihemophiliac factor drug was tainted with HIV they stop the sale to US but continued in 3rd world country’s because they did not want to lose money that is fact and history that is the company you idiots are defending.

The History of Bayer crimes goes back to world war 2 when they knowing sold the chemicals to Hitler that gassed Men Women and Children . for a profit and ask Hitler for a bonus to boot ask and was granted permission to experiment on Men Women and the children before they were gassed that’s fact and History

John Dilks
Reply to  william
August 5, 2019 9:12 am

You’ll need to provide proof for those so called facts.
Sounds like rambling BS to me.

Reply to  John Dilks
August 5, 2019 12:38 pm

My God man look it up its history .Blood money: Bayer’s inventory of HIV-contaminated blood … – NCBI

There are court docs and facts and evidence all over this is what scares me people who argue and defend with out knowing the facts

Reply to  william
August 5, 2019 4:48 pm

There is no truth in your rambling irrationalities.
There isn’t a shred of solid scientific evidence that glysophates are harmful.

Your paranoid rantings about how big companies are out to get us all is making you look like someone with only a tenuous connection to standard reality.

August 4, 2019 8:22 pm

It’s a shakedown and nothing else.

August 4, 2019 8:34 pm

Faith in US courts? On a matter of science and statistics?
When the US Supreme Court decided that CO2 is a pollutant?
They apparently weren’t in biology class for the part about the carbon cycle and what plants do with CO2.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  curly
August 5, 2019 9:13 am

I think it was the Obama-EPA that declared CO2 a pollutant.
The SCOTUS decided that the EPA had authority to do so.

This may be more complicated than my 2 lines above,
but I have other things to do this morning.

Izaak Walton
August 4, 2019 8:37 pm

To the outside world the US court system has been as a source of humour ever since they awarded
millions in damages to a woman for claiming that her coffee was too hot. Things do not seem to have
improved but I see no evidence of a “coordinated, well-funded attack on America, free enterprise and technology” as Paul is claiming. Rather it is American lawyers doing what they do best — going after soft
targets in the name of profits. In addition American courts and especially patent courts seem to lack
a basic understanding of science and technology. But given that schools in the US still want to teach creationism expecting their graduates to understand cancer risks is perhaps asking a little too much.

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 4, 2019 9:21 pm

It was hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions, and anything capable of giving third-degree burns is by definition `too hot`. In my opinion, Liebeck vs. MacDonalds was judged correctly.

Reply to  Pariah Dog
August 5, 2019 4:28 am

Just as well it wasn’t tea, it needs BOILING water to brew!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Pariah Dog
August 5, 2019 7:20 am

MacDonalds should not have been blamed because Liebeck chose to drive her car with one hand while attempting to drink from a hot cup of coffee in her other hand.

“DUH”, how many cell-phone companies have been sued for “million$” because dumb arses wrecked their vehicle when driving with one hand while holding their cell-phone in the other hand?

NONE. Drivers are arrested if caught doing said.

Convenience stores, ….. 7-Eleven, McDonalds, etc., …… have been selling coffee in disposable cups with disposable plastic lids since the mid-1960’s. The lid, or part thereof, has to be removed to drink the coffee. Ref:

NC Coder
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 5, 2019 7:31 am

except she was a passenger, not the driver. Lid came off while stopped in a stall in the MacD’s parking lot.

Reply to  NC Coder
August 5, 2019 9:58 am's_Restaurants
Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald’s restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger’s seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[12] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[13]

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.

Holding a scalding hot paper cup full of coffee between her legs and then PULLING the plastic lid TOWARDS her to loosen it thus spilling the entire contents on her groin when the lid popped loose was a significant cause. Had she been drinking MILK, the scenario would have been the same, but the damage would not have occurred.

Were there really any lessons learned from this tragedy?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  NC Coder
August 6, 2019 4:40 am

@ TEWS_Pilot August 5, 2019 at 9:58 am

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman ……

that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee

Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

Iffen Stella Liebeck had been lying on her back with her knees up in the air then the coffee would have spilled on her lap,

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Pariah Dog
August 5, 2019 10:07 am

Pariah Dog,
You said:
“…anything capable of giving third-degree burns is by definition `too hot`.”

What a completely nonsensical statement.
A third degree burn means that there was tissue damage extending to the deepest layer of the skin. That is all it means.
This has as much to do with the amount of the hot liquid and the type of clothing a person was wearing and how quickly she was able to react and remove the clothing, as how hot the liquid was.
If someone has on thick cloth clothing and is driving, one will have a severe burn from anything that is even slightly hot.
140°F liquid will cause a third degree burn in 5 seconds.
(Even 120°F can give a person 2nd degree burns in a few minutes.
Anything over 110° can cause 2nd degree burns, and anything over 104° can cause death under certain circumstances.)
Can you pull over a car, jump out, and remove your pants in less than 5 seconds?
If not, by your definition, 140 is “too hot”, even though most people would consider this to be barely warm for coffee.

Reply to  Pariah Dog
August 5, 2019 4:50 pm

A yes, if someone is stupid enough to hurt themselves, then by definition the company that made the product is at fault.

She took the lid off, put the cup between her legs, and then proceeded to drive over a speed bump.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 4, 2019 9:43 pm

No one wanting creationism to be allowed to be taught was asking that any science class Not be taught.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 5, 2019 12:07 am

Creationism is saying that because evolution is so complex – only god could have done it.
Seewotooism is saying that because climate is so simple – only seewotoo could have done it.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
August 5, 2019 8:56 am

Actually, Creationism is saying all the evidence indicates God created the universe and all that is in it. Statistical analysis of the probability that any part of macro-evolution (not simple adaptation as embraced by Creationism) is found anywhere shows evolution is a failed theory….and all the evidence gathered so far supports that conclusion…but this is way off topic.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 4, 2019 10:35 pm

Conflation of logical domains is a clear and progressive problem for post-normal “science”, where people are vulnerable to liberal speculation outside of the near domain, where phenomenon are observable, reproducible, and reasoned through deduction, not inference (i.e. creative knowledge).

NC Coder
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2019 7:16 am

I once thought as you do. I found out main stream media reported it in such a manner as to be favorable to MacD’s. If you look, she actually had 3rd degree burns which required skin grafts. She actually was looking only for compensation for the medical bills. The lesson is, you really can’t trust anyone, especially not the media or large corporations.

Reply to  NC Coder
August 5, 2019 4:54 pm

Anytime someone causes injury to themselves, they are entitled to sue someone to pay for it?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2019 10:20 am

I live in Hungary, yes I used to think us court system was funny until I realized Hungarian court system is just as dangerous.

August 4, 2019 9:07 pm

Wow, this is quite a group – Kabat, Tarone, Zaruk, Kelland and Entine. For those reading this agrochemical spin please be aware these folks makeup the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) and American Council on Science and Health (ACHS), both well-known propagandist organizations with strong presence on the internet. Just trust that the evidence against Monsanto is enough that 3 separate juries and 3 separate judges all have found Monsanto guilty for not warning consumers of the carcinogenicity associated with Roundup/glyphosate based herbicides.

Oh and don’t forget the US EPA deemed glyphosate a “Class C – Possible Carcinogen” in 1985. The story about the tumor later found by a Monsanto hired pathologist combined with IBT laboratory’s falsified data and convictions is worth looking into.

Funny even Monsanto said ACSH “had warts”. Joke

August 4, 2019 9:13 pm

My hort professor in 1980 told me that glyphosate was originally developed by DuPont for use as an adjuvant (i.e., a tank-mixed “spreader” used to lower the surface tension on foliage). Unfortunately, it killed the crops on which it was used, and therefore it was rejected and subsequently sold to Monsanto. We know the rest of the story, and I have always felt a little bad for DuPont. So although I agree that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, I can’t help but find some irony in all of this.

Reply to  David Weir
August 5, 2019 3:36 am

It was initially created as a pipe cleaner as it is a moderate chelator.

Reply to  David Weir
August 5, 2019 8:24 am

Then why does Roundup have an adjuvant to lower surface tension in addition to glyphosate?

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 5, 2019 1:09 pm

I don’t know why it also includes an adjuvent, maybe as the best and cheapest additive to cut the concentration to 52%? But there are other kinds of adjuvants besides those used to lower the surface tension.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David Weir
August 5, 2019 1:09 pm

No, Dupont did not sell glyphosate to Monsanto.
It has never been used as a spreader, as it does not have this property.
There are no phosphonates that are used as surfactants.
Monsanto developed it in 1970, after a chemist by the name of John Franz was asked to investigate a class of chemicals that had been found to display weak herbicidal properties.
They did not buy it from anyone, although the chemical had earlier been discovered in the 1950s by a company called Cilag, who never published the work.
In 1964 another company did patent it for use as a chelating agent, because it was found to bind to certain metals.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 5, 2019 5:31 pm

Thanks for the clarification. Someone above posted a link to the Glyphosate history page which mentions “water-softening agent”, so perhaps this is the point where the tale went awry.

“The substance glyphosate was initially discovered in 1950 by a Swiss chemist, Henri Martin, at the pharmaceutical company Cilag. At that stage the product had no pharmaceutical purpose, and it was not until the seventies that glyphosate was discovered to have herbicidal activity. At that time Monsanto Company was testing different compounds as potential water-softening agents when it found that two molecules closely related to glyphosate had some herbicidal activity against perennial weeds. The scientist John Franz then synthesized derivatives of those two compounds and quickly discovered glyphosate to be a potent herbicide, which was subsequently patented under the trade name “Roundup®”.”

August 4, 2019 9:33 pm

The IARC is a joke. They changed the results of the studies in order to get the result they wanted. Their classification ‘probably carcinogenic’ is so broad as to be completely meaningless, air would qualify. From this classification ignorant jurors are led to believe things that aren’t true. If this is the state of science agencies and courts we’re finished as a civilised society.

I also suspect that this whole thing will backfire, the process is so bad as to incite genuine reform. Agricultural industries and pharmaceuticals won’t sit back and just watch this complete farce.

Reply to  Thingadonta
August 5, 2019 3:44 am

What nonsense. Look up IARC response to Kate Kelland and Reuters stories. Well looks like the ag & Pharma industries aren’t having much luck thus far. I guess in your eyes everyone is ignorant unless they buy into Monsanto’s years of deceit

Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 4:56 pm

Let’s ignore all the data and assume that if they are big and rich, they must be evil.

Flight Level
August 4, 2019 11:49 pm

Logically anyone involved in the production, logistics and sales of “RoundUp” should be horribly affected since infinitesimal spills and “part per billion” accidental contamination can not be avoided in a consumer grade product chain.

It’s getting nonsensical even here on the old continent. That other day we purchased a middle of the range common cordless vac. The owners manual is composed of 8 pages of safety / hazard warnings and 2 diagrams on how to charge and clean the device.

If that keeps on going, we would soon be required to sign a weaver each time we buy aftershave and kitchen knives or power tools would become regulated items subject to declaration of ownership.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Flight Level
August 5, 2019 6:40 am

“sign a weaver”

In other news, weavers across the globe erupt in violent protest against the use of Sharpies.

August 5, 2019 12:33 am

How long before this farce of a case gets to the Supreme Court ?


Johann Wundersamer
August 5, 2019 12:48 am

Glyphosat was introduced in the agrar sector 1974: › history-glyph…

History of glyphosate – Glyphosate

31.10.2013 · The molecule “glyphosate” was already discovered in … Since its introduction in 1974, glyphosate has been used to …

Since 1974 people in the primary industries worldwide are dying like flies because of Glyphosat.

According to libdems. Not employed in the primary industries. Worldwide.

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 5, 2019 2:27 am

It’s obvious whom the American farmers, who may find themselves without glyphosphate, should go for. Go for the lawyers. And bring your pitchforks.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 5, 2019 3:52 am

Right lawyers started this and not Monsanto!? Ha

Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 4:58 pm

Since Monsanto did nothing wrong, how could they have started anything?

August 5, 2019 3:18 am

I have always considered personal injury lawyers lower life forms than amoebas. They completely lack morals and GREED is their only emotion.

Had I not just purchased a new television, a large, heavy object may have been hurled through my TV the first time I saw the Roundup Ripoff Lottery commercials. Americans are greedy, lazy people who steal from anyone who produces. It is contemptible.

August 5, 2019 3:31 am

Every weed killer, or indeed any household/garden chemical, sold in the UK within my lifetime has had warnings about using protective clothing, not breathing the stuff, washing off splashes etc. Individual users should not really have a problem. Residues in food may be more of a worry.
I have a bindweed problem in my garden: glyphosate is my friend!

Reply to  Susan
August 5, 2019 5:14 am

Well be glad you live in the UK as Roundup has no safety equipment requirements in US

Gunga Din
Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 6:45 am

An interesting article.
Maybe the judge should pay the alleged damages?

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 5, 2019 9:44 am

Just use the arguments and Hollywood “experts” that got Daminozide – also known as Alar – banned…case closed.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 9:02 am

Good doers found Glyphosate in beer. Because of hops included.

One needs to drink 140 beer and up

per day

to develop cancer: dangerous stuff!

Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 9:34 am

Well, they probably expect users to be taking some common sense precautions just as with the use of any other chemical. Even extended dish washing can be harmful to skin not protected by gloves…but to each his own. There is a happy medium somewhere between pages of cautions and “Caveat emptor.”

Reply to  ChemIndustPropa
August 5, 2019 4:59 pm

It doesn’t need any safety equipment requirements.

Reply to  Susan
August 5, 2019 9:09 am

Roundup concentrate (50.2% Gyphosate) carries an EPA Caution label that states applicators and other handlers must wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including a long-sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes and socks. It states that it causes moderate eye irritation and to avoid contact with eyes or clothing, and also lists first aid procedures.

I’ve safely mixed and applied literally tens of thousands of gallons of Roundup in my 35-year horticulture career, and I also consider it my friend!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David Weir
August 5, 2019 1:12 pm

It is perhaps the single chemical which has done the most to advance agricultural production.
As such, it may in fact be the single thing which has saved more human lives than any non fertilizer chemical in existence.

Roger Knights
August 5, 2019 3:36 am

“Fraud and corruption bring big payoffs”

Booty is only sin deep.

August 5, 2019 6:47 am

Similar to Dow Corning and breast cancer vs. implants, the question is:

Does the population exposed to RoundUp experience a higher RATE of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma than the population at large…? If not, end of causality claim. If so, trouble.

john cooknell
August 5, 2019 1:39 pm

I have just ingested minute quantities of one of the most toxic chemicals known, and I am glad I did!

I just had a glass of tap water containing Chlorine.

Gunga Din
Reply to  john cooknell
August 6, 2019 7:23 am

A long time ago I ran into someone who wanted to ban the use of Cl2 in water treatment. Her reasoning was that if it killed microorganisms than it must also harm people. That some of those microorganisms are “pathogens” because they caused things like typhoid, cholera, dysentery, etc. was lost on her.
She thought we should just pump raw, untreated water to peoples homes and they should install their own water filters. (No, it wasn’t AOC.)

August 5, 2019 5:03 pm

You also need it to be a statistically significant increase.

Say a particular type of cancer occurs at a 1% rate in the general population.
You sample a group of 10 people, and one of them has this cancer. In the world of legal science, this means that your sample group had an incidence rate 10 times higher than the general population and this would justify millions in compensation.

guido La Moto
August 5, 2019 7:11 pm

OK .OK. Let’s all agree that glyphosate is bad for our health. Now the question becomes “How bad?” The answer is that it causes so little excess morbidity that it’s lost in the noise in the data.

All engineering solutions involve a compromise among competing factors. In order to make a profit worthy of the potential financial risks of farming, technology such as the use of herbicides (they don’t increase yield; they help guarantee yield) must be used. The advantages of glyphosate is that its very effective, fairly inexpensive, has minimal toxicity in animals (it affects an enzyme found only in plants), has a short half-life in the environment, including minimal effects on ground water or as run-off in aquatic ecosystems. ….To curtail its use would mean farmers would be forced to turn to other agents more toxic, longer acting and more expensive.

Reply to  guido La Moto
August 6, 2019 4:27 am

“…has minimal toxicity in animals (it affects an enzyme found only in plants)…”

So, the ‘ensyme found only in plants’ is not really correct. The enzyme is 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and is actually found only in RoundUp. It stops the synthesis of three amino acids essential to all life (including bacteria in your stomach).

RoundUp kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of these three amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan). The point is that plants can normally can systhesize these amino acids (via the shikimate pathway). We animals do not have this pathway, but obtain the amino acids from our diet.

Hal Dall MD
August 5, 2019 10:59 pm

The problem is not the glyphosphate, but the fact it is mixed with Dihydrogenmonoxide, a classic cancer associated chemical!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Hal Dall MD
August 6, 2019 7:28 am

We should ban that stuff!!
For proof visit

(Hmmm … maybe somebody should tell Greta?)

August 6, 2019 3:21 pm

There is a saying in the medical field. “Too stupid to live” That applys to more than 75% of the human race. The poison you spray on your food is the poison you eat. Since the start of the widespread use of “roundup” and GMO crops we have faced a pandemic of cancers of all kinds, Diabetics, and Autistic children All this is the fault of god. Certainly not the greed of man that poisons his world to make a few more pennies growing soybeans and oil corn. But it CANNOT be you or your plan that is at fault. Right Cletus? Someone very wise once said “You are what you eat”. But y’all don’t care about that. That there is hippy talk. So you plug your ears and close your mind while children die in front of you. I’ll bet you all think Atomic energy is good for you.

Reply to  Ray
August 7, 2019 4:55 am

I can only imagine how many people would die if we eliminated ALL things that are “”BAD” for us. Risks are a part of life.

August 11, 2019 8:25 pm

Reposting: AWOLL: AmericaOnCoffee (AOC)

%d bloggers like this: